The Bible

[kenken]

[quote]Originally posted by Draconos@3 February 2004 - 21:03

If there were more people like me, we could save the minds of all these sick people.

Ok, Now I have to go to work, but I will get back to you asap, Your just too funny

D

Yes, he's quite the comedian.

[Draconos]

Alright I'm back,

Now I truely must take offence to somthing you said. you say that this beleif of "this behavior is well documented in Schizophrenics", Now my Grandmother, at this momentis sufering from dementia, which goes hand in hand with Schizophrenia. she somtimes cant even recognize her Daughter. this is an illness of the mind, not a beleif. you wanna know how she got to that demetia? because of science, you see my Grandma is old, and on medication, and doctors, men of science and logic, gave her some meds that clashed with what she already took, and she has never recovered. Is that the "rational thinkinging" that you speak so highly about?

Your a Hedonist, which in itself is a beleif system, so what your talking about here is pretty much bullshit. I've never been clear on what exactly hedonism is though, please educate me, what is it?

You meditate, so do I. Its a practice originating thousands of years ago, its purpose is to comune with he Gods of a long ago time. Made popular in todays age by Bhudism, but it was practiced all over the world before that.

Do I think your a wuss for crying at Nature, no, I do so myself whenever I see the Rockies, Nature is a beautiful thing, where do you think it came from??? a randome accident?

Wealth and health do not make Happiness, I'm not wealthy, hell if I was I wouldnt be Downloading Pirates of the carabian, I'd have bought it. what I do have is a family that love me unconditionaly and I them, friends that I would bend over backwards for and they for me, and my beleif in my Gods, and knowing that they will not ever give me a situation I canot handdle and that they always have my back whenever I need them.

But I guess that happiness is defined differently for the bleak

This discution started out as a nice conversation about Ideas and philosophies, but ended up as crap because you had to come and call people Schizophrenic and saying that we"re all sick. take a good look at yourself buddy. some one who isnt able to look at something with an opened mind or give an opinion without offending others and even after being told he did so, not realize it, is the sick one!

But on a lighter note, I would like to thank you, because of you, I feel my faith even deeper, I can feel my Goddess standing next to me right now with a smile on her face.

Thank you so very much for deepening my faith.

If the world were filled with more people like you, it would be total Chaos. Thank the Gods for open minded people.

And P.S.: it Draconos not draconis, Draconos is Greek for Dragon, Draconis is somthing I'm not sure I can define on this board.

Now as for myself, I am truelly sorry if I have offended anyone in this discution, it was not my intent, I am mearly speaking my mind to someone who clearly cannot use his properly.

D :pirate:

[maynoth]

:< :<

[maynoth]

:< :<

[Draconos]

This is my last post to all this crap.

People I would like to say, I just figured this guy out. He is sooooooo inteligent that it makes him completely stupid.

Dude, pretty much no one needs evidence in a Diety, if they beleive, what they feel is proof enouf. end of story

also this guy has no feelings above his shoulders. I just told yu that My Grandma is dying, and you pretty much laffed at me. Completely uncalled for

and he is very much an "censored"

Have a good day
D

again I think your a brilliant comedian, you shouild take your show to broadway

[leecheskicked]

well I will confess I read the 1st and last 2 pages and missed out most of the intermediate bullshit (I could see where it was heading) i quite like the old testament, It is after all a primary source, historically speaking.) thats me as a historian speaking, as a man I agree whole heartedly with old Testemant style verdicts&#33;

[[)arkredemption]

Its been a while since I&#39;ve visited this thread and I&#39;m both pleased and saddened by it...Pleased that the thread is still going and that there is at least some attempt at logical debate remaining but saddened that it appears to have degenerated into a pointless flame war over the past few pages, besides straying completely from the topic being discussed in this thread (although I realise that the thread itself was started in an intentionally ambiguous manner).

@leecheskicked

Try reading some of the stuff in the intermediate pages...as I believe thats where some of the most interesting debate has been. Its in these pages that a cohesive string of arguament develops and before it degenerates into the flame war.

@Draconos and Kenken

If you ever return to this thread (and I&#39;m not sure whether you will after you last comments and your understandable dislike of the flame war) perhaps we can engage in a more civil and reasonable debate than has been continuing since I stopped posting in this thread (though I am by no means attributing the peace to myself).

I&#39;m afraid I cannot remember who asked this question (lost in the midst of the flame war) but someone asked something along the lines of "How can you completely objectively prove anything?" (and therefore essentially why believe in what science tells you any more than what the bible etc. tells you) and I thought I might answer this.

Whereas it is essentially impossible to completely objectively prove anything as I believe in what Descartes said in that perhaps the only thing you can prove is "I think therefore I am", I still feel there is a clear difference between the way in which you can prove particular things, leading to a continuum between what might be regarded as objective proof and belief purely on faith. Science deals with quantifiable inaccuracies and builds upon a few observations which are assumed to be correct (in an unbiased manner) in a string of logical deductions through which more complex models and theories can be proved to be correct to a high degree of probability. Whereas this leaves the very most initial bricks on which the tower which is science is built slightly unstable (as they cannot be completely proven), science attempts to start with as few assumptions as possible. It also means that it is possible to follow the thread of logical deductions back to its roots and test and review each part of the many threads for each theory.

Through science it is possible to prove that many things, such as genesis and the age of the earth as told in the bible are wrong to a very high degree of probability, and I believe that this kind of logic (scientific) is the best way by which to determine anything.

Religion meanwhile is based on a vast array of assumptions in that was is believed in its particular holy text is true, and therefore any logical deductions drawn from this are on especially shakey ground (despite being of vast influence throughout human history), besides being impossible to review without leading to their collapse. The fact that many things in the bible can be proven wrong by a more objective and stable logic and of course the great philosophical tool Occam&#39;s Razor, lead to the conclusion that religion is a somehwhat unreliable foundation to build your views upon. As this belief is therefore based purely on faith I will quote some comments I made earlier in the thread regarding this (you might also find reading some of the other material on pages 6 and 7 interesting).

I&#39;ve also got to completely agree with the flaws of faith. Our beliefs have a dramatic impact on our outlook on life, from our laws to the way you view other peoples actions (often one and the same), as well as potential to do great good or great harm (though I realise these are merely subjective). It is important therefore for your beliefs to be based on an as objective view of life as possible and empirical evidence, allowing you to form your own judgements and ideas as accurately as possible. If you simply rely on faith you will often find yourself denying the truth with no evidence to support yourself. This, I think, is one of the key differences between Science and Religion. Religion says they have all the answers...and is endlessly resistant to the obviousness of logical argument on some of its views. Science says that if we keep asking the right questions we will find the answers, and these are the current models we have based on logical empirical evidence. Whereas Religion will not bow down to evidence and treats what it says as Gospel (sorry but I just had to say that&nbsp; ), Science is willing to offer up its discoveries to argument and review.

Admittedly everyone has to treat most things with something approaching faith. It would be impossible for each person to review all scientific findings of history to check for their accuracy in their lifetime and we are therefore forced to &#39;Stand on the Shoulders of Giants&#39; (although that can also of course be a positive thing) and accept a certain amount on trust. After all, as Descartes said, perhaps the only certainty each of us has is &#39;I think therefore I am&#39;.

I would also be interested to know if you could suggest some objective evidence in answer to a point I made a while ago in this thread.

One of the main problems that I have with the accuracy of the bible in portraying historical events and the truth in general, as well as the existence of god is that absolutely no evidence that I have seen can actually prove these things or even strongly support them. There are merely some small amounts of &#39;evidence&#39; which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion that supports the bible or existence of god at all, and which can be explained by current scientific theory supported by empirical evidence. Therefore instead of religion being able to prove god exists, others are faced with the notoriously difficult situation of trying to prove a negative.