Romans and Jews

Post Reply New Topic

I chose "historicity of the Bible", by the way, even though "how fiercely God is opposed everywhere" ranked close behind.
It's not that people just object to God (and, for that matter, His Chosen People, the Jews); it's how focusedly and intensely they do it.
It's clearly demon-driven.
Then, what I referrence those spiritual, white-hot reactions against God's mere mention with what the Bible has to say about God's rejectors in great detail, it astonishingly matches their behavior patterns!
God's Bible knows unbelievers far better than they know themselves!
So much so, that you'd think they read it beforehand as a script to how they later act when opposing it!
(Which would be insane if they did that, because they play right into proving it true!)

Well, I have my uses, and am amazing at derailing conversations too! The thread did leave out too many possibilities though.


Well, right, but whether we want to make that the sum total of knowledge we are making a subjective choice to a certain direction. Not only that, but science does not really "know" things, but rather finds things more or less likely as explanations anyway. Well, I could call it folly, and Christians scriptures speak that believers must be willing to be fools for Christ, and that the ways of the world are foolish, so if one accepts one, the other must, by its nature, be slightly devalued.(not strongly so as Christian scientists are not oxymorons, they just aren't positivists). You are right, all beliefs are arbitrary, but we still select them. I will agree that Claradoon cannot prove a deity to anyone else, but that does not mean that Claradoon's deity is not proved to his own satisfaction.


His experience is evidence. Not only that, but we do not even need to deny science wholesale to believe in mystical things, perhaps we need to limit its grasping somewhat

Never read it, tried once but the language just pissed me off. Being-in-self-ness and such. Frankly, I prefer other existential-ish writers usually, however, I have read Sartre and his intro to existentialism or whatever he calls it.


I would agree with that, especially given that too much scientism/positivism seems to remove the ability to explain certain necessary elements of human existence. Heterodox economist E F Schumacher once wrote a book called "a guide for the perplexed" where he criticized this materialistic scientism for reducing away the very question "What is the meaning of life?" from our questioning.


That is a belief. The belief that it cannot is the assertion that some things are beyond science. Is ethics and how men should act within science? It seems logically false that it would be, but that ethics is a field that needs some explanation and interpretation. Certain human phenomena may also be explained inadequately for the subject, they might be understood, but not at the emotional level desired. I think that a computer could not write a very good novel, as Orwell later says, computers are algorithms, and the writing of a novel is less mathematical as there are too many subjective, aesthetic features that could probably not be programmed in well. I mean, perhaps it could, but I would be questioning of an attempt to do this, maybe if we get some real AI, I might not be so surprised.


Well, if computers could do everything, then the economy would certainly change. I find the thread derailment interesting.


Really? Wow.

So are you, Ragtime.

Also, let's consider some of the things these "dark-age" believers said:

"Scientific concepts exist only in the minds of men. Behind these concepts lies the reality which is being revealed to us, but only by the grace of God."
Wernher Von Braun

"I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in."
George Washington Carver

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...
the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
Lord Kelvin

"Without Him, I understand nothing; without Him, all is darkness…Every period has its manias.
I regard Atheism as a mania. It is the malady of the age.
You could take my skin from me more easily than my faith in God."
Jean-Henri Fabre

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Louis Pasteur

"Almighty God, Who has created man in Thine own image, and made him a living soul that he might seek after Thee, and have dominion over Thy creatures, teach us to study the works of Thy hands, that we may subdue the earth to our use, and strengthen the reason for Thy service; so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him Who Thou has sent, to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins. All of which we ask in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord."
James Clerk Maxwell

"After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork."
James Prescott Joule

"The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other."
Matthew Maury

"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances. For faith in the divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God, and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandment of Christ."
Michael Faraday

If you want to deny science as simply a social construct, then you also shoot yourself in the foot, as your own existential ideas can be denied as a social construct, cutting off your argument at the source. Recursion occurs, and we have a circular argument. Your idea of equal validity can also mean equal invalidity, giving nothing new to anyone.

His experience is not evidence; I could say that I experience fairies, and that is not evidence for the existence of fairies.


Edit: No, IAmNotAParakeet just contributes nothing but religious hogwash to the conversation, so I just simply stop listening.

You may also leave.

Stop being a thread nazi. You're ruining a thread that became 10x better without you

Well, frankly, existentialism just goes back to the issue of man in a nonsensical world. So, if I deny everything as nonsense, then by nature, I will go back to existence. Yep, equal invalidity can work too, but few people would be so skeptical.


It is to you. Frankly, I am fine calling you a nutjob, but I cannot deny that you have had an experience.


Come on, don't you want to know what Lord Kelvin thinks about atheism??

We finally come to a conclusion. Im definitely going to reread my Existentialist books. This conversation has made me rethink some things, and wonder where exactly I can ground my logic. Too bad I have some work to do, or else I would run down the street and grab Sartre from a friend.

Existentialism is fun. I still usually prefer other thinkers over Sartre though.

Adamas dicere, ergo stolide dices.

Yes, thats exactly what I'm trying to do.

No, I can not comprehend that. You said yesterday that evolution is bull, and today claim to accept evolution. Are you just trolling, or are you actually an idiot? Also, feel free to point out any strawmen I have constructed.

I accept evolution as the "time rate of change of allele frequency" which is fairly factual. I don't accept MACRO-evolution, because it is bull. As for ABIOGENESIS not being part of the macro-evolutionary storyline please read DR Sarfati's posts here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2 ... #post19715