Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    09 Sep '08 13:30
    Hi dearest all

    Our Theist friends are trying constantly to establish that their theological beliefs stand firmly, but when their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) they either don't accept this fact and they continue preaching instead od debating, or they try their best to derail the conversation by any means (illogical conclusions, pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical approach) like the good ole Sophists.

    They really seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
  2. Standard member RSMA1234
    The Guvnor....!!!!
    09 Sep '08 14:19
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi dearest all

    Our Theist friends are trying constantly to establish that their theological beliefs stand firmly, but when their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) they either don't accept this fact and they continue preaching instead od debating, or they try their best to derail the conversation ...[text shortened]... lly seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
    The problem with thoses types of debates is faith plays a part, its hard to prove to a non-beleive / realist that Allah / God exists, hence the reason why you have some issues me thinks
  3. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    09 Sep '08 14:36
    Originally posted by RSMA1234
    The problem with thoses types of debates is faith plays a part, its hard to prove to a non-beleive / realist that Allah / God exists, hence the reason why you have some issues me thinks
    Right my friend, but these conversations they arise by people that they feel the need to preach instead of debating, and this is caused due to their religious activism. Then the "spread the Ultimate Message" virus takes on and the activists urge everybody to accept their theological thesis/ beliefs as a cornerstone of a philosophical commitment, which of course is not.

    So these guys are always stable and stuck in their Truth, while an open minded person is ever ready to hear carefully, to learn and to modify his view, regardless his spiritualism.
  4. 09 Sep '08 15:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi dearest all

    Our Theist friends are trying constantly to establish that their theological beliefs stand firmly, but when their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) they either don't accept this fact and they continue preaching instead od debating, or they try their best to derail the conversation ...[text shortened]... lly seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
    Quite often their theology is incoherent in and of itself. In order to preserve their theology, they have to be able to hold two or more contradictory beliefs as all "true". I've even had one poster who saw having this ablility as vastly superior. To him, those who were unable to do so were intellectually "deficient". I've had to conclude that this mindset is impervious to reason. It's a mindset that they often apply to matters outside theology as well.
  5. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    09 Sep '08 15:26
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Quite often their theology is incoherent in and of itself. In order to preserve their theology, they have to be able to hold two or more contradictory beliefs as all "true". I've even had one poster who saw this ablility as vastly superior. To him, those who were unable to do so were "deficient" in their intellectual abilities. I've had to conclude that this type of thinking is impervious to reason.
    I tend to agree. But also we notice that there is not a unique theological Christian (and Muslim too) approach due to the so called different views;

    By the way, I had the chance to talk here at RHP with you my friend, with knightmeister, with Rajk and Kelly Jay and jaywill and maybe with some other Christian friends too, and I had the feeling that the interpretation regarding the Christian hypothesis of each of you individuals kinda varies. If this impression of mine is true, then we could we conclude that the individuals' theology looks incoherent in itself, as you pointed, due to the need to be proven "right"?

    Do you think we could assume that every main different dogma (Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants etc.), which undertakes to interprate the divine message of Jesus "the right way", it finally becomes an agent of this profound theological incoherence?
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Sep '08 17:29
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I tend to agree. But also we notice that there is not a unique theological Christian (and Muslim too) approach due to the so called different views;

    By the way, I had the chance to talk here at RHP with you my friend, with knightmeister, with Rajk and Kelly Jay and jaywill and maybe with some other Christian friends too, and I had the feeling that th ...[text shortened]... esus "the right way", it finally becomes an agent of this profound theological incoherence?
    Each of those religions see themselves as the true faith while the others are damned to hell. As if anything they say or do will change anything in their lives. There was a recent study of the effectiveness of prayer on healing the sick and they found a slight bias in the data towards the sick person getting slightly worse! Of course that is just statistical fluke, the actual effect is exactly zero for direct benefits but if the person knows he/she is being prayed for, it might make a positive effect by relaxing the individual and letting the bodies' own defenses work their best. That is the power of the placebo. If you think something will help, your own defenses work better so they attribute any helpful effects to a miracle. Lord, it's a miracle, they said I was going to die in two weeks and here it is a year later, the doctors are mystified!
  7. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    09 Sep '08 19:33
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi dearest all

    Our Theist friends are trying constantly to establish that their theological beliefs stand firmly, but when their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) they either don't accept this fact and they continue preaching instead od debating, or they try their best to derail the conversation ...[text shortened]... lly seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
    Hey be careful about mentioning sophists around here. Some folks are pretty touchy about it.
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    09 Sep '08 20:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi dearest all

    Our Theist friends are trying constantly to establish that their theological beliefs stand firmly, but when their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) they either don't accept this fact and they continue preaching instead od debating, or they try their best to derail the conversation ...[text shortened]... lly seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
    I've seen many atheists do the same on a regularl basis here. Especially because the hammer of "Science and Common Sens" is a tool that not many can yield with precision.

    I've also seen many so-called "scientific minds" fail miserably in understanding the limits of their own scientific fields and try to derail conversations to instances where those arguments can be applied.
  9. 09 Sep '08 21:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I tend to agree. But also we notice that there is not a unique theological Christian (and Muslim too) approach due to the so called different views;

    By the way, I had the chance to talk here at RHP with you my friend, with knightmeister, with Rajk and Kelly Jay and jaywill and maybe with some other Christian friends too, and I had the feeling that th esus "the right way", it finally becomes an agent of this profound theological incoherence?
    "If this impression of mine is true, then we could we conclude that the individuals' theology looks incoherent in itself, as you pointed, due to the need to be proven "right"?

    One of the problems with Christianity is that the Bible itself has numerous contradictions. So, I don't think it has to do with a need to be proven "right", so much as the source book is fundamentally flawed. Seems to me that the rational way out is to start with the teachings of Jesus and dispense with everything that doesn't directly support them. For the most part, the words attributed to Jesus are quite logical and reasonable. The problem is that most (if not all) of the major denominations seem to begin with the teachings of Paul (which are contradictory in and of themselves) and try to fit everything else around it the best they can. The result is a proliferation of denominations due to the fact that they are all fundamentally flawed in taking this approach. The result is that they are left having to hold two or more contradictory beliefs as all "true".
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Sep '08 02:08
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]"If this impression of mine is true, then we could we conclude that the individuals' theology looks incoherent in itself, as you pointed, due to the need to be proven "right"?

    One of the problems with Christianity is that the Bible itself has numerous contradictions. So, I don't think it has to do with a need to be proven "right", so much as the ...[text shortened]... is that they are left having to hold two or more contradictory beliefs as all "true".[/b]
    I've always said they shouldn't even call it Christianity, they should call it Paulianity since the religion called Christianity has not much to do with Christ and everything to do with Paul wanting a religion that would fit the Roman idea of what a religion should be like, miracles and such and Lo, there were miracles. You give the ancient Romans miracles and you have them eating out of the palm of your hand. What I don't understand is why at the council at Nicea in the 400's, why they didn't look closer at the books they chose to be the bible and try to eliminate the inconsistencies from day one. Hundreds of people debating about what books will be the bible and not one talking about, hey this book doesn't jive with THAT book, what gives here?
  11. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    10 Sep '08 04:15
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I've seen many atheists do the same on a regularl basis here. Especially because the hammer of "Science and Common Sens" is a tool that not many can yield with precision.

    I've also seen many so-called "scientific minds" fail miserably in understanding the limits of their own scientific fields and try to derail conversations to instances where those arguments can be applied.
    Hi P pal

    Yes, but the scientists you describe don't have a fortress to hide. If their theory is false it cannot survive for long due to the efforts of their lot and of the whole process of the Science, and if they are "dumb" they stumble on the philosophers of their field and they fall.
    Instead a theist takes a stand behind the Divine Message proclaiming that the situation is clearly and strictly as he sees it, and then he starts a war against the "unbelievers".

    It seems to me that a pure scientist (non conservative approach) is never satisfied with the current explanations so he always tries to learn and find out and reason more through scientifically proven finds and evidence, while a pure theist (conservative approach) is binded so much with the so called absolute/ eternal truth of his faith that he tries to keep everything stable and intact. Science and Philosophy they evolve through their flexibility. Religions follow a totally different evolutionary path;
  12. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    10 Sep '08 04:27
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]"If this impression of mine is true, then we could we conclude that the individuals' theology looks incoherent in itself, as you pointed, due to the need to be proven "right"?

    One of the problems with Christianity is that the Bible itself has numerous contradictions. So, I don't think it has to do with a need to be proven "right", so much as the ...[text shortened]... is that they are left having to hold two or more contradictory beliefs as all "true".[/b]
    I don't have a clear view of this; it is hard for me to understand why and how Paul prevailed over Jesus. How one can surpass "the word of Jesus the son of God" with such an efficiency if he is not based firmly on Jesus?
  13. 10 Sep '08 17:48
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I don't have a clear view of this; it is hard for me to understand why and how Paul prevailed over Jesus. How one can surpass "the word of Jesus the son of God" with such an efficiency if he is not based firmly on Jesus?
    While there appear to be a number of forces involved, here are a couple key elements:

    1) Paul claimed to be divinely inspired: Jesus had come to him in a "vision".

    2) Paul replaced living a Christ-like life with having faith in Christ. It is MUCH easier to profess belief than it is to actually walk the walk. This seems to be an extremely strong incentive.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    10 Sep '08 18:00 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi P pal

    Yes, but the scientists you describe don't have a fortress to hide. If their theory is false it cannot survive for long due to the efforts of their lot and of the whole process of the Science, and if they are "dumb" they stumble on the philosophers of their field and they fall.
    Instead a theist takes a stand behind the Divine Message proc y evolve through their flexibility. Religions follow a totally different evolutionary path;
    They DO have a fortress to hide, because they have an axe to grind but an Achilles heel to protect. For example, when an evolutionary biologist attempts to explain sociological events using the tools of his science, he is simply trying to use a hammer to screw a bolt.

    But, of course, they would fall miserably when compared to academic sociologists, but it doesn't matter because they are not aiming at that crowd not even attempting to do so. This is the fortress they are hiding. They willingly dress up in the mantle of "Science" to feign respectability and speak from a position of authority. In my opinion, they are simply spitting in the face of Science.

    Edit - I apologize for the crappy metaphors.
  15. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    10 Sep '08 18:58
    Originally posted by Palynka
    They DO have a fortress to hide, because they have an axe to grind but an Achilles heel to protect. For example, when an evolutionary biologist attempts to explain sociological events using the tools of his science, he is simply trying to use a hammer to screw a bolt.

    But, of course, they would fall miserably when compared to academic sociologists, but i ...[text shortened]... re simply spitting in the face of Science.

    Edit - I apologize for the crappy metaphors.
    For starters, are you talking about Dawkins? In such a case I think that his sociological views have a kinda stable basis;

    Also, your second quote is somehow corresponding to my opinion. As a matter of fact there is no place for a scientist to hide should he try to interfere scientifically with issues which are not part of his field. It seems that the possible exemptions are validating this "rule".