Evidence is synonymous with data. Data can lead to one of three conclusions, a false one, a true one, and an inconclusive one (which is still a conclusion, just one that means that not enough information was gathered). I also notice you grabbed half of that definition, the other relating to the fact that part of the definition was referring to a "testimony". As in I'm giving evidence of what I saw that day because it furnishes proof of someone doing some crime. ...many scientists around the globe would disagree with that one. They are trying to prove it. Regardless, if you and matty keep going with this faulty assumption that I believe one more than the other this conversation won't progress. Did I throw around the word "undeniable" before. Proof is not an all or none concept neither is evidence. Recorded temperature drops of significant degrees, electronic voice phenomenon, energy sources such as batteries depleting at a much faster rate, all evidence. I didn't even mention all the photographs of orbs or entire apparitions (which are actually pretty rare) because photographs are rarely credible but all that is evidence. You might find all of that is wrong, made up, etc but that doesn't remove all of the things I stated from existence. No we're having this discussion because you're confusing number of "data" (if you prefer that word) with unquestionable proof. And it is easy to deny anything despite evidence, all it takes is ignorance and choosing not to actually look at it. Classic tree fell in a forest cliche, if a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it, did it make a sound? Well no one witnessed the tree but we can infer that when trees fall and they make a recordable sound that even if someone is not present to hear the sound all trees will make that sound or a similar one when falling. sigh...I'm not saying string theory is wrong, I'm not arguing about how much sense it makes, you know what forget it, obviously what I'm saying is being skimmed and not read as I've yet to actually read back from someone my point of view and a direct counter response to it. It all ends up as "this guy believes ghosts more than string theory".
Anti-particles move backward in what you would perceive as time, and this is my conclusion, considering that we are observing a particle that has travelled through more mass than we have ever discovered on this Eath. But alas. Faster than light neutrinos are an observation, and a few month old one at that. You are vastly confusing a mathematical model of completely underlying symmetry that can make predictions, and an anomaly. I'll take back what i was implying of the believability of the spirit world, because this is a personal belief that doesn't have to be followed by others. Everybody should have the right to enquiry. Believe what you want to believe, and so on. But you have to understand the nature of the point you're trying to make. String Theory may just be to most as the popularized term for the extremely comprehensive, ineradicable and unprovable theory, but that is why i chose to defend it. Whether String Theory is backed up by observational evidence in the future of particle physics of refuted and taken off the table, this result will be of great insight, just as String Theory has offered during it's lengthy existence at the forefront. Now this is something you can't say for all theories flat-out.
That's not an answer. Either the church lied about limbo, in which case those who paid money for their children to be prayed for deserve recompense, or limbo is true, despite not being in the bible. It's the word of god, but don't read it literally because it's all metaphors and lies. I wonder if you even hear yourself sometimes. "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[1](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)" "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[2](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)" Hear that Erico? God wants you to murder homos. Ready set go?
The church was corrupt at that time, but Martin Luther initiated the reformation, effectively creating a revolution. It was a dreadful thing to do in Rome, but you cannot dismiss an entire religion for it. Growth. You're capable of passing judgements, but I suggest you be more thoughtful of it. This speaks about two subjects: prophets and the Holy Spirit. It addressed prophesying, not reading or interpreting the Bible. Link Christ didn't suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect, that's why he's the mediator of the new covenant. Link Ahh, those are very controversial verses and there is much interpretation on this. I think liberal theological beliefs are faulty on this particular subject. My belief is that sexual practice between two men is a sin. The concept of a committed relationship between men without sexual practice.. well, the Bible doesn't address that. However, my dad is against homosexuality and is scrutinized by many liberal theologians. Death is sometimes required by the Hebrew Scriptures as the punishment for ritual transgressions, most Christians believe that Jesus is the final sacrifice (the whole Jesus died on the cross thing) to end all further sacrifice and to give humankind the opportunity for liberation from sin. Most Christians believe in Christ under the new covenant and are no longer under the law of Moses. Edit: Hey, this type of thread is actually strengthening my beliefs for once
How nice of you to orient you world-view so that homosexuals can live together, even though your absolute morality dictates that homosexual sex is against the word of the creator of the universe (who lets you to have as much sex as you want, you lucky straight guy you). You'd even defend homosexuals at the risk of your own reputation! My hero! But still lobby against homosexuals having sex, because even though two gay people having sex doesn't throw a spanner in the machinery of society, they can't because A) it disgusts you and B) God said so.
I don' t believe it does say that in the bible, and in fact there are an obscene amount of misconceptions in this entire thread, but hey I gotta start somewhere and yours' is the most recent to catch my eye. What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? Its seems to be a lot of tension in this thread already, please don't act like such an ass.
You're right. First you need a wife. THEN you get to have all the sex you want. But if you're with a guy, forget it.
I'm sorry i guess I have to copy-paste an excerpt from it since you only seem to read titles of links. Far too often we focus on the “recreation” aspect of sex without recognizing that there is another aspect—procreation. Sex within marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage. Song of Solomon and several other Bible passages (such as Proverbs 5:19) clearly describe the pleasure of sex. However, the couple must understand that God’s intent for sex includes producing children. Thus, for a couple to engage in sex before marriage is doubly wrong—they are enjoying pleasures not intended for them, and they are taking a chance of creating a human life outside of the family structure God intended for every child. While practicality does not determine right from wrong, if the Bible's message on sex before marriage were obeyed, there would be far fewer sexually transmitted diseases, far fewer abortions, far fewer unwed mothers and unwanted pregnancies, and far fewer children growing up without both parents in their lives. Abstinence is God’s only policy when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and, most importantly, honors God. Or can you just not read?
What if you have sex during wedlock....is that a loophole in the system? Would it be like a timing thing in that instance. Like it would be a sin up until the moment the priest says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife" and perfectly acceptable to *** after he says that.
I did read it. And again, it still retains the same bigotry towards homosexuals. Regardless if they're trying to "honor god." And here's another question I've been wondering about, if God intended the ***** to fit inside of a ******, then why did he make it so that it can fit into an anus or mouth? if I was to create an act that was purely limited for a man and a woman, I would've made a much more complex alternative. Just sayin.
Big post time, I'll try to share some of my beliefs. I have a hard time getting into this thread because the tone and scope is vastly offset from my own frame of reference. The theistic/atheistic dichotomy is virtually meaningless to me. Technically speaking, by western-centric language, I'm an atheist. But I am so alienated by the negative-space-of-theism connotations of that term, and my perception that many atheists are following the secular version of an old dead-end philosophical path, that I don't willingly self-apply it. But, there should be something in here that those of you who identify as theists and atheists can relate to. I'm just going to drop some links and copy/paste some posts I've made on another forum that is more geared towards these kinds of topics. First link: a great article that echos my exact sentiments. The Mystery I'm Thankful For : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR 2nd item: On metaphor. Spoiler This song has some great insight in particular lines. It's a more melodic cover of a rather hard-core punk original by Screeching Weasel: Old Man Marley - The Science Of Myth - YouTube "you ought to realize that every myth is a metaphor" -key to most of my thinking. All points of view contain truth. "in the case of Christianity and Judaism there exists a belief that spiritual matters are a slave to history" -so they rely on a premise that all the foundational work in spirituality has been done by people who lived thousands of years ago. The came in the back door and set up shop, newcomers must accept what has been laid out for them. The soul is like the Earth, nothing left to explore. "the Buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth" -yep. "Somehow we get by without ever learning; somehow no matter what the world keeps turning" -balance and equilibrium, which we should find quite comfortable, does not require us to comprehend the universe. I could go deeply into the writings of Daniel Quinn to elaborate on this. Good stuff. 3rd item: misconceptions and red herrings, copy from my thread at dreamviews.com Spoiler I've seen a couple of intriguing videos about Islam on TED that I thought I'd share. The first addresses some endlessly propagated misconceptions, the second touches on why lots of attempts to diagnose humanities woes fall for "religion" as an attractive red herring. Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran | Video on TED.com Mustafa Akyol: Faith versus tradition in Islam | Video on TED.com ----------------- link to the whole thread for discussion generated: no virgins 4 u 4th item: Copy of a post I made at dreamviews.com, this summarizes the only substantial problem I have with theistic religion (not all of them do this). Written with a religious-oriented audience in mind: Spoiler This is for the consideration of everyone who has a view on what happens to the spirit of a person upon death (which if I'm not mistaken, includes everyone.) I'm posting so that people examine their lives, and for criticism to help me refine the presentation of this idea. (I define "differential destiny" as the belief that there are different possible afterlifes people can obtain, more and less desirable ones, and that they are determined by actions or thoughts during life.) ---------- Things truly are, in all senses, yet to be seen. The only assurance in life is that we can't **** up too much outside earth. If you believe that things are yet to be seen, you solve problems. If not, you don't. Those who know God... is there anything you have personally experienced (not read, not been told) that suggests that God won't allow humans to become extinct, if that is what we make happen? Human extinction is quite the scientific possibility, I assure you. And to ignore it on the belief that God won't allow it to happen is to guarantee that it does happen. The only way to get people to realize that what happens during this life on this planet is what is important, is to get rid of the idea of differential destiny after death. The exact same thing happens to every person after they die, no matter what they did or thought during life. It is not necessary to discount the possibility of an afterlife, but if there is one, it is the same for everybody. There is no eternal hazard to avoid. There is no separation of the sheep from the goats. There is no reincarnation that is determined by deeds in life. There is no hell. [edit: reincarnation may not err too greatly in this, as it re-directs the soul back into the Earth to live again in the world we've made.] Your eyes, ears, and brain are as good as anyone who ever lived!! Actually, with the minor exception of some viciously overestimated handicaps, everyone has the same remarkable capacity for direct observation and interpretation of the world around them. But unfortunately, people have the idea that indirect input (that which is written or told to them) is the primary source for truth. I check everything I'm told (or read, or tell myself) against direct observation. If something doesn't match what I have observed, there are exactly 2 possibilities. Either I haven't noticed it before, or it's wrong. It's been mis-translated (usually the problem), mis-communicated, something. For there to be differential destiny after death would be for everything I've observed about human behavior to be wrong in lieu of what I've been told. I see how and why the idea exists. It's only evidence is 2nd hand (isn't it! ask yourself!). It fails Occams' Razor. It's too easily explained by machination. It comes to us from writings that are said to be inspired by God. Well, I know what God is, he is life and his law is natural selection. He will allow humans to go extinct, just as he will allow humans to further evolve. Remember the Cold War. Did God stop nuclear holocost? Did we rely on him to? Do we now? I'll say it again. If we believe things are yet to be seen, we solve problems. If not, we don't. 5th item: more on metaphor, and creative interpritation. This is a copy of yet another post I made at dreamviews.com Spoiler Here's one. I like to take some liberties with creation myths, and guess at what they might mean based on evolutionary theory. It's not such a stretch. Imagine you're asleep, (not dreaming), that you've been sleeping all your life. When you wake up, as your eyes open for the first time and the world fades into view, it is indistinguishable from creation. There is nothing around to suggest that anything is the way it was a few moments ago. There are other people around, but they've all woken up at the exact same moment as you have. There is nothing to discuss about what came before, obviously these other people were just now created, as you and the world were, and there no cause to suspect otherwise. You're all naked in the wilderness, no human artifacts except yourselves. Now that we have this idea, let's return to reality, and look at life on a much grander scale. Say what you will about consciousness and speculate about it's nature, there is one thing we know for sure about it. Like any other human capacity, it evolved. This means that it unfolded form nothing to the version we experience over the course of probably something like half a billion years (from the time nervous systems started to get sophisticated). Each organism 'wakes up' anew without memory of the evolution of consciousness. But if DNA retains the record of our evolutionary history (which it does), what if the evolution of consciousness is in one of those deep vaults in the brain somewhere? (oh weed.... thank you for these ideas....) What if one could experience the evolution of consciousness itself, in time-lapse? So I like to read Genesis 1, not as a creation myth and a misconception, but as the story of consciousness unfolding to the world (the 'waking up' story at the top). That's probably a more accurate way of thinking about how the story came about, actually. Not stretching back to our invertebrate ancestors obviously, but possibly to our early hominid ancestors that developed language. 6th item: on morality. Another dreamviews.com conversation. I'll include my post, and the very insightful response from another poster who has gotten me interested in Jung's archetypal theory. Spoiler IndieAnthias: Just to put this bluntly, atheists lack the knowledge that they need to rationally operate in as perfect a manner as the average animal emotionally operates. That's not a dig... we're working on it, that's what science is about. Let me try to find some common language between theists (with their fancy divine command theory) and atheists who try but have a hard time putting their impulses in rational terms. Theists were given a law. It's above their pay grade to try to analyses it. Atheists were given a law as well... actually many laws, which we call physical laws. Most physical laws are not interesting to talk about, as they apply to nonliving things as well as living things. But there is one law, we can call it a physical law, that is special because it only applies to living things. It is called natural selection. I have become quite convinced that both groups (as the problem was presented in the OP) are talking about rules derived from natural selection when they talk about their moral impulses. The problem with the atheist approach, believe it or not, is faith. The perception on both sides is that to explain something is to 'devalue' it somehow (I'd like to try explain that better... it's vague but do you see what I'm getting at? It's a lack of faith in explanations in general. You go about "explaining away" a phenomenon and it's not mystified anymore but the explanation is not necessarily correct... but we have to act on it from now on anyway because we can't go back to the "mystical" model. The cumulative effect is that to "explain" something is to marginalize it, especially if the explanation is only a placeholder to get us off of a mystical model). So if we've "explained away" our morality as being the product of natural selection, we are now free to murder babies, right? That's what both groups are afraid of. If something is true, explaining it will not marginalize it. Have more faith in natural selection, and the specific rules it has implanted in us (ex: don't kill babies. not all species were given that law, humans clearly were, exceptions notwithstanding.) I predict that as we gain more knowledge of it, we will start to see that it truly is an objective "higher authority" in a purely rational sense. Of the sentiment, "morality is the illusion of our genes", the only part I would care to dispute is the world "illusion". That's like saying that hands are the illusion of our genes. ------ Darkmatters: Very well said Indy. It ties in strongly with a post I just made on another topic: "most people consider this extremely demeaning. First let me say, this is merely an anthropological investigation into the origins of myths, including the Christian myths. And second, it does not devalue the power of those myths at all. As Jung taught us, myth comes from the collective unconscious and mythological figures are full-blown archetypal forms in all their power and glory. Being expressions of powerful parts of the deepest regions of the psyche, they have far more power than any thought or idea we're capable of generating consciously. So, while the Gods are indeed creations of man in a sense, we actually are more properly their creations, since the collective unconscious is older and far more powerful than any individual human consciousness. Projections from this deep realm are so powerful and primordial that we have no choice but to see them as something outside ourselves and much larger than us. The realization that Gods and Heroes come from inner space rather than outer is no more than a relocation of the powerbase. So, to say that Gods are the creation of Man is not the same as saying "people just made them up" or "invented" them. The gods welled up unsummoned from depths too powerful to be controlled. And the Bible is not, as some claim, a work of science fiction, but rather a deep exploration of that Archetypal realm, though in somewhat distorted form in order to try to make the Archetypes conform to human ideals, which they refuse to do. And Archetypal form cannot be controlled or cleaned up to make it more presentable... if it represents something primal and powerful it will appear red in claw and fang like a nightmare creature and nothing can change that. Thus perhaps the Yaveh of the Old Testament in his brimstone and fire mode, and the New Testament's attempts to re-write and censor him into a kinder gentler God." ---- thread link: http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/atheists-who-believe-objective-right-wrong-122752/ Finally: a video I watched today from the brilliant Alan Watts. The music is really distracting, sorry. Spoiler Alan Watts - How We Define Ourselves - YouTube my favorite line: "if you identify yourself with your troubleshooter [consciousness; used ship's radar analogy], then naturally you define yourself as being in a perpetual state of anxiety. and the moment we cease to identify with the ego, and become aware that we are the whole organism, you realize (as the first thing) how harmonious it all is." With this, you can see some metaphorical connection to the Biblical principle of treating your body like a temple. So, I find it is very rewarding to take a more anthropological, relativistic, nonjudgmental perspective towards religion. Without falling for superstition and irrationality, there is real wisdom that can be uncovered.
One thing I never quite understood was how not having sex before marriage honors God. I would think it would be more honorable to impregnate all the bitches so that you're expanding upon the beautiful act of "creation". People get divorced and tear apart families, even the religious. How is that not just as bad? It's perfectly natural to, people can grow apart. Animals (another one of God's "creations") does it quite often. Anybody care to explain? I'm not trying to be a **** -- I just want a better explanation or another interpretation. Odds are, I'll want to discuss it more so don't bother replying if you don't want to answer more questions. -_-
Reductionism - the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it. Please go back and read the links if you still don't understand the complexity of the subject. It's too easy to point fingers here, I understand, but you ignored other points I made, like how it's debatable. Also, since I see it arising in the near future, it's interpretive because God wants humanity to think freely. “God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.” -C.S. Lewis what i don't even- (See: freewill) When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency. - Samuel Johnson I hope you see my efforts here. I'm not trying to oblige my beliefs onto you, but I'm trying to workout some of the misconceptions many people have.
When, even in the vast majority of western social history where Christianity was synonymous with not only social morality, but also the rule of law, has the Bible's message on sex ever been obeyed to this level? This is my main issue with such things, these so called requirements are essentially dooming us to failure. You can say it's a test all you like, but I again return to the fact that this is a test that we as a society at large have never, ever passed. Prostitution isn't called the oldest profession just as a joke you know. Also, as an aside, I think that bullying people in to marriage just to fulfil a biological imperative is a poor excuse for something that's supposed to be a holy union. I'd honestly rather grow up with separated parents than in a family that doesn't want to be together, but is doing so for fear of divine retribution. On this basis, I feel the point about babies born out of wedlock is a bit of a fallacy, it's more sympathetic to moral critics who want to look around and see "happy family units" which give them peace of mind, rather than to the actual families themselves.
I suspect that he's referring to himself and his past, in a disdainful or possibly nostalgic sort of way. Fbu has apparently already had these debates and has either grown tired of them or realized that, for most practical purposes, it doesn't really matter.
free will can not be given to us, for that is not free because its boundaries have been defined by a designer. All holy text is useless in this day and age. we should all be dead if it must be followed by the letter. the values are ancient, the rules are preposterous, the consequences are long gone useless. are you going to stone me? will you stone every unmarried woman with a broken hymen? are you going to mutilate your genitals? religion stems from the same centres, simply because mad and power hungry people have proclaimed themselves to be messiahs and prophets. if god is universal why do judaism, christianity and islam all come from the same centre? and dont say it was a developed place of high pop. look the hell at china, all the effin' classical civilisations. religion has never been the source of good and good will. long before such drivel was written we had far greater works of philosophers who came long before all the messiahs and prophets.
Not to mention... humans are not a biologically monogamous primate. Truly monogamous primates have no sexual dimorphism (you can't tell the male and female apart without a crotch shot). In a strictly biological sense, we are polygamous, similar to chimps. Monogamy is a cultural invention, and a stable strategy in some cases.