Religious beliefs/Former Frodo and Sam thread

[afro-elf]

Darth

so i KNOW what you are looking for

can you give me a few examples where you thought i was flaming?


thanks

[Mathron]

Afro-elf: As I mentioned earlier, the solution to the inductive mistake is through practicality. Rationally, because inductive reasoning is flawed, no matter how well those processes you listed work there is NO way to determine that they will work the next time you use them. Obviously, however, our mind argues otherwise.

You are a product of your upbringing, and belief in patterns is imprinted in every culture far more deeply than religion is. You grow up believing in the properties of patterns, never realizing their intrinsic fallibility. Our minds convince us to take the practical route - that, from our experience (though it cannot be a logical basis), it is much easier to function in society if we accept these things as true. If I assume that my car will work, and not explode, I can actually use it to drive around. If, however, I assume it will turn into a butterfly when I turn the ignition, I probably won't do very well in society.

However, though practical, it is still illogical. It becomes a matter of learned behavior. We assume that, since these things work time and time again, they will continue to do so. As you have already conceded, however, this is based on inductive reasoning, therefore has no true logical connection. If you wish to give proof of science, I challenge you to do so through purely deductive reasoning.

In other words, take gravity. If I drop a rock, it will fall. I am sure you consider this a guaranteed truth. However, this is only because of empirical evidence. Can you give me a reason that the rock will fall, without using any knowledge derived from personal experience or previous experiences or experiments of others? I don't think you can.
Here is a logical proof:
1) In the end, since the world is physical, all evidence is empirical.
2) Empirical knowledge is inductive.
3) Inductive knowledge is flawed.
4) Scientific evidence is invalid.
5) All science is unproven.
Because of this, to some extent, science does operate on faith. If you wish to list, again, all of its accomplishments (which I have shown and you have, earlier, admitted are not proof), then you are mearly doing the same as any christian person quoting from the bible - trying to use something not grounded in definitive logic as the basis for your argument.
Science, in the end, is just another belief system. It is more solid, and does have points of rationality. But it comes down, in the end, to beliefs once again. Inductive fallacies aside, it can NEVER be 100% proven.

[afro-elf]

You are a product of your upbringing, and belief in patterns is imprinted in every culture far more deeply than religion is. You grow up believing in the properties of patterns, never realizing their intrinsic fallibility. Our minds convince us to take the practical route - that, from our experience (though it cannot be a logical basis

actually its a hardwired biological mechanism that goes deeper than culture

then you are mearly doing the same as any christian person quoting from the bible - trying to use something not grounded in definitive logic as the basis for your argument.

Science, in the end, is just another belief system. It is more solid, and does have points of rationality. But it comes down, in the end, to beliefs once again. Inductive fallacies aside, it can NEVER be 100% proven.

My argument is not if science is 100 % provible.

but that it's track record gives it more CREDENCE than faith.

i think that it would be an error to say they have equal relaiblity

to say that tomorrow that the sun MIGHT rise in the west
does not undo the feats of empircism's past.

I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

the only "RELIABLE" knowledge we have is induction
yes it may not be 100% but it has proven track record

to cite that something maybe not work in the future does undo what it has done SO FAR


maybe we are arguing two different points

i THINK you are aiming to show the logical flaw of induction

i shooting for the what has it done point

i don't think anyone would be willing to give up everything, to accept everything JUST because of a logical flaw

unfortunately the only means of PRACTICAL knowledge we have is induction

just because it is not PERFECT does not mean it is not useful

i would say it this way the list I made earlier placed side by side with the benefits of FAITH (empirical benefits)

and I think that there would be a vast difference

fundamentally they be similar but pratically there is a vast gap

I will close this way induction may have its flaws but it certainly has its benefits


thank you for pushing me intellectually, its a much needed stimulus

[Finmandos12]

Science can never replace religion. Science is a part of the world, true, and is good. But if you think that there is no other truth besides science, why are we here? As I stated before, science and Christianity are not at odds. History and science back up the Bible.

The whole Judas' death issue...
Here's Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:17-19 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Here's what people say. He hanged himself, the rope broke after he was dead and his body burst open.
You mentioned flaws in Genesis. Do you mean creation?

[afro-elf]

why are we here?

no one really knows. religions give answers not necessarily truth

History and science back up the Bible.

yes but only in non miraclous sense

yes there was the roman empire

egypt still exist

athens still stands

there were semetic tribes

but genesis no

the flood no

miracles no

The whole Judas' death issue...

your answer is an ad hoc response

PEOPLE say that but the BIBLE doesn't.


what about the hundreds of other flaws listed?

[Mathron]

To Finmandos:

Science can never replace religion. Science is a part of the world, true, and is good. But if you think that there is no other truth besides science, why are we here? As I stated before, science and Christianity are not at odds. History and science back up the Bible.

Not necessarily. Much of Christianity is not in any way proven - possible, but not 'backed up' in any sense of the word. And while religion and science may go hand in hand - who knows whether it will be some other religion in the world, or one as yet unknown? Or, entirely feasible, that science will explain everything in its own right. It can be true, after all, and reasons 'why we are here' may be yet to be discovered.

To Afro-elf:

actually its a hardwired biological mechanism that goes deeper than culture

~nod~ True, true. This only supports my point, however. You are following a train of thought based not on logic, but simply instinctual belief.

My argument is not if science is 100 % provible.

I love arguing with people so set in their beliefs. That is perfectly fine, but I would enjoy seeing you address the rest of my post, not a small, unrelated note I put on the bottom of it. ~grin~

but that it's track record gives it more CREDENCE than faith.

Watch out there! You just ignored exactly what I stated. Track Record means NOTHING. Because it is empirical/inductive evidence, it has no logical consistency. The more you claim it gives credence, the more you are ignoring the challenge. Your track record gives no credence at all (at least, logically speaking. I've already explained the reasons we follow it).

to say that tomorrow that the sun MIGHT rise in the west
does not undo the feats of empircism's past.

Doesn't undo them, sure. But they were all coincidence, in potentiality. Science is based on fact, not accident, and since you cannot prove them deductively (only inductively), those feats do NOT serve as adequate evidence. Again, inductive reasoning cannot be used as proof - you already conceded this quite a bit back, so I am somewhat surprised that you keep trying to use it as evidence.

I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

Nope. Not reliable at all, save in practice. We are talking about logic here, proof and belief, not practice.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

Of course not. You can prove/disprove things to lesser extents. All I am saying here and now is that you can't do it inductively. Please use some logical arguments, not your instinctual beliefs.

the only "RELIABLE" knowledge we have is induction
yes it may not be 100% but it has proven track record

Again, you argue for the basis of a track record. As already established, past evidence has no rational or reliable weight.

to cite that something maybe not work in the future does undo what it has done SO FAR

But what it has done so far is entirely unrelated, by rational logic, to what it might do in the future!

maybe we are arguing two different points
i THINK you are aiming to show the logical flaw of induction
i shooting for the what has it done point
i don't think anyone would be willing to give up everything, to accept everything JUST because of a logical flaw

What it has done means nothing! You are trying to use the worst logical error in the world - use inductive reasoning to prove its own validity!!
Perhaps we need to explain what it is again. Inductive reasoning is using past evidence to give strength to future evidence. Example: Sun has risen every day before, it will do so tommorow.
However, how do we know this is true? You are arguing that Inductive reasoning has worked in the past (by showing what it has done so far), so will work in the future. That statement itself is inductive logic, so Cannot Be Used To Prove Inductive Logic.

It would be like me saying: Everything I say is true.
When challenged on this point, I would use, as evidence, that everything I say is true, so if I say it is true, it is.
That is not rational - that is using something unproven to prove itself.

unfortunately the only means of PRACTICAL knowledge we have is induction
just because it is not PERFECT does not mean it is not useful

Certainly. We can use it to operate practically. But it is an irrational belief, in the end, no matter how much you wish to believe (emphasis on believe) otherwise.

i would say it this way the list I made earlier placed side by side with the benefits of FAITH (empirical benefits)
and I think that there would be a vast difference
fundamentally they be similar but pratically there is a vast gap
I will close this way induction may have its flaws but it certainly has its benefits

Yes, yes, yes. But only in practice. Just because it works proves nothing - it is still, at its roots, just as much a belief as anything else.

thank you for pushing me intellectually, its a much needed stimulus

Glad to help. I will ask, again, if you will answer my question, which you ignored in my last post. Can you prove science, without using any empirical evidence?

Here is one, simple, challenge: Show me that gravity works without pointing to anything using experimentation or empirical evidence.

Do that, and your argument might be able to have some weight. But I am positive that, eventually, backtracking along any argument route will result in using empirical evidence.

[Sister Golden Hair]

In a nutshell, faith is a feeling, science is a fact. As Spock once said in Star Trek: "If I drop a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see the hammer fall to know that it has actually fallen." Faith, is accepted without question, and requires no proof. But if you wish to prove substance in faith outside of your faith alone, then proof is the only way to make anothers doubt otherwise.

[afro-elf]

mathron

as to your challenge I can not

here I will concede defeat along the SOLE lines of logic

however in this part of the world it is late

and I'll switch my attack to logic itself tomorrow

which MAY be self defeating but oh well

[afro-elf]

I recant

I will not be attacking logic but induction

but I need to retreat

to marshall my forces


at to better prepare them to combat such a worthy adversary

so i'll be withdrawing from the field for a few days


so in the words of arnold

I'LL BE BACK

[Sakata]

Originally posted by afro-elf



Just because it was a different time you condone

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9
.

DT3:6
And we utterly destroyed them... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman) -- but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him." LEV 19:20-22

nothing is more foolish than taking the bible out of context to prove your point my friend.

first off I dont know where you got this but psalms 137:9 says "...and the moon and stars to rule the night. His faithful love endures forever"

DT3:6 was reffering to the victory over Og of Bashan, who were rebeling against the lord. Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

LEV 19:20-22 tells of a man who had sex with a slave girl, he repented and brought offerings, and was thus forgiven of his sins.

next time read the whole story, I hate seeing people loosing faith in the lord because they read some quotes taken out of context by some blind fool.

[Mathron]

DT3:6 was reffering to the victory over Og of Bashan, who were rebeling against the lord. Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

Yes I Would. Killing the leaders in war is one thing. Killing every man, woman and child related to them another entirely!

[afro-elf]

nothing is more foolish than taking the bible out of context to prove your point my friend

It seems that you may also fall prey to this

first you most have not looked in the correct area

here are the quotes from different versions of the bible

SAB psalm 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.



NIV Psalm 137:9
he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

NLT
Psalm 137
9
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

NASB Psalm 137
9
How blessed will be the one who seizes and <*1> dashes your little ones Against the rock.

KJV
9 Psalm 137
9Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!

NKJVPsalm 137

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


RSV

Psalm 137
9
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

KJ21
Psalm 137
9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


NIV FOR

Psalm 137
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.



YLT

Psalm 137
9
O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!


DARBY
Psalm 137
9
Happy he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.


THOSE bibles have it.


to paraphase you

first off I dont know where you got this but psalms 137:9 says

Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

see Mathron's reply

Maybe check out cnn and the video behind the veil it will give a veiw of the men, women and children that you may not have seen before


the point of LEV is that they BOTH will be scouraged BUT only the man seems to have his sins forgiven

[Darkside Spirit]

Just because afro-elf has strong views and doesn't use capital letters, does not mean he is flaming. I haven't seen anything approaching flaming in his messages - indeed, his posts are thoughtful and constructive. I certainly don't think he's done anything bannable.

[afro-elf]

thanks

[easterlinge]

It's interesting to note that Flood legends abound in every corner of the Earth, Hopi Indians, Inca, Aztec, Egypt, Hindu India, the Chinese......

Even Australian Aborigines have a Flood legend (something about a Giant Toad releasing all its water when tickled by an eel, flooding the earth).

Must have been one heck of a Flood to leave imprints on all those cultures, neh?

Some writers have said that it refers to the swift meltdown of the Ice Age, 15,000 years worth of ice melting in a single millennium or so.

[afro-elf]

think about all the civilizations you just named

how many developed around rivers



think about the present day US


there is something called flood SEASON

geo evidence supports many local floods but not a massive global flood

[Darth Tater]

Actually there's plenty of great evidence, which I'll outline when I'm not so tired

[afro-elf]

i patiently await

[Darth Tater]

Ok, let's start with the techtonic plates. According to the bible water didn't just rain down from heaven, it also came up from the earth. It is certainly possible that there was a great amount of water below of the surface of the planet, and that it shot up out of the ground, sendin gthe plates moving on their courses. The Great Rift (do I even have the name right? Long time since I've looked into this) makes this theory even look true.

Now let's look at the fossil record. For years systems such as carbon dating have been used, despite the fact that tests on these systems have proved they can be innacurate by thousands and thousands of years. Also, there are locations where (I am dead serious about this) fossilized trees can be seen going up straight through many layers of the fossil record! If the record built up over the period of thousands or millions of years this could not be possible. It is much more likely that it was created in one swift, instantanious moment, such as a great delluge.

And lets not forget that what certainly appears to be an ark can actually be seen in satellite photographs of Mount Ararat!

[afro-elf]

It is certainly possible that there was a great amount of water below of the surface of the planet, and that it shot up out of the ground, sendin gthe plates moving on their courses. The Great Rift (do I even have the name right? Long time since I've looked into this) makes this theory even look true.

tectonic plate theory DOES NOT have to do with water. it has to do with molten magma

it takes millions of years not forty days

fact that tests on these systems have proved they can be innacurate by thousands and thousands of years

darth i think the closer in time to the present the more accurate the carbon dating

take the stroud of turin. it is a fake it has been dated to the time of da vinci. even if it was 1,000 years off if it still WAY to recent to be the burial ropes of JC


now going back further in time a few thousand years in a 100 million plus time scale is a minor deviation

Also, there are locations where (I am dead serious about this) fossilized trees can be seen going up straight through many layers of the fossil record! If the record built up over the period of thousands or millions of years this could not be possible

your wording misrepresents the situation

it is not as if the tree was thrust through the fossil layers

if the tree died in one era the sediment and fossil record just built up around it.


once again i guess this is becoming a catch phrase there is a consilence of knowledge that supports this. it is not built upon one single observartion that would send it crashing down


they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic, I think is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species which had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat

Still, none of this deters the true believer from maintaining that the story of Noah's ark is the God's truth. Nor does it deter those who think the ark has been found. For example, in 1977 a pseudo-documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark" was played on numerous television stations and CBS showed a special in 1993 entitled, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." The first is a work of fiction claiming to be a documentary. The second was masterminded by George Jammal, who has admitted that the story was a hoax. Jammal said he wanted to expose religious frauds. His hoax was seen by about 20 million people, most of whom probably still do not know that Jammal did not want them to take it seriously.

During his show, Jammal produced what he called "sacred wood" from the ark, which he later admitted was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California, which he had hardened by cooking in an oven. He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces. He also admitted that he had never been to Turkey. The program was produced by Sun International Pictures, based in Salt Lake City, and responsible for several pseudo-documentaries on Nostradamus, the Bermuda Triangle, the Shroud of Turin, and UFOs.

Stories of floods are not unique to the ancient Jews.* What geological or archaeological evidence is there of such a universal destruction of all human societies, all plants and all animals except for the ones on Noah's boat (or Ziusudra's [Sumeria], or Utnapishtim's [Babylon])? There should be a layer of sediment dating from the same time which contains all the bones of these poor creatures. There should be evidence that all human societies were wiped out simultaneously. No such evidence exists of a universal flood.


as i provided a site with the flaws of the bible I will now give one with the flaws of the flood story


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html