Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
There are three things people aren't supposed to discuss if they're to remain friends.
Of course, that's most of what we talk about around here.
I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at, and have had basically the worst day all year at work today, so if I'm projecting that frustration through my posts, my apologies.
Belief in Christ as God is kinda integral to the Christian faith, and why there's such a disconnect between Christianity and Islam/Judaism. At the risk of more over-generalization (since it's hard to really make overarching assumptions about the beliefs of entire religions, since they do think so differently and are so diverse in beliefs) I think Islam considers Christianity and Judaism "brothers of the faith", as there's nothing specific about either that counters their beliefs. Christians believe, in essence, that Christ is God and the only path to salvation, so the lack of this recognition from Islam and Judaism is a big enough disconnect for Christians to consider both "wrong" in that sense. I don't personally know any Jewish people, so I don't know how they resolve their faith against those of Christians/Muslims.
As far as me personally, I don't understand how someone can read the written accounts of Christ's life and see him as simply a "good man", but CS Lewis handles that more eloquently than I ever could, so I won't even try here.
Belief in Christ as God is kinda integral to the Christian faith, and why there's such a disconnect between Christianity and Islam/Judaism. At the risk of more over-generalization (since it's hard to really make overarching assumptions about the beliefs of entire religions, since they do think so differently and are so diverse in beliefs) I think Islam considers Christianity and Judaism "brothers of the faith", as there's nothing specific about either that counters their beliefs. Christians believe, in essence, that Christ is God and the only path to salvation, so the lack of this recognition from Islam and Judaism is a big enough disconnect for Christians to consider both "wrong" in that sense. I don't personally know any Jewish people, so I don't know how they resolve their faith against those of Christians/Muslims.
As far as me personally, I don't understand how someone can read the written accounts of Christ's life and see him as simply a "good man", but CS Lewis handles that more eloquently than I ever could, so I won't even try here.
I feel like your question is confusing.
Do you mean that because there are other religions who believe in the same God, then a member of any of those has to explain why he has adopted his particular religion over the others?
An individual person will weight the philosophy, evidence and history as available to him or her, and decide what they believe to be true. I think that we cannot say this person has chosen to just go along with one of a few options, but that they have found profound faith in their choice of religion.
The spiritual experience is not assessed or criticised or analysed easily; we can say "they have no evidence," and it is true they cannot pick up a soul, or have us over for dinner with Jesus as a fellow guest to answer some questions. But I would be careful in saying their faith is blind: it is more that their faith illuminates something which to others is unseen.
i repeat all I am asking is you are part of a group that believes a man is a god, there are two other groups with the same father god that think he is a mortal, only one of you can be right. so given this, how did you personally come to remedy the beliefs of the other two? all three faiths assume god is infalliable, so someone got the wrong message. This is treating all of christianity as one major group because I am not going down that road right now. I am an atheist and given what everyone says in their "text" Jesus was a guy who existsed and did good things and brought a message of peace and love apperantly(as far as I understand) why should I assume he is a god if the other two say no?
I am going to try to explain this as best I can. lets say we discover a new particle, it proves the existence of god, the first scientist says found it but says nope just the higgs-boson, second scientist does, last scientist finds the higgs-boson again. I dont know how to get my question across in a way that makes sense, I am sorry, I am trying and failing. I dont think in philosphical terms if that is what this has been about again I apologize.
I am going to try to explain this as best I can. lets say we discover a new particle, it proves the existence of god, the first scientist says found it but says nope just the higgs-boson, second scientist does, last scientist finds the higgs-boson again. I dont know how to get my question across in a way that makes sense, I am sorry, I am trying and failing. I dont think in philosphical terms if that is what this has been about again I apologize.
Oh, I see, so you're asking him specifically how he came to Christianity? I can't answer that. But I don't think it's as simple as being asked to 'assume' Jesus is God and ignoring other religions. Some personal investigation must lead one to that conclusion.
It's pretty much straight philosophical differences, so the only thing one can do is read up and choose for yourself what makes sense to believe. It's not a "1 v 2" issue so much as three completely different perspectives on a series of events.
figmentPez
Staff member
These are legitimate questions, and ones that Christian apologetics try to answer. There are a great deal of books on the subject, and pastors regularly preach on the matter. It is a huge, broadly encompassing question. In short, I believe that Jesus Christ is God, when Judaism and Islam say he is not, because I find the testimony of the Gospels to be compelling to the point that religions that teach contrary cannot be believed. Modern Judaism and Christianity share the same root of historic Judaism, and the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament. I believe that prophecy is clear enough to identify Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that anyone who chooses to follow the Law and the Prophets must also acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Furthermore, Islam claims to have the same roots, and acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but they deny the witness of the Gospels, and thus they can be discounted as well. The witness of the Koran is not as reliable as the witness of the New Testament. There are not as many copies, of as many manuscripts, from as many authors, as there are of the New Testament. There are not the outside historical accounts to give creedence to the truth of what is claimed there, so I go with the witnesses I find to be compelling; those of the Apostles and the other writers of the New Testament.
I realize that no everyone finds the evidence to be so compelling. I don't care, and it's pointless to argue over the internet in such a large crowd. I am not a Biblical scholar and do not see the point of trying to debate the issue with those who have already shown they are quite ready to create strawmen to battle, rather than actually listen to what I say.
Simply put:
Religion is based on Faith that a book written centuries ago is 100% right and you shouldn't question it. (This applies to nearly any faith, they're all basically the same in basing why they're right over the other).
Science is based on proven fact that has been tested and rested to be true. If a later test proves a new outcome, the new outcome is truth until proven otherwise.
Simply put:
A religious person takes questions about their belief as attacks because they can't question their book/faith. It's wrong to them. It's just what they believe.
A scientific person takes questions about their results as attacks because they feel they did everything necessary to come to their answer. However, they can be proven wrong and accept the new result.
This obviously doesn't apply to 100% of all Religious people or 100% of all Scientific people but it IS the basis of each. Do religious people cherry pick what they'll believe based on what they find convenient? Of course. Do some Scientists ignore some results if it contradicts theirs? Of course. However when each type of person does that, it goes against the basis of what they stand for.
Faith = Belief without proof
Science = Belief only with proof
I don't understand why either side argues that it's true/not true, because that's just the way each is based.
Religion is based on Faith that a book written centuries ago is 100% right and you shouldn't question it. (This applies to nearly any faith, they're all basically the same in basing why they're right over the other).
Science is based on proven fact that has been tested and rested to be true. If a later test proves a new outcome, the new outcome is truth until proven otherwise.
Simply put:
A religious person takes questions about their belief as attacks because they can't question their book/faith. It's wrong to them. It's just what they believe.
A scientific person takes questions about their results as attacks because they feel they did everything necessary to come to their answer. However, they can be proven wrong and accept the new result.
This obviously doesn't apply to 100% of all Religious people or 100% of all Scientific people but it IS the basis of each. Do religious people cherry pick what they'll believe based on what they find convenient? Of course. Do some Scientists ignore some results if it contradicts theirs? Of course. However when each type of person does that, it goes against the basis of what they stand for.
Faith = Belief without proof
Science = Belief only with proof
I don't understand why either side argues that it's true/not true, because that's just the way each is based.
That is not what I have ever been taught about faith. The proof is in the Bible.
Not saying that is my belief, but it is what I was taught both growing up and now that I'm in a Christian college.
That's just it, the Bible has no proof. It's just stories told by men. You have to take their word that it's the truth. The End. Same for the Koran, the Satanic bible, etc.
This isn't true at all of religion. You're building a strawman here, several in fact. The only true thing you said in here about religion was that faith is belief without proof.
No, I'm fairly certain it's spot on.
You believe the Bible, written by men a few centuries ago, because someone told you to believe it. With zero evidence or zero proof.
The same way a Muslim does or a Satanic worshipper does. There's zero difference in the basis. The only difference is semantics.
This is why it's pointless to even try to have a discussion with you. You ignore anything aside from what you think. I'll never make that mistake again.
Um, I think you have that backwards. My points are straight forward and clear. Your responses are -You just don't get it- and -Strawman Strawman!- and I'm the one ignoring?
Though I also didn't expect any different, you basically gave the same retort that everyone I've ever spoken to on your side of the fence. Pretty much verbatim.
In Piotyr's defense, you're at an 11 right now, and we need you at about a 4.
Um ok, I'm actually at a 4 if you saw me at an 11, you'd know it.
It doesn't matter, as usual there won't be an actual conversation and it's pretty much done now.
How much acid have you had?
I hate my life... >_>
which is why i punish myself with PSYCHOTROPIC HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS!
I found it here....
WOOOOOO
fade
Staff member
Just one input. A witness isn't a test. It's an observation, like this apple falls from a tree and hits me on the head. That leads to a hypothesis like "there is a god" or "there's a force-at-a-distance acting on this apple based on its mass and the earth's". Then you test.[DOUBLEPOST=1392129140,1392128565][/DOUBLEPOST]Also I have to say that saying science involves faith because someone else did the work feels less like faith and more like saying you're not actually eating a cake because a baker made it.
If you want to take absolutely nothing on faith, everything past "cogito ergo sum" you have to repeat and retest yourself. Which is, obviously, impossible.
Of course, as has been said, Occam's Razor and, you know, our human interest in having things make sense, imply that you can probably trust the rock in your hands to not suddenly fall upwards tomorrow, and that we're not in the Matrix.
Of course, as has been said, Occam's Razor and, you know, our human interest in having things make sense, imply that you can probably trust the rock in your hands to not suddenly fall upwards tomorrow, and that we're not in the Matrix.
The question really is, how do you test that which is not observable? It's a philosophical issue. Two perfectly intelligent people can fall on completely opposite sides of the coin based on a couple minor differences in thought.
I feel like going back to the original video, that's the problem. Creationism spits in the face of modern science and demands to be taken as a legitimate version of how our planet came to be. However, its philosophy because its tenets cannot be tested, cannot be observed, and grinds against the assumed tenets of geological time as defined by geology in the strata of our crust at the very least.
This is as basic as it gets, prove to us(scientists) you have standing by finding flaws in our theories. prove to us we missed something important somewhere. When someone tells me "the bible says so" in response to a scientific claim I just stare at them. I always ask them to explain to me the theory they don't believe and then pull it up from wikipedia and tell me how close they got to the actual theory they dispute.
EDIT: Thanks bubbles, I was trying something really weird one night with meat, the better combo is lime and tequila. but i thought I would get flamed to cinders if I suggested that.
This is as basic as it gets, prove to us(scientists) you have standing by finding flaws in our theories. prove to us we missed something important somewhere. When someone tells me "the bible says so" in response to a scientific claim I just stare at them. I always ask them to explain to me the theory they don't believe and then pull it up from wikipedia and tell me how close they got to the actual theory they dispute.
EDIT: Thanks bubbles, I was trying something really weird one night with meat, the better combo is lime and tequila. but i thought I would get flamed to cinders if I suggested that.
So would the steak, I think.
Err, for the record, I'm an anti-religious agnostic with a fairly scientific mind, and I haven't watched the OP so I can't really comment on it - anyone who believes in literal 6-day creation 4000 years ago I simply consider not to be worth debating. Bearing in mind it's a way of thought almost extinct in Belgium thanks to decent education (or "state-mandated indoctrination" I suppose some might say).
However, I'm a philosopher as well, and I do want scientists to think further. Using "atheist" as the catch-all term to cover both atheistic gnosticism and theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism is a way of allaying some of my frustrations, but doesn't really lift them.
Or, to say what I've been talking about: a "scientist"/atheist who hasn't thought his beliefs through and just says "there's no God you dimwits! It's silly! It's make-belief! Hahah! Stoopid!" is just as bad as a religious person who hasn't thought about their beliefs and is Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Pastafarian "because his parents were".
I actively dislike people unwilling to think about why they have the world view they have. Intelligent people can be, and are, religious and can find a balance between religion and science (which usually takes a form of science relating to facts and things and religion being more used in ethics, morality, matters of the mind and the heart). Intelligent people can be absolutely convinced atheists. They can be anything in between.
As long as your perspective is thought through, I can respect it. If it's a simple parroting of beliefs/ideas/thoughts you were raised in or read, you're not a part of the solution, and you don't get to point to others and say they're "wrong". The only people genuinely "wrong" are those who haven't thought about their position, aren't willing to think about their position, but still judge all other positions as inferior.
However, I'm a philosopher as well, and I do want scientists to think further. Using "atheist" as the catch-all term to cover both atheistic gnosticism and theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism is a way of allaying some of my frustrations, but doesn't really lift them.
Or, to say what I've been talking about: a "scientist"/atheist who hasn't thought his beliefs through and just says "there's no God you dimwits! It's silly! It's make-belief! Hahah! Stoopid!" is just as bad as a religious person who hasn't thought about their beliefs and is Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Pastafarian "because his parents were".
I actively dislike people unwilling to think about why they have the world view they have. Intelligent people can be, and are, religious and can find a balance between religion and science (which usually takes a form of science relating to facts and things and religion being more used in ethics, morality, matters of the mind and the heart). Intelligent people can be absolutely convinced atheists. They can be anything in between.
As long as your perspective is thought through, I can respect it. If it's a simple parroting of beliefs/ideas/thoughts you were raised in or read, you're not a part of the solution, and you don't get to point to others and say they're "wrong". The only people genuinely "wrong" are those who haven't thought about their position, aren't willing to think about their position, but still judge all other positions as inferior.
its always been weird for me. I dont get philosophy, religion just never interested me, but science, science I could get. if I read enough I could eventually make sense of things, this is probably how I ended up an atheist. I always liked the line that George Carlin did in one of his shows(i think it was him), where he basically went "when the little dudes you left on the watery rock make it to the grey rock orbiting the one you left them on, it would seem to be your moment to come down and say GOOD JOB BUDDY!". Really, a God is a non-point for me, if being a good person and giving a shit about others is not good enough to escape hell, then I'll drive the damn tour bus there myself! :3
I've had the job of hell's bus driver for quite a while. Unless you're in the union I can't let you take my seat. 