TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Is religion beneficial?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

Religion aint got nothing on a cult! JOin my ufo cult!

Granted that i have only glanced trough this thread since ive been away for a few days, but i found some posts highly disappointing, but none more than pkc's. Seriously man, 9 pages and not one video of Pat, what's up with that? You must have gone trough his entire video library a couple of dozen times, surely he has something on that relates to this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I think your assumption about advances in science debunking Genesis is 100% true, but I can't see science burning it's way through the rest of the bible in quite the same way. Exodus and Deuteronomy for instance are backed up by other evidence from the period. (Albeit, there is some here-say in those books as well, I find it hard to believe Moses parted the water but I don't have a hard time believing he brought the exodus upon the people of Israel and that he was somehow in communication with a higher being). I know my point of view is a dated one, and not a hip or cool one that makes me seem more up in the times. Atheism is cool nowadays in most westernized countries, but I don't really care and have devoted a large portion of my time for quite a few years now studying the subject on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

My point wasn't actually about science debunking genesis...my point was that as soon as science showed that genesis was wrong, then genesis was interpreted as allegorical, rather than literal...in order for the bible to keep it's 'divinely inspired' tag.
Obviously there are a number of fools who still interpret genesis as literal!
Regarding Moses, not a shred of evidence has been found that the Israelites were even in the desert in Egypt. According to archaelogists, if the Israelites had been there for 40 years, then they would definitely have left evidence they had been there. However no trace of evidence supporting the account in the bible has been found.

my religion is liberal arts and the sciences and poontang and boomers and ganje and dose and money and the champions league

How could wanderers leave evidence? Go to your local corner, do you see evidence someone walked by it yesterday?
But if your suggesting no evidence means it didnt happen, then you should know that archeoligist have used the Bible many times to find ancient buried cities.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing.

i dont need to eat a shit sandwhich in order to know it tastes like shit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont need to eat a shit sandwhich in order to know it tastes like shit.

Ignored.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex How could wanderers leave evidence? Go to your local corner, do you see evidence someone walked by it yesterday? But if your suggesting no evidence means it didnt happen, then you should know that archeoligist have used the Bible many times to find ancient buried cities.

Oh for christs sake! They were supposedly there for 40 fucking years! Your analogy of someone walking by a corner is the most pathetic analogy I've heard in a long time.

Take a read at this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04...oses.php?page=1

I'd be interested to hear of archaeologists using the bible to find ancient buried cities...any links you have?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex How could wanderers leave evidence? Go to your local corner, do you see evidence someone walked by it yesterday? But if your suggesting no evidence means it didnt happen, then you should know that archeoligist have used the Bible many times to find ancient buried cities.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...05110240AA3VaQ6

4th answer down...

That's where I got it from ya.

Also you posted ONE article, are you trying to suggest that ONE archeologist debunks an entire book that is one of the ONLY historical records we have of the time period? Come on, it's not like the guy combed the entire desert and it's entirely possible that once again, the bible blew the 40 years thing completely out of proportion and it was actually a lot less than that. Given I've seen documentaries showing middle aged men, in our time, making the same supposed length of journey and doing it in a matter of days/weeks on foot.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex That's where I got it from ya.

No shit...why did you pick the stupidest answer on that page?

I guess those links to archaelogical excavations of ancient cities due to biblical scripture are out of the question then?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing.

in addition:

should i have to read Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution to know intelligent design is nonsense?

should i have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the scientology church and become a 4th level thetan just so i can comment that scientology is bullshit?

must i build a spaceship and travel to the moons of jupiter to prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting one of them?

if one wants to understand the roots of the 3 desert religions then the bible is certainly a great place to start. but don't pretend that i need to have read the thing cover to cover to have an opinion on superstition generally.

if there is no god, then what kind of understanding does the bible give us of god? NONE, that's what. indeed, if there is no god your study of the bible has actually given you completely fallacious knowledge of the world, so how do you reconcile that?

in any case, we both know my objections to religion are more social/political in nature so a study of contemporary society and politics is more than enough to signal the death cries of religion in my life.

edit: why the fuck would i force myself to read something that i found completely underwhelming (not to mention difficult to read) just so someone might take me more seriously when i say "leviticus is bullshit" when it should already be obvious to them?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Also you posted ONE article, are you trying to suggest that ONE archeologist debunks an entire book that is one of the ONLY historical records we have of the time period? Come on, it's not like the guy combed the entire desert and it's entirely possible that once again, the bible blew the 40 years thing completely out of proportion and it was actually a lot less than that. Given I've seen documentaries showing middle aged men, in our time, making the same supposed length of journey and doing it in a matter of days/weeks on foot.

I'm pretty sure that it isn't just one archaelogist....and the lack of evidence doesn't debunk anything...it just means that it can't be proven.
As for saying that the bible could have blown the '40 years thing' out of proportion, that strikes me as mental gymnastics on your part to explain the lack of evidence. Perhaps the bible blew the whole 'jesus rising from the dead thing' out of proportion too?

"The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name �Canaan� was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (�the deep�) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. �Tehom� was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari."

"# The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey."

"Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible."

"It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself."

"Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel �third highest ruler in the kingdom� (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the �eye-witness� nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a026.html

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN must i build a spaceship and travel to the moons of jupiter to prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting one of them?

+1 to all your statements. I wanted to highlight this one for sake of this clip though:

and... RIP George Carlin

there are way too many religion threads in the COR

quote:

Originally posted by Alex You're just an ignorant atheist that doesn't know anything, but pretends to.

and you're just another gullible theist that thinks religion actually provides answers. again, its easy to provide "answers" when you can just make them up on the fly. that's what theology is ffs! "the study of the unknowable"

i can't think of a lesser course of study in post-modernity. you're nothing but a modern-day alchemist.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in addition: should i have to read Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution to know intelligent design is nonsense? should i have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the scientology church and become a 4th level thetan just so i can comment that scientology is bullshit? must i build a spaceship and travel to the moons of jupiter to prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting one of them? if one wants to understand the roots of the 3 desert religions then the bible is certainly a great place to start. but don't pretend that i need to have read the thing cover to cover to have an opinion on superstition generally. if there is no god, then what kind of understanding does the bible give us of god? NONE, that's what. indeed, if there is no god your study of the bible has actually given you completely fallacious knowledge of the world, so how do you reconcile that? in any case, we both know my objections to religion are more social/political in nature so a study of contemporary society and politics is more than enough to signal the death cries of religion in my life. edit: why the fuck would i force myself to read something that i found completely underwhelming (not to mention difficult to read) just so someone might take me more seriously when i say "leviticus is bullshit" when it should already be obvious to them?

Your scenarios in this post are predicated upon the presupposition that the positions you are advancing are correct in the first place.

It's like saying you know you have no gas in your car, and asking 'do I need to turn on the car to know that I have no gas?'

If you already know you have no gas, than of course not, and in this case, you're depicting your positions in a very matter-of-fact, indisputable way.

You've already framed each of these scenarios in terms of your existing position, so none of these instances reflect objective premises

Of course, you could respond with reasons as to why you feel these positions are correct, in which case it leads us right back to where we started in the first place; advancing substantive arguments as to why your positions are correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Your arguments in this post are predicated upon the presupposition that the positions you are advancing are correct in the first place. It's like saying 'do I need to turn on the car to know if I have no gas?' If you already think you know you have no gas, than of course not. You've already framed each of this scenarios in terms of your existing position, so none of these instances reflect an objective stance. Of course, you could respond with reasons as to why you feel these positions are correct, in which case it leads us right back to where we started in the first place; advancing substantive arguments as to why your positions are correct.

true. but rather i would focus on the fact that all of the (anti) positions are supported by the same amount of verifiable evidence. ie, there is no evidence of god, the teapot, thetans nor intelligent design. so i will treat them all the same until such evidence arises.

in other words, the onus isn't upon me to prove god's non-existence

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont need to eat a shit sandwhich in order to know it tastes like shit.

I think I love you.

True, the burden of proof rests upon the individual advancing the positive claim, but to what extent is the absence of evidence sufficient to reject those positive claims?

Here's something of a brainstorm:

The typical reply to 'the absence of evidence does not thereby mean the absence of existence, and thus, the rejection of opposing argument based upon the absence of evidence is unfounded' is something similar to the instance of the teapot you outlined above.

If I were to say that simply because I lack the evidence to prove the presence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you shouldn't reject the idea of it being there, you would be right to dismiss this as a thoroughly insufficient reason to at least accept the possibility that there may be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter.

But what if I were to tell you that there was, say, a woman giving birth three blocks down from you, though I had no evidence to prove this. Would you reject the possibility of it being true based upon this lack of evidence? Well, you would most likely take into account various factors here. Whether or not you knew me, how reliable I was if you did, perhaps even my appearance and apparent state of mind.

The point is that there are various levels of plausibility when it comes to the issue of rejection based upon lack of evidence. There are things you would and would not reject despite me not being able to prove them, and for different reasons. You obviously feel that Theism lies within the same level of plausibility as an orbiting teapot, but it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why this is, in which case you have to do some positive arguing of your own.

In other words, just because you feel that there is a lack of evidence to support the Theistic claim, it doesn't mean you're off the hook in terms of offering evidence of your own, as you still need to demonstrate why this particular type of claim falls within the category of being legitimately rejected due to the absence of evidence (as opposed to not accepting, but not rejecting, as is the case with other types of scenarios).

The only way you could sit back and reject every non-evidential claim that comes your way is if you don't believe in anything unless there is an evidential basis to support it, in which case that is something of a different discussion.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.