RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible?

RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 3:36:55 PM)
I want witnesses that you exist, cough em up

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 3:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne good point, Christ was actually born like everyone else though of a virgin. transubstantiation is the turning of wine into the blood of Christ and the bread into the flesh of Christ. Yeah... that's a bunch of bullshit. yeh some of the more esoteric avenues of the catholic version of christianity I have a hard time wrapping my mind around as well, though they seem to have a better foundation than most when they didnt monetize shit.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 3:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne All Muslims seek to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is dead. He is frozen in time, like the dinosaurs; they don't evolve anymore. Anyone who tries to emulate Muhammad tries to emulate a corpse. that doesnt mean they are trying to be a corpse

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 3:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne wow beevus thats briliant, how do you kill a triune God? [8\|] LOL We arent talking about any constitution, better double down on your meds before you post Ok, I'll use my imagination since I am required to, to believe all of the religious bullshit, it all being only in one's imagination. well we are talking about Christ here not religion.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 4:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne wow beevus thats briliant, how do you kill a triune God? [8\|] LOL We arent talking about any constitution, better double down on your meds before you post well, buttlick, a triune god? seems like he was one once, after they got rid of his wife in the original fairytale, but you have the problem that jeebus prayed to what he called his father, and never proclaimed himself, or the holy spirit god. By the Three, what a changeable impotent god you have. And now we aint seen none of these three, so theres the proof the invisibility cloak is working Seems you have big problems. The Triune God of Christianity, became flesh and blood (transubstantiated), and walked among us, too bad you missed it. You managed to kill the body, the flesh and blood, but you did not kill God nor did you kill the Holy Spirit. I sort of doubt you would ever see so much as a hint of anything what so ever about God since you spend all your time cursing God. [8\|] He missed nothing, there is no such thing as transubstantiation. It is ALL in your imagination remember ? One does not curse what does not exist. but e=m[c^2]

bounty44 -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 4:19:01 PM)
realone, there is nothing that can be said from a rational standpoint that will convince mnottertroll. he's a spiritually blind reprobate and he's not seeking. and for others to believe that jesus didn't even exist, its the height of absurdity and close to the above. that said, ive got a passage in a book called "why I believe" that has a chapter in it about "why I believe in Christ." here are excerpts from it: "Christianity is the only religion in the world that is based upon historic evidences...The evidence for jesus Christ is absolutely overwhelming. no one can disbelieve in Christ because of a lack of evidence. "the legendary, or mythical, theory of Christ's existence is not held by any one worthy of the name scholar. the historical evidences of Christ's existence are so much greater than those in support of any other event in ancient history... "the testimony of the gospel historians is far more accurate and detailed than that of any secular historian... "some people suppose that, other than the gospels, no ancient writer mentions jesus Christ. they are quite wrong...tacitus, the roman historian; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Epictetus; Lucian; Aristides; galenus; lampridius; diocassius; hinnerius; libanius; ammianus; marcellinus; eunapius; zosimus... "pontius pilate, procurator of Judea who condemned Christ to death, wrote of those extraordinary activities to Tiberius Caesar in a well-known account that has been referred to by several other historic personages....in this long report, after describing the miracles of Christ, pilate states "and him herod...and annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me, making a great uproar against me that I should try him. I therefore ordered him to be crucified..."[he goes on to talk about the supernatural occurences coincident with Christ's death that are recorded in scripture.] [in reference to the above] "another secular writer, thallus, in AD 52, writes about the sun's failure to give light from noon until three o'clock. "Julian the apostate endeavored to destroy Christianity. he wrote a whole book against it, but in that book, instead of destroying Christianity, he affirms that jesus was born in the reign of augustus at the time of the taxing made in Judea by cyrenius....he affirms the authenticity of the gospels...as the authentic sources of the Christian religion. this same Julian went to Jerusalem to disprove the bible, but he failed. " "many other writers have spoken of Christ. josephus, the famous jewish historian, tells us that there arose at this time a great man, whom the leaders of his people had put to death by pilate, and this was the Christ. " p-94-99. and a little about the new testament from "many infallible proofs" "one of the greatest new testament scholars of our generation was sir Frederic Kenyon, director of the british museum...Kenyon said after an extensive review of the manuscript evidence [5000 manuscript copies of portions of the new testament in greek, and at least 15,000 more in other languages] 'it is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands in substantial integrity, the veritable word of god.'" and elsewhere "the interval, then, between the dates of the original composition (the apostles) and the earliest extant evidence (the apostolic fathers) becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have some down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the new testament may be regarded as finally established." p-33-34 so please...

mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 8:21:24 PM)
You never say anything rational dogshit44, you are quoting me scripture regarding the genealogy of joe, old jeebus' father. You are simply an unconvincing retard. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html http://www.seeker.com/gods-wife-edited-out-of-the-bible-almost-1766083399.html http://anonhq.com/vatican-remove-14-books-bible-1684/ And the religion of child molesters did away with 14 inconvenient truths. There is nobody who says that Yeshua was not mentioned, after all Israel was full of them. They were mentioned only in passing and not in agreement with anything in the bible. People still today mention George Washington not telling the lie and chopping down the cherry tree, and Old Abe the railsplitter, and of course the greatness of that soft dildo in a necktie, St. Wrinklemeat. The bible has been doctored up more than Ws CIA analysis were so that he could lie the country into a war.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 8:31:41 PM)
quote: while some require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, others can get kicked in the nuts and still deny, This raises a different issue for me: How do we come to have the beliefs we have? For me, and I propose for many (not all) that our religious belief or non-belief arises experientially rather than through evidence and reason. I remember events in my childhood that did not exactly endear me to Catholic doctrine but my real break came when at thirteen I walked away from Confirmation classes because the catechism really turned me off. I don't recall now the particulars of my distaste, but I never went back. Much later in life I sought to rationalize my decision of doubt and of course found plenty. My experience is not unusual and it is not limited to religious belief. It is a common principle of advertising and of propaganda that we do not make our decisions rationally, but we make them emotionally, and then rationalize them in retrospect. Not to trivialize religious belief/doubt but how can you explain preferences like chocolate ice cream vs. vanilla, dark drama movies vs. light comedy, living in the country vs. in the city, blue trousers vs. brown. It seems to me that preferences on a mundane level are not explainable. Maybe the same is true for big preferences like political and philosophical choices. Conservative vs. Liberal, Unbridled market forces vs. social justice. I perceive that some of us are well read in one direction or another, but I wonder how we choose that direction. Just some thoughts. Carry on. [;)]

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 9:16:17 PM)
why not take the jung briggs meyers personality test and find out how you tick? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 9:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: while some require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, others can get kicked in the nuts and still deny, This raises a different issue for me: How do we come to have the beliefs we have? For me, and I propose for many (not all) that our religious belief or non-belief arises experientially rather than through evidence and reason. I remember events in my childhood that did not exactly endear me to Catholic doctrine but my real break came when at thirteen I walked away from Confirmation classes because the catechism really turned me off. I don't recall now the particulars of my distaste, but I never went back. Much later in life I sought to rationalize my decision of doubt and of course found plenty. My experience is not unusual and it is not limited to religious belief. It is a common principle of advertising and of propaganda that we do not make our decisions rationally, but we make them emotionally, and then rationalize them in retrospect. Not to trivialize religious belief/doubt but how can you explain preferences like chocolate ice cream vs. vanilla, dark drama movies vs. light comedy, living in the country vs. in the city, blue trousers vs. brown. It seems to me that preferences on a mundane level are not explainable. Maybe the same is true for big preferences like political and philosophical choices. Conservative vs. Liberal, Unbridled market forces vs. social justice. I perceive that some of us are well read in one direction or another, but I wonder how we choose that direction. Just some thoughts. Carry on. [;)] Honestly, i believe the answers to all of that is the same answer about why we like certain types of music and not others... we are vibrating energy and we only accept that which vibrates at a frequency that compliments our own. And our own frequency can change and therefore our preferences change accordingly.

Rule -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 11:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne All Muslims seek to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is dead. He is frozen in time, like the dinosaurs; they don't evolve anymore. Anyone who tries to emulate Muhammad tries to emulate a corpse. that doesnt mean they are trying to be a corpse Yes they are: corpses are incapable of change and improvement. Anyone who tries to emulate what someone was, instead of trying to improve on himself and on the population and / or species he or she is a part of, is a dead dinosaur and will have to make way for the mammals.

tweakabelle -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 12:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It may well the case that your assertion has some merit but there are millions of fundamentalists and literalists of all varieties that would disagree with you, some so vehemently that in certain quarters, such 'heresy' would cost you your head. The same argument has been put forward in defense of a prejudicial view of Islam, but unless memory fails me you've never afforded it a shred of credit in that context. Over the years there have been plenty of Christians who were very fond of burning heretics and others perceived to have heretical beliefs at the stake. Fundamentalism and literalism are not the sole property of any one religion but occurs frequently across many religions. Whatever one may think of their views, they are legitimate, if somewhat simplistic, interpretations of 'religious teachings', and are held by millions of believers. You may not like having to defend them but they are 'religious teachings' and as such, contradict your claim that all "religious teachings are inherently symbolic". There are millions of believers who, for all kinds of reasons, reject your claim. Some of them would reject it so violently that they would brand anyone promoting your claim as "Satan's spawn" and denounce them as "Evil incarnate' etc. before removing their head/burning them at the stake/dishing out whatever grisly death is currently fashionable in those circles. Well since you are making the argument that fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of scripture represent legitimate religious teachings, it follows that our fundamentalist literalist Jihadi friends are therefore following legitimate Quranic religious teachings, and you can count on seeing yourself quoted the next time you change feet. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Therefore your claim as stated must be invalid. Yeah, don't quit your day job. Your argument boils down to, "a whole bunch of people believe differently, so you're wrong!" (me, Origen, Radhakrishnan, Campbell, Neumann, Eliade, etc., the whole lot). And you have a doctorate? Millions of people would believe that you wasted your money. K. You persist in attributing a strawman argument to me. I have observed that millions of people of varying religions would dispute your claim that religious teachings are inherently symbolic. I neither agree nor disagree with them. I merely point out that they insist that their fundamentalist beliefs are "religious teachings" and that these people would be highly offended by your claim which effectively dismisses their religious teachings and beliefs. So within religious circles your claim is vehemently disputed, and therefore invalid. As fundamentalism of one sort or another seems to be a product of ideologies that make dogmatic claims to access the "absolute Truth", I don't really see how you can reasonably divorce religious ideologies from the fundamentalisms they spawn. They seem to me to be an inevitable outcome when one marries human frailty with absolutist ideologies.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 6:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne why not take the jung briggs meyers personality test and find out how you tick? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp I won't because it will not answer my WHY question ~~~ Why do I tick that way and why do I bing while you bong? [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 6:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: while some require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, others can get kicked in the nuts and still deny, This raises a different issue for me: How do we come to have the beliefs we have? For me, and I propose for many (not all) that our religious belief or non-belief arises experientially rather than through evidence and reason. I remember events in my childhood that did not exactly endear me to Catholic doctrine but my real break came when at thirteen I walked away from Confirmation classes because the catechism really turned me off. I don't recall now the particulars of my distaste, but I never went back. Much later in life I sought to rationalize my decision of doubt and of course found plenty. My experience is not unusual and it is not limited to religious belief. It is a common principle of advertising and of propaganda that we do not make our decisions rationally, but we make them emotionally, and then rationalize them in retrospect. Not to trivialize religious belief/doubt but how can you explain preferences like chocolate ice cream vs. vanilla, dark drama movies vs. light comedy, living in the country vs. in the city, blue trousers vs. brown. It seems to me that preferences on a mundane level are not explainable. Maybe the same is true for big preferences like political and philosophical choices. Conservative vs. Liberal, Unbridled market forces vs. social justice. I perceive that some of us are well read in one direction or another, but I wonder how we choose that direction. Just some thoughts. Carry on. [;)] Honestly, i believe the answers to all of that is the same answer about why we like certain types of music and not others... we are vibrating energy and we only accept that which vibrates at a frequency that compliments our own. And our own frequency can change and therefore our preferences change accordingly. That may be true (IDK) but it begs the WHY question. Why, if they are, are our frequencies different? [:)]

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 7:18:15 AM)
its the basis of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_frequency You seem to think you can jump into hyperspace without warp drive. The answer you seek grhasshoppa is found from within.

tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 10:12:11 AM)
To experience your frequency, this may help. www.youtube.com/watch?v=13ezqpHBcbM

mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 10:14:50 AM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg more like this.

tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 10:30:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg more like this. No actually... that doesn't get a full spectrum (chord). It is too limited.

PeonForHer -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 10:41:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I want witnesses that you exist, cough em up If he doesn't exist, who or what are you talking to?

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/19/2017 10:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg more like this. No actually... that doesn't get a full spectrum (chord). It is too limited. yep that was noise! Banging on a garbage can cover doesnt and guitars producing square waves doent cut it.

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875