You concede that the Bible was written with one intent - to convince people to believe in Christianity
Put your straw man away, I conceded that that may have been one of the intents. It's religion, everyone is trying to convert everyone to their own side.
Were not talking about every single person, were talking about the people that speed and most people assume that if you skate through right as it turns red your safe cause the other sides green won't have time to turn on yet. That may or may not be true depending on the timing of the light and the veracity of the other drivers, but I doubt many people will worry too much about that.
I totally agree. It's so hard for movies to surprise people with their plot twists. The previews are all 'MOST AMAZING PLOT TWIST EVER BLAH BLAH' and then you get in the movie and everything would feel normal except you know somethings coming so you look for it and it's not as cool when it arrives. The matrix I didn't see coming and I enjoyed the movie 100% more because of it.
I don't think it's fair to compare Golum to the Matrix 2. Golum was cgi intended to represent a being who does not exist in this world and who's physical charecteristics can't be replicated by an actor in a suit. It was consistent and believable. Whereas the matrix cgi was intended to represent Keano, they did a horrible job of making it look good and I think the movie was worse off for it.
Well, I certainly have not looked deeply into the subject, but the Wiki page plainly states that historians do not dispute the existance of a man named Jesus. I have also seen several interesting shows contrasting the religious 'son of god' jesus with historical jewish preacher version of jesus. In none of these shows has anyone ever questioned jesus's existence reguardless of that persons personal faith. So I take it as fairly certain that he did exist.
Also, it's almost universally accepted in religious circles that the Bible must be interpreted. Even christians understand that the bible was written by humans with the intention of converting people to christianity. With that in mind it's obvious that there are going to be some artistic leaps taken. That's the point of sermons at church, to talk about how the bible is interpreted and applied to our world.
As for your god of the gaps, while the physical existance of your invisible hampster is no more or less provable then the physical existance of god. God certainly has an affect on those who believe in them and it is often a positive one. Does it deserve respect? I tend to believe that everyones beliefs should be respected as long as those beliefs compel a person towards good.
It's called a comparison, and it definitly supports my side. Mathmatitions 'know' that those theories are true despite the lack of a concrete proof, because they have never been let down by those theories. Similarly many christians 'know' that god exists despite the lack of proof because they have never been let down by their faith.
I find it equally disturbing when people like yourself or people who do not believe in god comment on the idiocy of believing in god as I do when christians go around preaching about the idiocy of not believing in god. Their viewpoint is no more valid then mine, which is no more valid then yours.
I'm talking about christianity as a whole, not his particular flavor, because he didn't mention anything about his particular flavor and instead defended christianity as a whole. Most christians do not believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. They believe that the bible needs interpretation and can't be taken literally meaning they don't necissarily believe in turning water into wine or that the world was flooded. And the belief that Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago is no more inconsistent with reality then the belief that Ceasar live 1980 years ago. As has been said, most historians do not dispute the fact that a preacher named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god existed.
What you know and what you can proove are two entirely seperate things. In mathmatics there are countless theorums that we know are true. They've held true for centuries whenever applied, but we can't proove them. Proof is not a reasonable requirement for knowledge.
See paragraph 6. It's fairly certain he existed, that doesn't mean he was actually the son of God. You claim that the bible is not accurate is based on your faith, you cannot truly examine the accuracy of something that (if true) is the only written account of history that goes back that far.
For starters if you're just going to decrypt at random to test if you're in the right place you might as well just do it on the test. A properly decrypted pointer to a location in your pad would be somewhat indestiguishable from an improperly decrypted pointer. Add to that you still have the problem of what do you do if you've destroyed the part of your pad that's needed to decrypt.
The bibal, historical records of jesus's persecution by the romans. None of those actually prove religion, but it lends weight to the belief. Also some people just believe it in their hearts. The world makes sense to them with religion.
I agree with your position of not knowing, I just don't think it's fair that you deem the other two stances as not credible. Alot of people feel that the proof is in their heart, they see the world in that light and it makes sense to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Put your straw man away, I conceded that that may have been one of the intents. It's religion, everyone is trying to convert everyone to their own side.
Haha, of course it's an unknown. That's the point. This is a belief, not a fact.
Were not talking about every single person, were talking about the people that speed and most people assume that if you skate through right as it turns red your safe cause the other sides green won't have time to turn on yet. That may or may not be true depending on the timing of the light and the veracity of the other drivers, but I doubt many people will worry too much about that.
When it can't be scientifically tested and has a measurable positive impact on the believer, then yea it is. Damn well should be too.
Europeans drive faster in smaller lanes and have less accidents.....
nah, we'll just go fast enough to get through the yellow....
So instead of just speeders we'll have speeders that run red lights....
It doesn't really matter whether you find their reasons satisfactory. They do, and their beliefs are just as valid as yours.
I totally agree. It's so hard for movies to surprise people with their plot twists. The previews are all 'MOST AMAZING PLOT TWIST EVER BLAH BLAH' and then you get in the movie and everything would feel normal except you know somethings coming so you look for it and it's not as cool when it arrives. The matrix I didn't see coming and I enjoyed the movie 100% more because of it.
I don't think it's fair to compare Golum to the Matrix 2. Golum was cgi intended to represent a being who does not exist in this world and who's physical charecteristics can't be replicated by an actor in a suit. It was consistent and believable. Whereas the matrix cgi was intended to represent Keano, they did a horrible job of making it look good and I think the movie was worse off for it.
Also, it's almost universally accepted in religious circles that the Bible must be interpreted. Even christians understand that the bible was written by humans with the intention of converting people to christianity. With that in mind it's obvious that there are going to be some artistic leaps taken. That's the point of sermons at church, to talk about how the bible is interpreted and applied to our world.
As for your god of the gaps, while the physical existance of your invisible hampster is no more or less provable then the physical existance of god. God certainly has an affect on those who believe in them and it is often a positive one. Does it deserve respect? I tend to believe that everyones beliefs should be respected as long as those beliefs compel a person towards good.
They are both attempting to prevent your access of the material. As is the ISP's nullrouting....
I find it equally disturbing when people like yourself or people who do not believe in god comment on the idiocy of believing in god as I do when christians go around preaching about the idiocy of not believing in god. Their viewpoint is no more valid then mine, which is no more valid then yours.
I'm talking about christianity as a whole, not his particular flavor, because he didn't mention anything about his particular flavor and instead defended christianity as a whole. Most christians do not believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. They believe that the bible needs interpretation and can't be taken literally meaning they don't necissarily believe in turning water into wine or that the world was flooded. And the belief that Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago is no more inconsistent with reality then the belief that Ceasar live 1980 years ago. As has been said, most historians do not dispute the fact that a preacher named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god existed.
Hey now.... Sam's a good guy.
What you know and what you can proove are two entirely seperate things. In mathmatics there are countless theorums that we know are true. They've held true for centuries whenever applied, but we can't proove them. Proof is not a reasonable requirement for knowledge.
Based on what? Christian beliefs are every bit as consistent with the reality that humans are capable of percieving as your are.
As for the ID thing, I'm only refering to his parent post, I have no idea where you dug that out of but it's irrelevent.
See paragraph 6. It's fairly certain he existed, that doesn't mean he was actually the son of God. You claim that the bible is not accurate is based on your faith, you cannot truly examine the accuracy of something that (if true) is the only written account of history that goes back that far.
Oops... looks like I've had those two confused for a while....
Of course you've already subjectively decided. That does not exclude the possibility of making an objective decision.
For starters if you're just going to decrypt at random to test if you're in the right place you might as well just do it on the test. A properly decrypted pointer to a location in your pad would be somewhat indestiguishable from an improperly decrypted pointer. Add to that you still have the problem of what do you do if you've destroyed the part of your pad that's needed to decrypt.
The bibal, historical records of jesus's persecution by the romans. None of those actually prove religion, but it lends weight to the belief. Also some people just believe it in their hearts. The world makes sense to them with religion.
Those facts, true or not, do nothing to prove or disprove religion.
That is far from a proof. There are plenty of scientists who dispute what the results of those tests actually indicate.
I agree with your position of not knowing, I just don't think it's fair that you deem the other two stances as not credible. Alot of people feel that the proof is in their heart, they see the world in that light and it makes sense to them.