Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 19 of 114 (797283)
01-16-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
01-16-2017 6:41 AM


Re: Faith and Science
Phat writes:
Science was never meant to replace belief.
Of course it was.
What you really mean is that believers don't like it when science overturns their beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 01-16-2017 6:41 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 114 (797284)
01-16-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
01-14-2017 7:10 PM


frako writes:
All we need is a healthy ovum and we can grow our own jesus christ!!!
It would have to be an Immaculate Ovum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 01-14-2017 7:10 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:22 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 114 (797289)
01-16-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by vimesey
01-16-2017 11:22 AM


vimesey writes:
ringo writes:
It would have to be an Immaculate Ovum.
Not necessarily - Mary's could have been a perfectly ordinary ovum, and God just used IVF.
Are you using the common and incorrect interpretation of "immaculate"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:22 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:44 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 32 of 114 (797433)
01-20-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-14-2017 2:32 PM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:
Im not sure I believe any of this.
Why is it that believers are skeptical about evidence but not about unevidenced beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-14-2017 2:32 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM ringo has replied
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-04-2017 12:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 43 of 114 (797514)
01-23-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
01-20-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:
This so called evidence is far from conclusive.
Yes, that's the mantra. The evidence for evolution isn't "conclusive" either, if you insist on believing in creationism. The point is that it IS evidence, as opposed to NO evidence for your belief.
Phat writes:
What gets me is how much some people want to jump at evidence as if it could tell them anything that could actually help them.
What else could "help" them?
Seriously. Have you ever heard of disease? Have you ever heard of cures for disease? Don't you think curing diseases "helps" people? How do you think diseases are cured without "jumping at evidence"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 114 (823049)
11-05-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
11-04-2017 12:45 PM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:
I cannot speak for all believers of course but one reason may be that some of us do not trust the motivation of those who go out of their way to gather evidence against the plausibility of Jesus existing, for example. They never get this bent out of shape over other historical and/or mythological characters.
You're projecting. YOU wouldn't get bent out of shape if somebody suggested that George Washington mistreated his slaves, would you? You'd want to know the truth, wouldn't you? So why do YOU get bent out of shape if people want to know the truth about Jesus?
Phat writes:
It is ironic that an agnostic can defend the Christian position better than believing Christians can!
What's ironic is that "believing Christians" are the ones who want to throw the message away if the messenger doesn't measure up to their expectations.
Suppose your postman was cheating on his wife. Would you tear up the cheque he brings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-04-2017 12:45 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 11-05-2017 3:02 PM ringo has replied
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:13 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 114 (823114)
11-06-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
11-05-2017 3:02 PM


Re: Metaphors Galore
Phat writes:
Metaphorically speaking, I would be the postman's wife whom he was cheating on, in which case I dunno what I would do!
The question remains: What would you do with the cheque?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 11-05-2017 3:02 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:04 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 65 of 114 (823930)
11-19-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:04 AM


Re: Metaphors Galore
Phat writes:
I would cash it of course. The morality of that particular messenger does not concern me so much as his ability to do his job well, which is to bring me my cheques.
So why is the messenger Jesus different? Why do you care about his morality? Why do you throw his cheques away? Or why do you throw his bills away? Why is that messenger more important than his message?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 66 of 114 (823932)
11-19-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:
These debunkers have a major ax to grind and are not at all interested in Jesus being real--they go out of their way to disprove and discredit the stories.
Nonsense. I don't believe Jesus is real and it's for the same reason I don't believe leprechauns are real. I don't go out of my way to discredit anything and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Jesus and/or leprechauns were real.
Phat writes:
Granted they have an evidenced and persuasive argument---but only persuasive to those predisposed to finding an excuse why Christianity, as marketed, is bunk.
Nonsense. I was raised Christian. Almost everybody I know is a Christian. My life would be simpler if I could believe.
Phat writes:
I want and need a God Who is on my side...not an expose of how religions have manipulated and controlled a world for ages.
So you're not interested in the truth at all. You just want to go on deluding yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 72 of 114 (824018)
11-21-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
11-20-2017 2:39 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:
What made you search for further truth? And what is it that caused you to question what so many others see as a foregone conclusion?
You answered your own question. I don't like the idea of a "foregone conclusion". If you had been raised in a different culture your "foregone conclusion" would have been a lot different. If there are different "foregone conclusions" about the same thing, some or all of them must be wrong.
The real question is: Why wouldn't you set your culture's "foregone conclusion" aside and search for further truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:39 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 97 of 114 (824146)
11-23-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
11-23-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
Phat writes:
I trust my mind, but I also trust my heart and my intuition.
Critics may say I am biased as to what I will find.
Are they right?
Yes.
Anybody can be biased. That's why we invented objectivity.
If you're interested in "truth" at all, you have to listen when people point out your biases, not take it as an insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 11-23-2017 9:36 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 101 of 114 (824768)
12-03-2017 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by kbertsche
12-03-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:
You do realize, don't you, that most of the developers of modern science were strong religious believers?
(Egs. Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, ...)
They were products of their societies. They were probably racists and sexists and royalists too. And they were not infallible in any of their conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by kbertsche, posted 12-03-2017 3:25 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 12-03-2017 5:22 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 114 (824842)
12-04-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by kbertsche
12-03-2017 5:22 PM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:
It is natural to expect that the religious leanings of the early scientists was simply a reflection of their society. But this is wrong.
As historian of science Ian Barbour wrote....
Your own quote doesn't show that it's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 12-03-2017 5:22 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 12-04-2017 1:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 108 of 114 (824922)
12-05-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by kbertsche
12-04-2017 1:13 PM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:
As Barbour shows, the 17th century English scientists were much MORE religious than their society.
Your quote doesn't say anything of the kind. It says that a disproportionate number of scientists were Puritans. The others were also, presumably, professing Christians. No doubt the Arab scientists of the time were professing Muslims and the Chinese scientists of the time were professing Taoists, Buddhists, etc. They were all a product of their cultures.
How would you measure "how religious" they were anyway?
Newton writes:
Newton, for example....
Newton, for example, wasn't a Puritan, was he? So your quote doesn't apply to him. Religiously, he was a bit of a nut, so he isn't much of an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 12-04-2017 1:13 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 12-05-2017 12:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 110 of 114 (825012)
12-06-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by kbertsche
12-05-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:
If you think that this was simply a reflection of society, you must believe that in society at large, most people were ACTIVE churchmen?
I asked how you would measure "how religious" somebody was. On what basis do you conclude that the scientists were "more active" than average?
And what bearing does that have on anything anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 12-05-2017 12:58 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024