Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

It isn't said directly, but if you look at the generations from Adam to Jesus, you can deduce it's somewhere around 6000 years old.

The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but it does say that its stationary in space.

[Siquo]

You do? Where is it? Going through the trees and over the color blue?

Deep, man.

You are correct that Science is a tool but I come from a perspective of philosophical naturalism and a focus on objective truth. My philosophy is to put together reality as it can be observed. It doesn't need to make more assumptions than that.

Sure, that's a road. Highly contradictive and it has a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't make it bad.

While you may have been joking you also expressed support for such ideas. Sorry if my argumentative approach was harsh but it seems that you're simply being evasive about your beliefs instead of letting them be scrutinized.

Scrutinise all you want, but an idea is just an idea, it's not me. If you'd like to attack me through my ideas... Well, as a famous philosopher once said: I pity the fool. 

As you pointed out earlier, science is a tool, not a philosophy. It's also a tool that is meant to discover apparent contradictions in the observable universe and sort them out, not cling onto them.

Science is a philosophy, but you can't live by it. Not 100%, as conforming every aspect of your life to scientific rigor is really impractical. It's only useful as a tool in a few circumstances. It only creates contradictions, sorts them out, then creates more, and sometimes even creates contradictions that are unsolveable (yes, QM, I'm looking at you). However, there's hardly a scientific theory that is not contested one way or another. Sometimes more seriously than other times, but it's about contradicting. Without contradictions, and hypotheses challenging theories, it would never grow.
To me, the strength lies not in the testing, or empiricism, or logic. It lies in being about change. It's never done. It has been claimed numerous times in the past that "Science was almost done", and then we found out there was so much more. I think this is also the major argument against religion that I agree with: Most religions are "done". It's a body of knowledge resistant to growth. It just doesn't get any better, and anything that goes against it, is automatically wrong. I get.. claustrophobic for lack of a better word of such a static stance. Other people find comfort in the knowledge that they already know everything that's worth knowing. That's their way, and I respect that, but it's not mine.

So if I'm constantly contradicting myself it's only with the purpose of growing. Standing steadfast in your knowledge dooms you to ignorance, although there's a consolation prize: you won't know it

Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.

Please do not impose your rules on others, and we shall refrain from doing likewise. Also, if your god tells you not to use his name in vain, he explicitly tells YOU, not malimbar. That's between god and malimbar, and as an omnipotent being He probably doesn't need you to defend his good name.

[Siquo]

The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but it does say that its stationary in space.

Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true.

[Urist is dead tome]

That wasn't my goal in mind but OK.

[Leafsnail]

Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true.

Uh... care to explain?  Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.

[ECrownofFire]

Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true.

Uh... care to explain?  Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.

Okay... In a nutshell, everything in space is moving away from us that isn't close enough to be affected by our galaxy's gravity. It's the big bang theory, and expansion of space, and we really don't need to go over this again. But basically, we appear to be not moving in relation to the distant galaxies (they are all moving directly away from us), and the nearby ones are only moving in whatever other direction because of gravity.

[Siquo]

Sorry I brought that up again, but it was too good of an opportunity not to

[Leafsnail]

Okay... In a nutshell, everything in space is moving away from us that isn't close enough to be affected by our galaxy's gravity. It's the big bang theory, and expansion of space, and we really don't need to go over this again. But basically, we appear to be not moving in relation to the distant galaxies (they are all moving directly away from us), and the nearby ones are only moving in whatever other direction because of gravity.

I know that.  But it's not remotely equivalent to "the earth doesn't move".

I mean, we don't even need to go above the level of the Solar System to see that it does.

[Andir]

_______ is a philosophy, but you can't live by it.  Not 100%, ...

I don't think anyone claimed to live by something 100%, but I don't believe religion is needed to live one's life.  (Heck, there wouldn't be atheists...)

[Glowcat]

Deep, man.

Ok?

Sure, that's a road. Highly contradictive and it has a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't make it bad.

I see accusations with nothing to back them up. I said your position was contradictory because it simultaneously makes claims about a deity while saying that deity cannot be understood. You say my position is contradictory ... because?

Scrutinise all you want, but an idea is just an idea, it's not me. If you'd like to attack me through my ideas... Well, as a famous philosopher once said: I pity the fool. 

Why would I attack you through your ideas? I'm trying to get to the root of what you believe so that you think about it more.

Science is a philosophy, but you can't live by it. Not 100%, as conforming every aspect of your life to scientific rigor is really impractical. It's only useful as a tool in a few circumstances. It only creates contradictions, sorts them out, then creates more, and sometimes even creates contradictions that are unsolveable (yes, QM, I'm looking at you). However, there's hardly a scientific theory that is not contested one way or another. Sometimes more seriously than other times, but it's about contradicting. Without contradictions, and hypotheses challenging theories, it would never grow.
To me, the strength lies not in the testing, or empiricism, or logic. It lies in being about change. It's never done. It has been claimed numerous times in the past that "Science was almost done", and then we found out there was so much more. I think this is also the major argument against religion that I agree with: Most religions are "done". It's a body of knowledge resistant to growth. It just doesn't get any better, and anything that goes against it, is automatically wrong. I get.. claustrophobic for lack of a better word of such a static stance. Other people find comfort in the knowledge that they already know everything that's worth knowing. That's their way, and I respect that, but it's not mine.

Science most certainly is not a philosophy on its own. It's a method of observation and understanding the universe but it is not in itself a position. Value in science may be a philosophical position but the methodology itself isn't.

And I'm not seeing how contradictions on their own or changes push any understanding of.. anything. You don't discover things by creating contradictions or changing arbitrarily, you must actually find the contradictions, and then THINK about them. Without sorting a contradiction out you get, what exactly? Cognitive Dissonance? Because you certainly don't make any progress by saying "Look, this new thing contradicts our current understanding! Let's ignore the part where we find out why and what we did wrong and whether or not we can devise a more predictive model!"

Science doesn't contradict itself by doing its job. It may contradict previous findings, but that's how scientific knowledge grows. It's a strong methodology because it isn't afraid to admit when it's wrong.

So if I'm constantly contradicting myself it's only with the purpose of growing. Standing steadfast in your knowledge dooms you to ignorance, although there's a consolation prize: you won't know it

See above. Contradictions are only opportunities for growth if they are explored and conquered as they arise. I'm not sure where your growth comes from if you're defending contradictions for their own sake.

[Phmcw]

Meh, you cannot live by religion alone either, no matter how hard you try.
But for the philosophical part... I was going to argue, but then I realized that it would be hard to avoid any fallacies.
Let's say that there is kind of a philosophy that come naturally from science, but that it isn't ... Ok now it's wordplay.... dammit, you can do science and only use what we call a philosophy like a method (much like I rebuke Christian claim using the bible, using theology as a mere tool).

As for god's name, he menaced me from trowing me to hell if I don't obey him. Imagine what you would think if, out of nowhere, alien comes and says " we are all powerful, we are wise, obey us and honor us for you're only ants to our eyes. Those who refuse will be tortured for all eternity." What would you do?
Submit, or grab your gun and shoot it in the face?

[Realmfighter]

Thats a pretty good reason to worship something.

[malimbar04]

Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.

It is not said in the Bible how old the Earth is. We don't even know if it really was created in six literal days.

 It was not randomly turning into salt.

Since when did the Bible say that the Earth was flat? You're part about the stars in inapplicable as there is no mention in Scripture. It never said Hell was inside the Earth. Because if that were true than you're earlier claim of Scripture saying the Earth is flat doesn't make sense.

And as for bats. Probably due to a mistranslation.

I assure you all of the previous is true if you follow the bible literally.

The age is within the geneology of the various people, attached to the known dates that certain things happened.

Yahweh btw was always allowed to be said, just not spoken out loud. However, since I'm not of that religion, I see no problem with that either. It's also likely not his/her/it's name.

I don't have time to look everythign up now (got to go), but the rest is right there too in the old scriptures.

[Sowelu]

Wasn't the flat-earth thing based on some words about seeing all the corners of the world from somewhere?  This is just hazy recollection, mind you.

[Il Palazzo]

If one were to believe prof.Hayes, the universe as represented in Genesis is made of water, which got separated by a flat piece of land at the bottom, and a rigid dome of firmament above, with holes through which rain falls(and that's where the Flood came from as well) - almost verbatim copy of the world view of ancient Babylonians.
Here's where she talks about it:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture03.html
The rest of the course is equally enlightening:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/class-sessions