So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting! — Gregory
So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting! — Gregory
As meaningless as what you claim ancient texts are, by the same token, so are the words spoken and written as of now, including these that I write and those that you wrote — TheMadFool
theoretical physics is not pure philosophy — christian2017
theoretical physics is not pure philosophy
— christian2017
Can you give an example of a theoretician combination several datas and not having to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis about them is right? If it all has to be tested, then my point stands — Gregory
They mean something to me, and there is much more human communication between you and I on this forum than between you and Aristotle's texts — Gregory
Wittgenstein was wrong in saying there are no true philosophical problems, but he has a point about the "social game". — Gregory
Answers in Genesis is unadulterated nonsense. That bloke used to have billboards in Sydney but Australians were far too sensible for his nonsense, so he had to relocate to Kentucky. — Wayfarer
The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. — Gregory
I don't need to be there to know a bomb went off for I can infer it from the mess it causes. — TheMadFool
There are the indisputable facts - fossils and all - but these facts point to creationism as much as it points to evolution et al. — TheMadFool
I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.
His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong? — TheMadFool
Theoretical physicists would have to understand matter in itself in order to come up with truth apart from experiments. I claim such is impossible. If something is not solely confirmed by experiments, it's theoretical PHILOSoPHY
I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.
His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop
Amen
Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong?
— TheMadFool
This forum has all kinds of meaningful philosophical discussions which Wittgentstein would call "word games" for the sole reason that he personally hadn't the patience to think them through — Gregory
Gregory you are mixing forum topics, so if i join in on this i'll be deliberately swapping forum topics. — christian2017
I was just responding to posts and seeing where it went. Back to the OP topic for a moment: ye I saw that website. What I want to know is what principles do theoretical physicists start with guide them as they look at the data. Why not just have date collectors? Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy.
This thread is about religion AND science however. Gnostic Christian Bishop makes many great points. I think the vast majority of Christians (including Mormons ect.) in this country are fake as can be BECAUSE of their religion. If someone thinks they had a religious experience and are obsessed with sharing it with others, they clearly didn't have a real spiritual experience because a real one is personal. Duh! It's simply the most narcissistic group of religions ever created by animals (men). The world as we know it does not have its origin in the Abrahamic God. , Again, duh!! The Theravada school of Buddhism explicitly teaches that there is no supreme personal god. Them there are a much smarter group of people. Double boo to Billy Graham, William Craig, and the rest of the people who stared at their own souls all day
So the ancient texts are nothing but dead symbols. What's left but to do the "social game" (which includes doing philosophy, which I'm fond of) as we socially distance, and do more experiments in science! — Gregory
Here is an article if you would like on Buddhism in Thailand. — christian2017
I do agree the modern christian church is trash though. — christian2017
I'm not going into a detailed conversation about that right now unless you want me too — christian2017
Also Buddhism has holy books. — christian2017
google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution — christian2017
google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution
— christian2017
Sex. It inherently has a sinful side and a good side. It's completely paradoxical, and there appears to be no way to untangle them. Best to remind ourselves we are like the lions and the birds. The paradox of sex is like the paradox of liking butts. Butts are beautiful, but look what they do! However, take away the poop and the butt loses it's charm. The Christian way of dealing with this issue is absolutely absurd — Gregory
Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions. — christian2017
Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions.
— christian2017
Of course there are sexual crimes. Some worse than others. I think every sexually active person has done a sexual sin before, but probably also morally upright sexual acts. It's such a confusing act. Some parts of good, some others must allow evil to creep in. But Christians usually say "find one person and stay with that one person forever, and tell everyone else they have to do the same". That's the worse idea ever. It goes (in their minds) from always being a sin outside marriage to be a blessed act in marriage. It's not correct. Marriage has little to do with sexual morality — Gregory
I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.
His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Even if creationism were true, would you kneel to a genocidal and infanticidal god and think such a moral monster to be good?
Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop
For some, that god commanded genocide and infanticide is disputable. — TheMadFool
Miracles ended when the camera was invented. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Not to literalists and the vast majority of Christians are to some degree, literalists.
They have to be to believe in Satan and Jesus, heaven and hell — Gnostic Christian Bishop
a miracle is just one camera trick away. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.