Again, you're not looking at context. There are certain things he could have said, but may not have been remembered, or not recorded. There are things he implied that Paul put more clearly (like before God there is no slave nor freeman).
You seem to forget that the life of Jesus and his sayings were recorded from the memories of the witnesses, and not verbatim. Thus do you think someone would remember Jesus telling them to wash their hands more or less than a story about a farmer? The point is Jesus worked with what he had to achieve a remarkable goal.
With respect, you don't seem to make sense. In one sentence you want Jesus's minor utterances to be recorded and change the world, and later you complain that the evidence isn't enough and he was a minor apocolyptic preacher in which case his utterances wouldn't have changed the world. You can't logically make both arguments; you have to choose one.
Jesus gave ways to tell he was God, but since you don't accept them, they can't work. With respect to the mutually contradicting gospels, that is hardly the majority of the testamony in them, and I suggest you look at the link I posted.
The point you have missed is theological. If Noah existed or not, is not relevant. Theologically speaking, Jesus had "laid aside" his godhood(and therefore knowledge of the precise workings of the universe). Thus, apart from the spiritual truths he knew, he operated within the framework and understanding of the time. To do otherwise introduces theological issues, and would have alienated him completely (who of that time would believe such things? Without a lifetime of information, evolution, for example is a pretty strange concept.), which would be contrary to his goal. To think Jesus came to earth to correct science is ridiculous in the extreme. He had no time to do that.
Additionally, even if he had referenced it as the "story of noah", the people recording what he said would have missed it because they did not understand. Everything must be taken in context, and that includes the context of the authors, recording the events (by all accounts) after the death of Jesus. I have linked to this before, but this (pdf) is an interesting take on what that means for christians.
You may or may not agree, but this is very close to the commonly held view in most mainstream "old" churches I have come across. The new ones tend to be offshoots of the blasted american evangelists who travel the world trying to make money off the poor, and thus beliefs vary wildly..
Actually, as sibling poster points out, Jesus was most likely referencing common culture. As was Paul. The non-literal truths contained in the stories of Adam/Noah, are important in understanding the concepts Paul was putting across. If Adam/Noah existed or didn't exist, the meaning remains unchanged.
I am aware of the views on the authorship of the bible. I am a lot more aware of these things than you think. There are some theological problems with literal interpretations of a lot of the bible, and these debates far predate darwin. I think Augustine was around 400BC, and he first proposed (and later rejected) a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I have read a lot on these matters and draw my own conclusions from the evidence presented. But your view of Christianity is certainly not representative outside of America.
Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't?
Context decides this. That context must include both related passages in the book, and conditions/culture of the time and even archeology. The idea that genesis is not literal does not start in science, but in theology actually. St Augustine was one of the first christian thinkers to assert(though he later changed his mind) that genesis was not literal. There are huge theological problems with taking genesis literally, even if science supported it.
The problem with this sort of argument is atheists in general consider these arguments as falsified. Regarding for example the qualitative assessments of "good" and "evil", they come up with two answers, namely there is no "good" or "evil" and these terms can be defined in the context of evolution - what is good for the survival of the group and what is "evil" or detrimental to its survival.
They have similar issues with the other arguments. While I agree with you that belief in a deity(or deities) is logically defensible, I am not convinced you will convince anyone of that. Often they simply can not or will not see another point of view, and analyses it for its own merits rather than through the mantra "religion bad, science good."
Not necessarily comparable, but lets work with it anyway. The answer is no, unless the extreme-4ists are murdering people who disagree with their PoV because they disagree.
Well, close, but no. The point is that there is nothing in the belief that 2+2=4 which could possibly advocate any kind of action. It's a simple statement of fact - one which you can either accept or reject. If you then go on to murder someone, you can claim that it's because they didn't believe that 2+2=4, but there's simply no causal chain there which you can point to. You will have committed murder because you are a sociopath who enjoys killing people who disagree with him - not because an equation told you to do it.
Actually, you are incorrect. There is nothing in any of these basic beliefs that advocate action. If there are any gods even active ones, why must we do anything? The point you miss is that the additional beliefs that crop up advocate action. Consider the belief that religion is "bad" and must be eradicated. That belief could lead to actions that you and I probably don't approve of. There is a causal chain for any extremism, but it doesn't start with one single belief. Atheism simply makes room for another set of possible beliefs and closes the door on others. Thus, yes, you can have an extremist atheist.
That's the reason why religions can directly lead to fanaticism and extremism while atheism cannot. Religions have doctrines. They talk about morality and the desires of gods. They tell people what to do and how to think. Atheism does none of that. Atheism is simply a label which people adopt to explain their position on one single question. There's no gospels, no dogma, no teachings of any kind. Any conclusions drawn by a particular atheists must inherently be based on other beliefs which are part of other belief systems, and not based on atheism itself.
Nevertheless, it is possible, as I pointed out above, for people who label themselves as atheists to commit extreme acts. If a christian commits an extreme act, even though his bible says it is wrong, in the name of christianity, can you honestly say you won't blame christianity?
Half find 2, half find -2 and a small majority see both as possibilities. The extreme positives and the extreme negatives are to me, functionally identical because I can see both possibilities. If that offends you, I am sorry, but that is what it looks like from outside your viewpoint. I don't claim to be completely objective(if that is even possible), but I try by all means to be as objective as possible. I am not saying both views are correct, mind, as the original x used while it could have been either 2 or -2 may only have been one of these. If that makes sense?
Heh. Yeah, it makes sense, but I think you're assuming too much. I can see both possibilities. I think all atheists can see both possibilities. We simply discount one because it's unsupported by any serious evidence, and seems extremely unlikely given what we know about the universe and about the human tendency to "explain" things by making up stories. Why would you assume that we "can't see" the other possibility?
Because you have just demonstrated you can't. Why do you assume it is unsupported by evidence? In fact the other side is supported by evidence, but that evidence is not valid from your point of view. That does not make it invalid from another point of view. The assumption you make is that your point of view is the only correct one. And that is something I do not accept.
With regards to discarding the non-biblical references because they were written after the fact, I feel this is as far as I can see a minority view.
I'm not sure if it's a minority view or not, but it's the only rational view. Hearsay is rejected even in a court of law, le
I ask 50 people "is 2+2 equal to 4". 48 of them say "yes" and 2 say "no". Which ones are the "extremists"? If 5 of the people who said "yes" later go out and commit mass-murder, would that mean they're "extremist 4-ists"?
Not necessarily comparable, but lets work with it anyway. The answer is no, unless the extreme-4ists are murdering people who disagree with their PoV because they disagree. I made the switch of terms, because "fundamentalist" (from my external to atheism view is an accurate description) seems to offend you, and I have no desire to do that.
Let me fix this for you: Imagine two groups of people. They are given the equation x^2=4, and told to find x. Half find 2, half find -2 and a small majority see both as possibilities. The extreme positives and the extreme negatives are to me, functionally identical because I can see both possibilities. If that offends you, I am sorry, but that is what it looks like from outside your viewpoint. I don't claim to be completely objective(if that is even possible), but I try by all means to be as objective as possible. I am not saying both views are correct, mind, as the original x used while it could have been either 2 or -2 may only have been one of these. If that makes sense?
With regards to discarding the non-biblical references because they were written after the fact, I feel this is as far as I can see a minority view. I reckon if I were to ask you if Jesus existed, you would probably have to answer "probably"? We are not stating that the biblical account is accurate, merely that there was a man named Jesus who had a following and was executed by the Romans.
This (pdf) is an apologists view (with some citations) that you may find interesting, (or may not) if you want to see what a lot of christians believe.
I dislike how the discussion has become christian centric, but never-the-less, it is probably what you and I know best, so that is the way it is. You must remember there are apologists for every religion. And I feel these things are less cut and dry than you seem to think.
No worries, it is a good valid point, but in this case, I need to start supporting newer standards. While possibly I could get OPC UA or WCF into visual studio 6, and possibly I could increase the flexibility of the system and a whole do a whole lot of enhancements, the system has some fundamental limitations that fixing will amount to rewriting the code( for example the ability to run high levels of redundancy). Additionally I need to start supporting 64bit (windows unfortunately) operating systems natively, as some customers may end up using >2.5Gb of RAM on the larger systems. Thanks though! Speaking of which, I must get on with it!
But what about fundie atheists. Can you honestly say you've never met one?
The very idea is ludicrous. Atheism is no a belief system - it is an answer to a single question. To talk about "fundie atheists" is the equivalent of talking about "fundie round-earthers", or "fundie thermodynamicists". It's nonsensical.
You're telling me you have never met an extremist atheist who thinks it is their own personal goal to eradicate everything but atheism, and lacks tolerance for anything but atheism, taking every idea of atheism to the extreme? Making statements like "There are certainly no gods?" Sheltered life much?
For example, few mainstream secular historians deny the existence of Jesus. That makes the new testament portion of the bible on the level of a written statement by a witness.
That's funny. I guess the fact that few mainstream secular historians deny the existence of William Wallace means that the movie "Braveheart" is on the level of real-time footage of his exploits.
I think you'll find that the main reason many "mainstream secular historians" accept the existence of Jesus is actually because the bible has so many inconsistencies about his life. If he hadn't existed, the whole story could have been made up and made internally consistent - instead it reads as if it was written about a real person who was known to exist, with many of the details added afterwards in order to fulfill particular Jewish prophecies. There's certainly no non-biblical evidence of his existence, nor do historians generally see the bible as reliable evidence of his life.
If you had your facts straight, you may have a point. There is a lot of non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned by a lot of historians of that time.
Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first century Roman historians Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.[338][339] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus' reference.[340][331] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[341]
While I agree wikipedia is not the best source, it is certainly the most convenient to cite... A gentleman named Keith Matthee did an analysis of the gospels from the point of view that they should be taken as witness accounts (including the fact that they don't all agree on every single little detail). It makes interesting reading, even if you don't agree with him. The problem with these sorts of discussions, is we are covering ground that has already been covered. Non of your arguments or mine are anything new.
As it happens, no. I went to university in Africa. We did a lot of stuff from the fancy 32bit pics, to the humble 6800. And we had to design every part of the one in logic gates..., but thankfully not build it. It was fun though.
Clearly we are both wasting our time here. Here is one final analogy for you:
You are exactly like a mathematician insisting there is only one true answer to the equation x^2 = 4, because you can't accept the possibility of negative numbers.
Consider this your win, your loss or whatever. Hell, have the last word. Your failure to understand or respect other people's views is your issue and not mine, and this is a long off-topic thread. Good day.
Unfortunately the code is massive, so changing today won't be easy. Though I am planning a rewrite from the ground up. While decent (this code runs fine on anything from NT4 to windows 7 64bit, which for something that old is impressive), the code isn't quite as flexible as it needs to be.
Electronic engineering students. While C++ is taking over the world, I know of at least one course where understanding microprocessor design (let alone assembly language) is a requirement. Unless the course has changes in the short 2 years since I took it...
Most religions, Judeo/Christianity included (I have been using that as a frame of reference because that is most common here), have their stories from one person's perspective. Example: Moses was given the 10 commandments alone. If they were so important why not announce the to the world personally?
Big question, but I don't see the relevance to the discussion. As I understand it though, it boils down to not messing too much with the way things are.
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not created for the purpose of offending but to show that the logic behind godly claims can be used to make claims of anything at all. Finding a point offensive because it disagrees does not refute it or even mean that it should be offensive.
If you know anything about this, you will realise that this is firstly, not always a valid means of arguing (the falacy being the one you made, thinking the two arguments are equal), and secondly crafted to offend("you're an idiot because you believe something I have artificially made sound idiotic").
And I said that they can and have all been shown to be falsifiable or not sound. And I have heard of "first cause", I can also reason why it is a logical fallacy. A cursory wikipedia glance shows that I am not the only one to pick it apart.
The universe existing is all the proof that it needs to exist. The probability of the universe existing is exactly 1. There is no need for a purpose. Purpose, as you mean it, has no place in science, logic or proof. Why are you even bringing it up? Weren't you trying to belittle me early for confusing science and philosophy?
To point out that IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Your "no need for purpose" is just as much philosophy as any religious explanation of purpose. Again, please please read what I write and not what you'd like to see. Thanks.
None of those frameworks predict the world in the slightest. Either through the fact that sin/bad karma does not make bad things happen to you or past lives, satan, unicorns are not testable or predictable.
Not quite (most of these explanations predict things will continue much as they are (possibly until some future event).
But again, you are confused. I am not demonstrating religions are scientific, just pointing out that being religious does not preclude accepting science. And if someone's philosophical framework is self consistent(as far as possible) and explains the state of things, that concurs with my definition of rationality. They may or may not be correct, but that has nothing to do with my point.
I have been trying to show why your assertions are irrational in a "this is just an internet forum" kind of way. I imagine that looks like I'm trying to refute an argument against god's existence because logically speaking they are pretty much the same thing. Stating that belief in God is rational is, to a logical mind, equivalent to belief in God (because why would someone not go with the rational belief?).
This where you fail to understand. I am saying there is more than one possible rational framework. These frameworks can be mutually exclusive, but that does not mean if you think you about it, you can't understand the other side. What if there are two or even infinite rational belief systems? Imagining there is only one is where I disagree with you. If you can demonstrate the ability to see more than one, then I can provide the example(s) you want. Do you see what I am getting at now?
Think about equivalent but different views of the universe. If both predict the current (or even future) state of affairs, you would probably argue for the use of Occam's razor. Which is fair enough, but from within each view, each adherent argues they already do. And they may be correct. Certainly while wrong most can be rational.
An argument against this concept is distinct from an argument against the existence of a
I maintain professional (though ancient) C++ code, and actually, the whole new/delete and raw pointers seems rather elegant to me... Or perhaps (horror of horrors), I am being slowly transformed into an ancient Unix nerd...
But I have to admit there is one bug that I am struggling with. Somewhere someone is deleting an object during shutdown too quickly and causing a crash(and visual C 6.0 doesn't help me trace this easily).... So your way is possibly better...
Why should god(s) be a "last resort explanation" from any point of view? People disagree, but I don't think that should be the case. The concept of "God of the gaps" is fundamentally flawed.
Rather repeat experiments and verify them, so we know we're dealing with natural phenomena. The 'god(s)' cases are then the statistical spikes and don't interfere with our understanding of the universe he/they created (or came to be as a result of the nature of things or whatever your favourite explanation is).
That is implied because the reason it is widely accepted is because it was established long ago. People tend to snicker and think the newer religions/sects are pretty wacky. Such as the mormons and rastafarians but these religions were created in the same way the established ones were, just newer. I have seen many long thought out reasons as to God's existence but never a self consistent one or one that stands scrutiny. You have never indicated one either.
If they were created in the same way, surely you could show us some historical or archaeological evidence of that? (And you will note, once again, I never said the new ones were wrong. What if the rastafarians are right?)
If I am to provide an example, I can and will. But I doubt you will agree. So first, I must ask, can you demonstrate your ability to think from another point of view? If you can't, I will be wasting both your and my time.
"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).
"believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns - no more, no less." Is crafted to offend. And that is what was posted originally. Again, kindly stick to what I was saying, not what you think I was saying. Thank you.
Perhaps you missed my caveat? I put it there specifically because I knew you would claim there is no "proof" that magic doesn't exist. I listed the base assumptions that I would think lead to a theistic conclusion. I can't possibly think up every assumption you might find to lead to theism. And it is your burden as you claim the assumptions exist. Want another one I just thought of? "Life could not have started without God". We have seen the mechanisms that create the basis of life occur; no God required.
I actually meant the assumptions that you claim have been proven wrong, not all assumptions. But to address that first one, don't tell me you've never heard of the argument of first causes? Sure you may not need god(s) for the big bang, but you can't prove that.
I understand the viewpoint you are trying to make quite well and I have encountered it many times before. Never make a claim that is testable or observable, hand wave about how someone, sometime made a good argument. Claim religion/god deal with topics outside science so therefore their assertions do not require evidence.
Well, lets see your scientific reason (with proof please) for the purpose of the existence of the universe. "There is none" is not an acceptable answer since it effectively dodges the question, and misses the point that "why does the universe need a purpose?" is also philosophy.
And the newtonian would be wrong. Testably wrong, reproduceably wrong and objectively wrong. They might be "close enough" that at a small scale their beliefs still work but they will never be "right". They've already been proven incorrect (I suppose I should thank you for that analogy).
Who says in the analogy newtonian represents my POV and not yours? What if it was untestable?
But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.
Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?
Sure. All religions must explain the current state of the world. Including for example suffering. Whether it is sin/redemption, karma or simply satan running around, they all answer this question. Additionally most include a rational god/set of gods who create a rational universe, even if from time to time they interfere.
Additionally most religions I have seen consider science a valid way of studying the universe, while the universe contains predictable phenomena, r
This would be true if and only if noone offered a reasonable self consistent explanation for the existence of gods/God. Maybe their explanation is untrue, but if it is widely accepted, why dismiss it out of hand? The tea-kettle argument has many answers. Ignoring them will not make them go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you're not looking at context. There are certain things he could have said, but may not have been remembered, or not recorded. There are things he implied that Paul put more clearly (like before God there is no slave nor freeman).
You seem to forget that the life of Jesus and his sayings were recorded from the memories of the witnesses, and not verbatim. Thus do you think someone would remember Jesus telling them to wash their hands more or less than a story about a farmer? The point is Jesus worked with what he had to achieve a remarkable goal.
With respect, you don't seem to make sense. In one sentence you want Jesus's minor utterances to be recorded and change the world, and later you complain that the evidence isn't enough and he was a minor apocolyptic preacher in which case his utterances wouldn't have changed the world. You can't logically make both arguments; you have to choose one.
Jesus gave ways to tell he was God, but since you don't accept them, they can't work. With respect to the mutually contradicting gospels, that is hardly the majority of the testamony in them, and I suggest you look at the link I posted.
The point you have missed is theological. If Noah existed or not, is not relevant. Theologically speaking, Jesus had "laid aside" his godhood(and therefore knowledge of the precise workings of the universe). Thus, apart from the spiritual truths he knew, he operated within the framework and understanding of the time. To do otherwise introduces theological issues, and would have alienated him completely (who of that time would believe such things? Without a lifetime of information, evolution, for example is a pretty strange concept.), which would be contrary to his goal. To think Jesus came to earth to correct science is ridiculous in the extreme. He had no time to do that.
Additionally, even if he had referenced it as the "story of noah", the people recording what he said would have missed it because they did not understand. Everything must be taken in context, and that includes the context of the authors, recording the events (by all accounts) after the death of Jesus. I have linked to this before, but this (pdf) is an interesting take on what that means for christians.
You may or may not agree, but this is very close to the commonly held view in most mainstream "old" churches I have come across. The new ones tend to be offshoots of the blasted american evangelists who travel the world trying to make money off the poor, and thus beliefs vary wildly..
While your viewpoint is much more representative of the majority of non-american christians, the problem is, it is a lot less vocal...
Actually, as sibling poster points out, Jesus was most likely referencing common culture. As was Paul. The non-literal truths contained in the stories of Adam/Noah, are important in understanding the concepts Paul was putting across. If Adam/Noah existed or didn't exist, the meaning remains unchanged.
I am aware of the views on the authorship of the bible. I am a lot more aware of these things than you think. There are some theological problems with literal interpretations of a lot of the bible, and these debates far predate darwin. I think Augustine was around 400BC, and he first proposed (and later rejected) a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I have read a lot on these matters and draw my own conclusions from the evidence presented. But your view of Christianity is certainly not representative outside of America.
Yes. Just not amoung your fundamentalist american christians who are (worldwide) a minority.
Or, more accurately, from the point of view of a certain group of people they are considered falsified. Not everyone shares that point of view.
Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't?
Context decides this. That context must include both related passages in the book, and conditions/culture of the time and even archeology. The idea that genesis is not literal does not start in science, but in theology actually. St Augustine was one of the first christian thinkers to assert(though he later changed his mind) that genesis was not literal. There are huge theological problems with taking genesis literally, even if science supported it.
Context. Other passages and cultural information is used to decide. It is not random.
You must be new here?!
All of slashdot is always complaining about fundamentalist christians...
The problem with this sort of argument is atheists in general consider these arguments as falsified. Regarding for example the qualitative assessments of "good" and "evil", they come up with two answers, namely there is no "good" or "evil" and these terms can be defined in the context of evolution - what is good for the survival of the group and what is "evil" or detrimental to its survival.
They have similar issues with the other arguments. While I agree with you that belief in a deity(or deities) is logically defensible, I am not convinced you will convince anyone of that. Often they simply can not or will not see another point of view, and analyses it for its own merits rather than through the mantra "religion bad, science good."
Not necessarily comparable, but lets work with it anyway. The answer is no, unless the extreme-4ists are murdering people who disagree with their PoV because they disagree.
Well, close, but no. The point is that there is nothing in the belief that 2+2=4 which could possibly advocate any kind of action. It's a simple statement of fact - one which you can either accept or reject. If you then go on to murder someone, you can claim that it's because they didn't believe that 2+2=4, but there's simply no causal chain there which you can point to. You will have committed murder because you are a sociopath who enjoys killing people who disagree with him - not because an equation told you to do it.
Actually, you are incorrect. There is nothing in any of these basic beliefs that advocate action. If there are any gods even active ones, why must we do anything? The point you miss is that the additional beliefs that crop up advocate action. Consider the belief that religion is "bad" and must be eradicated. That belief could lead to actions that you and I probably don't approve of. There is a causal chain for any extremism, but it doesn't start with one single belief. Atheism simply makes room for another set of possible beliefs and closes the door on others. Thus, yes, you can have an extremist atheist.
That's the reason why religions can directly lead to fanaticism and extremism while atheism cannot. Religions have doctrines. They talk about morality and the desires of gods. They tell people what to do and how to think. Atheism does none of that. Atheism is simply a label which people adopt to explain their position on one single question. There's no gospels, no dogma, no teachings of any kind. Any conclusions drawn by a particular atheists must inherently be based on other beliefs which are part of other belief systems, and not based on atheism itself.
Nevertheless, it is possible, as I pointed out above, for people who label themselves as atheists to commit extreme acts. If a christian commits an extreme act, even though his bible says it is wrong, in the name of christianity, can you honestly say you won't blame christianity?
Half find 2, half find -2 and a small majority see both as possibilities. The extreme positives and the extreme negatives are to me, functionally identical because I can see both possibilities. If that offends you, I am sorry, but that is what it looks like from outside your viewpoint. I don't claim to be completely objective(if that is even possible), but I try by all means to be as objective as possible. I am not saying both views are correct, mind, as the original x used while it could have been either 2 or -2 may only have been one of these. If that makes sense?
Heh. Yeah, it makes sense, but I think you're assuming too much. I can see both possibilities. I think all atheists can see both possibilities. We simply discount one because it's unsupported by any serious evidence, and seems extremely unlikely given what we know about the universe and about the human tendency to "explain" things by making up stories. Why would you assume that we "can't see" the other possibility?
Because you have just demonstrated you can't. Why do you assume it is unsupported by evidence? In fact the other side is supported by evidence, but that evidence is not valid from your point of view. That does not make it invalid from another point of view. The assumption you make is that your point of view is the only correct one. And that is something I do not accept.
With regards to discarding the non-biblical references because they were written after the fact, I feel this is as far as I can see a minority view.
I'm not sure if it's a minority view or not, but it's the only rational view. Hearsay is rejected even in a court of law, le
If you really want we can continue this, but that is up to you.
I ask 50 people "is 2+2 equal to 4". 48 of them say "yes" and 2 say "no". Which ones are the "extremists"? If 5 of the people who said "yes" later go out and commit mass-murder, would that mean they're "extremist 4-ists"?
Not necessarily comparable, but lets work with it anyway. The answer is no, unless the extreme-4ists are murdering people who disagree with their PoV because they disagree. I made the switch of terms, because "fundamentalist" (from my external to atheism view is an accurate description) seems to offend you, and I have no desire to do that.
Let me fix this for you: Imagine two groups of people. They are given the equation x^2=4, and told to find x. Half find 2, half find -2 and a small majority see both as possibilities. The extreme positives and the extreme negatives are to me, functionally identical because I can see both possibilities. If that offends you, I am sorry, but that is what it looks like from outside your viewpoint. I don't claim to be completely objective(if that is even possible), but I try by all means to be as objective as possible. I am not saying both views are correct, mind, as the original x used while it could have been either 2 or -2 may only have been one of these. If that makes sense?
With regards to discarding the non-biblical references because they were written after the fact, I feel this is as far as I can see a minority view. I reckon if I were to ask you if Jesus existed, you would probably have to answer "probably"? We are not stating that the biblical account is accurate, merely that there was a man named Jesus who had a following and was executed by the Romans.
This (pdf) is an apologists view (with some citations) that you may find interesting, (or may not) if you want to see what a lot of christians believe.
I dislike how the discussion has become christian centric, but never-the-less, it is probably what you and I know best, so that is the way it is. You must remember there are apologists for every religion. And I feel these things are less cut and dry than you seem to think.
No worries, it is a good valid point, but in this case, I need to start supporting newer standards. While possibly I could get OPC UA or WCF into visual studio 6, and possibly I could increase the flexibility of the system and a whole do a whole lot of enhancements, the system has some fundamental limitations that fixing will amount to rewriting the code( for example the ability to run high levels of redundancy). Additionally I need to start supporting 64bit (windows unfortunately) operating systems natively, as some customers may end up using >2.5Gb of RAM on the larger systems. Thanks though! Speaking of which, I must get on with it!
But what about fundie atheists. Can you honestly say you've never met one?
The very idea is ludicrous. Atheism is no a belief system - it is an answer to a single question. To talk about "fundie atheists" is the equivalent of talking about "fundie round-earthers", or "fundie thermodynamicists". It's nonsensical.
You're telling me you have never met an extremist atheist who thinks it is their own personal goal to eradicate everything but atheism, and lacks tolerance for anything but atheism, taking every idea of atheism to the extreme? Making statements like "There are certainly no gods?" Sheltered life much?
For example, few mainstream secular historians deny the existence of Jesus. That makes the new testament portion of the bible on the level of a written statement by a witness.
That's funny. I guess the fact that few mainstream secular historians deny the existence of William Wallace means that the movie "Braveheart" is on the level of real-time footage of his exploits.
I think you'll find that the main reason many "mainstream secular historians" accept the existence of Jesus is actually because the bible has so many inconsistencies about his life. If he hadn't existed, the whole story could have been made up and made internally consistent - instead it reads as if it was written about a real person who was known to exist, with many of the details added afterwards in order to fulfill particular Jewish prophecies. There's certainly no non-biblical evidence of his existence, nor do historians generally see the bible as reliable evidence of his life.
If you had your facts straight, you may have a point. There is a lot of non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned by a lot of historians of that time.
Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first century Roman historians Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.[338][339] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus' reference.[340][331] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[341]
While I agree wikipedia is not the best source, it is certainly the most convenient to cite... A gentleman named Keith Matthee did an analysis of the gospels from the point of view that they should be taken as witness accounts (including the fact that they don't all agree on every single little detail). It makes interesting reading, even if you don't agree with him. The problem with these sorts of discussions, is we are covering ground that has already been covered. Non of your arguments or mine are anything new.
As it happens, no. I went to university in Africa. We did a lot of stuff from the fancy 32bit pics, to the humble 6800. And we had to design every part of the one in logic gates..., but thankfully not build it. It was fun though.
Clearly we are both wasting our time here. Here is one final analogy for you:
You are exactly like a mathematician insisting there is only one true answer to the equation x^2 = 4, because you can't accept the possibility of negative numbers.
Consider this your win, your loss or whatever. Hell, have the last word. Your failure to understand or respect other people's views is your issue and not mine, and this is a long off-topic thread. Good day.
Unfortunately the code is massive, so changing today won't be easy. Though I am planning a rewrite from the ground up. While decent (this code runs fine on anything from NT4 to windows 7 64bit, which for something that old is impressive), the code isn't quite as flexible as it needs to be.
Electronic engineering students. While C++ is taking over the world, I know of at least one course where understanding microprocessor design (let alone assembly language) is a requirement. Unless the course has changes in the short 2 years since I took it...
Most religions, Judeo/Christianity included (I have been using that as a frame of reference because that is most common here), have their stories from one person's perspective. Example: Moses was given the 10 commandments alone. If they were so important why not announce the to the world personally?
Big question, but I don't see the relevance to the discussion. As I understand it though, it boils down to not messing too much with the way things are.
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not created for the purpose of offending but to show that the logic behind godly claims can be used to make claims of anything at all. Finding a point offensive because it disagrees does not refute it or even mean that it should be offensive.
If you know anything about this, you will realise that this is firstly, not always a valid means of arguing (the falacy being the one you made, thinking the two arguments are equal), and secondly crafted to offend("you're an idiot because you believe something I have artificially made sound idiotic").
And I said that they can and have all been shown to be falsifiable or not sound. And I have heard of "first cause", I can also reason why it is a logical fallacy. A cursory wikipedia glance shows that I am not the only one to pick it apart.
The universe existing is all the proof that it needs to exist. The probability of the universe existing is exactly 1. There is no need for a purpose. Purpose, as you mean it, has no place in science, logic or proof. Why are you even bringing it up? Weren't you trying to belittle me early for confusing science and philosophy?
To point out that IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Your "no need for purpose" is just as much philosophy as any religious explanation of purpose. Again, please please read what I write and not what you'd like to see. Thanks.
None of those frameworks predict the world in the slightest. Either through the fact that sin/bad karma does not make bad things happen to you or past lives, satan, unicorns are not testable or predictable.
Not quite (most of these explanations predict things will continue much as they are (possibly until some future event).
But again, you are confused. I am not demonstrating religions are scientific, just pointing out that being religious does not preclude accepting science. And if someone's philosophical framework is self consistent(as far as possible) and explains the state of things, that concurs with my definition of rationality. They may or may not be correct, but that has nothing to do with my point.
I have been trying to show why your assertions are irrational in a "this is just an internet forum" kind of way. I imagine that looks like I'm trying to refute an argument against god's existence because logically speaking they are pretty much the same thing. Stating that belief in God is rational is, to a logical mind, equivalent to belief in God (because why would someone not go with the rational belief?).
This where you fail to understand. I am saying there is more than one possible rational framework. These frameworks can be mutually exclusive, but that does not mean if you think you about it, you can't understand the other side. What if there are two or even infinite rational belief systems? Imagining there is only one is where I disagree with you. If you can demonstrate the ability to see more than one, then I can provide the example(s) you want. Do you see what I am getting at now?
Think about equivalent but different views of the universe. If both predict the current (or even future) state of affairs, you would probably argue for the use of Occam's razor. Which is fair enough, but from within each view, each adherent argues they already do. And they may be correct. Certainly while wrong most can be rational.
An argument against this concept is distinct from an argument against the existence of a
I maintain professional (though ancient) C++ code, and actually, the whole new/delete and raw pointers seems rather elegant to me... Or perhaps (horror of horrors), I am being slowly transformed into an ancient Unix nerd...
But I have to admit there is one bug that I am struggling with. Somewhere someone is deleting an object during shutdown too quickly and causing a crash(and visual C 6.0 doesn't help me trace this easily).... So your way is possibly better...
Depends if you're coming from native x86 assembly language or not...
I did, and all those objects were a pain until I learned how to use them properly....
Why should god(s) be a "last resort explanation" from any point of view? People disagree, but I don't think that should be the case. The concept of "God of the gaps" is fundamentally flawed.
Rather repeat experiments and verify them, so we know we're dealing with natural phenomena. The 'god(s)' cases are then the statistical spikes and don't interfere with our understanding of the universe he/they created (or came to be as a result of the nature of things or whatever your favourite explanation is).
That is implied because the reason it is widely accepted is because it was established long ago. People tend to snicker and think the newer religions/sects are pretty wacky. Such as the mormons and rastafarians but these religions were created in the same way the established ones were, just newer. I have seen many long thought out reasons as to God's existence but never a self consistent one or one that stands scrutiny. You have never indicated one either.
If they were created in the same way, surely you could show us some historical or archaeological evidence of that? (And you will note, once again, I never said the new ones were wrong. What if the rastafarians are right?)
If I am to provide an example, I can and will. But I doubt you will agree. So first, I must ask, can you demonstrate your ability to think from another point of view? If you can't, I will be wasting both your and my time.
"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).
"believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns - no more, no less." Is crafted to offend. And that is what was posted originally. Again, kindly stick to what I was saying, not what you think I was saying. Thank you.
Perhaps you missed my caveat? I put it there specifically because I knew you would claim there is no "proof" that magic doesn't exist. I listed the base assumptions that I would think lead to a theistic conclusion. I can't possibly think up every assumption you might find to lead to theism. And it is your burden as you claim the assumptions exist. Want another one I just thought of? "Life could not have started without God". We have seen the mechanisms that create the basis of life occur; no God required.
I actually meant the assumptions that you claim have been proven wrong, not all assumptions. But to address that first one, don't tell me you've never heard of the argument of first causes? Sure you may not need god(s) for the big bang, but you can't prove that.
I understand the viewpoint you are trying to make quite well and I have encountered it many times before. Never make a claim that is testable or observable, hand wave about how someone, sometime made a good argument. Claim religion/god deal with topics outside science so therefore their assertions do not require evidence.
Well, lets see your scientific reason (with proof please) for the purpose of the existence of the universe. "There is none" is not an acceptable answer since it effectively dodges the question, and misses the point that "why does the universe need a purpose?" is also philosophy.
And the newtonian would be wrong. Testably wrong, reproduceably wrong and objectively wrong. They might be "close enough" that at a small scale their beliefs still work but they will never be "right". They've already been proven incorrect (I suppose I should thank you for that analogy).
Who says in the analogy newtonian represents my POV and not yours? What if it was untestable?
But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.
Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?
Sure. All religions must explain the current state of the world. Including for example suffering. Whether it is sin/redemption, karma or simply satan running around, they all answer this question. Additionally most include a rational god/set of gods who create a rational universe, even if from time to time they interfere.
Additionally most religions I have seen consider science a valid way of studying the universe, while the universe contains predictable phenomena, r
This would be true if and only if noone offered a reasonable self consistent explanation for the existence of gods/God. Maybe their explanation is untrue, but if it is widely accepted, why dismiss it out of hand? The tea-kettle argument has many answers. Ignoring them will not make them go away.