Religion

[RumbleFox]

18 minutes ago, the fox said:

The theory of a wolf becoming a dog is microevolution and not macroevolution. We can discuss that but the theory of a wolf becoming a dog has nothing to do with human evolution theory. 

 

Oh, scientists don't have an agenda? So everyone has them but not scientists. Maybe I can refer you to the pharmaceutical business and let's see if you still think that way. Well, I'm not saying all of them because their contributions to humanity are undeniable.

 

 

Science has the belief that something will react the same when put in the same conditions based on previous experience. And that's why there is no such thing as scientific fact. It's just a theory backed by arguments and as much evidence as possible. And that's how far it can go.

 

You "trust"? As in you put your belief is someone. That's what's called belief.

 

 

Did you know, some scientists didn't like the idea of the big bang theory because it goes against the popular theory/model at the time which was the static state (the universe is eternal and was always there) because it backs the existence of a Creator. 60-70 years ago, scientists had a consensus that the universe was eternal and now that model has gone out of the window. What stops the model of evolution of being discarded just like the static state model.

 

 

 

 

I knew you would bring up big Pharma.  Of course they are a force for evil, I agree with you, and I dislike them as much as anyone.  But that does not mean "all scientists have an agenda" and it would be dishonest to say so.  

 

No it is not the same.  I "trust" science because I can see it being tested.  I "trust" that my parents love me by their actions towards me.  I do not have "faith" in the existence of a Devine creator because I see no evidence for it?

 

People always cite the fact that sometimes scientists get it wrong and change their minds as a bad thing.  For me it is science's greatest strength.

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

What is your view so I know what I'm debating?

 

Do you not believe Jesus was the son of God or do you not believe jesus claimed to be the son of God? 

 I believe that Jesus was a prophet, he is the Messiah, and he didn't claim to be the begotten son of God. 

[the fox]

10 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

I knew you would bring up big Pharma.  Of course they are a force for evil, I agree with you, and I dislike them as much as anyone.  But that does not mean "all scientists have an agenda" and it would be dishonest to say so.  

 

No it is not the same.  I "trust" science because I can see it being tested.  I "trust" that my parents love me by their actions towards me.  I do not have "faith" in the existence of a Devine creator because I see no evidence for it?

 

People always cite the fact that sometimes scientists get it wrong and change their minds as a bad thing.  For me it is science's greatest strength.

I already said that not all scientists have an agenda.

 

 

Have you seen Evolution being tested and being valid beyond just a theory? According to some evolutionarie models, parental love is just operating of survival instincts. Evolutionary models can't explain consciouns and every emotion is just chemicals reacting. There is no concept of love there, just survival instincts. And I will leave it here because those things are personal.

Edited 20 July 2020 by the fox

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, the fox said:

 I believe that Jesus was a prophet, he is the Messiah, and he didn't claim to be the begotten son of God. 

Are you a Muslim? Happy to debate on Jesus's claims but I think to make it more interesting we should include the death and crucifixion of christ, given this is something I understand Muslims do not subscribe too. 

 

 

[yorkie1999]

Religion is a made up tool used to control the masses and to give people a common direction in mass manipulation, christianity is the worst of the lot, no child born needs to repent for their sins, so why have baptism forced on them to be accepted into the house of the Lord.

The universe expands and then contracts until everything becomes a central mass which causes it to explode again, like a massive 3d yoyo

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Religion is a made up tool used to control the masses and to give people a common direction in mass manipulation, christianity is the worst of the lot, no child born needs to repent for their sins, so why have baptism forced on them to be accepted into the house of the Lord.

The universe expands and then contracts until everything becomes a central mass which causes it to explode again, like a massive 3d yoyo

So you're saying that juraselem with both Roman and Jewish law were not controlling enough, so a bunch of rebels made up a story seemingly liberating folks from such control for no financial gain and in most cases a horrific death sentence, to control us all? Hmm that seems ludicrous. 

[the fox]

23 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Are you a Muslim? Happy to debate on Jesus's claims but I think to make it more interesting we should include the death and crucifixion of christ, given this is something I understand Muslims do not subscribe too. 

 

 

Yes I am.

 

If you want then it's OK for me.

 

I will make my case for Jesus not being the begotten son of god first if you don't mind.

 

The Abrahamic faiths always had one consistent message, and that is to worship the one and only God, the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,  Solomon, David, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon all the prophets).

 

The first commandment says it, the Muslim Shahada says it, and Even Jesus in the Bible say it.

 

John 17:3 (NIV)

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

as far as The begotten son claim goes, I have a few verse.

 

John 17:21

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

 

if the "I and the father are one" is used to prove the divinity of Jesus, than surely the 12 disciples are also included by that logic.

 

in John 17:20 Jesus said:

 

"I will go to my father and your father, my God and your God"

 

 

 

 

[RumbleFox]

26 minutes ago, the fox said:

I already said that not all scientists have an agenda.

 

 

Have you seen Evolution being tested and being valid beyond just a theory? According to some evolutionarie models, parental love is just operating of survival instincts. Evolutionary models can't explain consciouns and every emotion is just chemicals reacting. There is no concept of love there, just survival instincts. And I will leave it here because those things are personal.

No because I am not a scientist but I trust their research.  Why can't love be. chemical reaction?  It doesn't make it any more beautiful?  In fact I find the notion that evolution has brought us to a point where we can wonder and marvel at our own existence to be a truly wonderful notion.  It does not make my parent's love for me any less valid because it is a chemical reaction rather than because God made me.  In fact I find it more valid.  X

[RumbleFox]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

Absolutely, the evidence Jesus was dead after his crucifixion is overwhelming. It stand to reason then that if jesus was dead, and individuals and groups saw him risen that either he was risen or they were deluded. Given the evidence we have of all the people who saw jesus and what they did, delusion seems highly unlikely so all though miraculous, that christ is risen is what follows logically. 

 

Most scholars who have tried to overcome the facts without the resurrection have arrived at the stumbling block of either they were deluded or christ was risen, looked at the delusion theory and realised that is ludicrous and so have had to come up with alternatives to the dilemma, one of my favourites being that Christ had a twin brother 

Thank you again for your response.

 

I have read many scholarly articles that refute the resurrection claim so there is certainly conjecture on the matter.  However I always enjoy learning and love to be proved wrong sometimes.  Which scholars are you citing and could you please let me know where to read them? X

[Ollie93]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So you're saying that juraselem with both Roman and Jewish law were not controlling enough, so a bunch of rebels made up a story seemingly liberating folks from such control for no financial gain and in most cases a horrific death sentence, to control us all? Hmm that seems ludicrous. 

isn't the catholic church the richest of the lot?

[the fox]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

No because I am not a scientist but I trust their research.  Why can't love be. chemical reaction?  It doesn't make it any more beautiful?  In fact I find the notion that evolution has brought us to a point where we can wonder and marvel at our own existence to be a truly wonderful notion.  It does not make my parent's love for me any less valid because it is a chemical reaction rather than because God made me.  In fact I find it more valid.  X

If you are happy with everything being just chemical reactions and evolution can't explain consciouns, than whatever floats your boat I guess

[RumbleFox]

2 minutes ago, the fox said:

If you are happy with everything being just chemical reactions and evolution can't explain consciouns, than whatever floats your boat I guess

"Just chemical reactions" is such a simplification.  The fact that natural and chemical reactions can create thought, love, music, poetry, anger, joy, consciousness to me is beautiful.  There are numerous hypothesis about consciousness, I am no expert but my brother is a cognitive scientist.  I can send you some links if you like?  Most goes over my head haha but it is fascinating stuff.  No definitive answer yet but the science is creeping slowly towards it as always. X

Edited 20 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

isn't the catholic church the richest of the lot?

He was talking about that time. Jesus could've made a lot of money if he just sided with the Pharisees or the Romans.

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

isn't the catholic church the richest of the lot?

Maybe so, but to say it was invented for this reason is woefully ignorant of history. You could argue that religion is used to control people today but to say Christianity was invented to control people is ludicrous. If so we'd need to see evidence that the early Church controlled people and profited. Do you have any? 

[leicsmac]

This is perhaps rather copied from the Opinions thread, but here's my take.

 

What we as a species know about the universe right now (around 14 billion years old, expanded from a single point, based on only chance from the best we can figure) doesn't actually preclude the idea of some kind of supreme being that is overseeing it all. However...given the lack of evidence for intervention from the aforementioned deity, the logical conclusion is that either that entity doesn't exist, or it's actions are basically what we would call "nature" and are indistinguishable from it to human perception.

 

This conflicts pretty sharply with most major organised religions and their portrayal of a deity - which seem to believe that such interventions have happened, do happen now or both, and/or that we can somehow interpret and know, with certainty (with all due respect, most Abrahamic interpretations like their certainty), what such a deity wants and what it would expect of us.

 

As such, IMO if a deity exists, it's not in the way that the vast majority of religions depict it and if it asks that we think of it and pay homage rather than just think as its creation, then it's displaying a remarkable degree of self-centred hubris (almost human, one might say) and isn't worth paying homage to anyway.

 

Organised religion is a nice way of giving people comfort, togetherness and striving to make things better at its best, and a horrific oppressor of anyone who doesn't obey at worst. What it is not, and IMO never will be, is anywhere close to a set of facts explaining how the universe operates with accuracy that are infallible (as many portray it to be) because there is no such thing in a universe that is constantly changing and if we knew the will of a deity we'd be deities ourselves.

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Thank you again for your response.

 

I have read many scholarly articles that refute the resurrection claim so there is certainly conjecture on the matter.  However I always enjoy learning and love to be proved wrong sometimes.  Which scholars are you citing and could you please let me know where to read them? X

As I've stated, scholars don't seek to explain the facts but rather determine what they are. The point is that of those who have tried to explain the facts, none have succeeded successfully. 

[the fox]

Just now, RumbleFox said:

"Just chemical reactions" is such a simplification.  The fact that natural and chemical reactions can create thought, love, music, poetry, anger, joy, consciousness to me is beautiful.  There are numerous hypothesis about consciousness, I am no expert but my brother is a cognitive scientist.  I can send you some links if you like?  Most goes over my head haha but it is fascinating stuff.  No definitive answer yet but the science is creeping slowly towards in as always. X

They are what they are according to evolution models. They are chemical reactions. 

 

Consciousness is beautiful, the problem is, those models can't explain them. They just go with survival instincts to explain those emotions.

 

 

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What we as a species know about the universe right now (around 14 billion years old, expanded from a single point, based on only chance from the best we can figure) doesn't actually preclude the idea of some kind of supreme being that is overseeing it all.

But it actually supports the idea of a Creator entity. We can both agree on that?

[leicsmac]

Just now, the fox said:

But it actually supports the idea of a Creator entity. We can both agree on that?

Given everything we don't know and really can't know about that, pretty much any and all theories, including that of a Creator, are equally valid.

 

I actually think it's rather a moot question because it's highly likely we'll never get an answer to a degree of proof necessary to be even moderately sure of it being right and in terms of observed empirical perceived effects there's no difference between one theory and another anyway, not without another Universe to observe for comparison.

[RumbleFox]

10 minutes ago, Benguin said:

As I've stated, scholars don't seek to explain the facts but rather determine what they are. The point is that of those who have tried to explain the facts, none have succeeded successfully. 

I know.  I am asking which ones, I would be very keen to read them.  I like to read viewpoints that differ from my own, I think it is important.

 

Thanks agin.  X

[RumbleFox]

11 minutes ago, the fox said:

They are what they are according to evolution models. They are chemical reactions. 

 

Consciousness is beautiful, the problem is, those models can't explain them. They just go with survival instincts to explain those emotions.

 

 

But many models can, would you like the links?  It is really interesting stuff.  The human brain is a wonderful achievement of nature.  I cannot get close to understanding it as I am not that bright but reading the work of cognitive scientists, etc is really interesting.  There are lots of models and theories about what consciousness is that I find far more feasible than "God did it"?

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

I know.  I am asking which ones, I would be very keen to read them.  I like to read viewpoints that differ from my own, I think it is important.

 

Thanks agin.  X

Sorry I'm a bit lost. I am not suggesting there is a scholar who has shown the resurrection theory to be true but rather there is not a scholar who has explained the facts successfully. 

 

The facts that I have mentioned must have an explanation, there has yet to be a credible non suoernatural explanation of the facts. 

[st albans fox]

no one cant prove nuffin !!

[the fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Given everything we don't know and really can't know about that, pretty much any and all theories, including that of a Creator, are equally valid.

 

I actually think it's rather a moot question because it's highly likely we'll never get an answer to a degree of proof necessary to be even moderately sure of it being right and in terms of observed empirical perceived effects there's no difference between one theory and another anyway, not without another Universe to observe for comparison.

I am sure you know the concept of "infinite regression", there needs to be a Creator entity that is uncaused to start all of this. I think that's the only logical explanation. If there is another, I am interested in hearing.

 

Not all theories are equal. Some make more sense than  others. I actually don't think it is a moot point because it leads to the answer of "what created the universe". It is not science I know, but it a rather convincing philosophical argument.

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

But many models can, would you like the links?  It is really interesting stuff.  The human brain is a wonderful achievement of nature.  I cannot get close to understanding it as I am not that bright but reading the work of cognitive scientists, etc is really interesting.  There are lots of models and theories about what consciousness is that I find far more feasible than "God did it"?

Please send a link if you can