Free Will

[midniterider]

 

 

What do hieroglyphics have to do with this? It's a form of writing… as is runic, cuneiform and also logographic.

 

No archaeologist or historian takes anything written ages ago as 'fact'… they are clues, bits and pieces of a puzzle (especially when the language is long dead and the people are long gone)… and each peoples had their own way of imparting information… the Greeks were particularly fond of allegory for instance. Some writing is more based in reality than others. A tally for how many cows one had or traded, or a legal contract is probably more reliable than a poem, prayer, story or hymn… or a conquest.  

 

Cuneiform writing predates the Bible by about 2000 years, as used by the Sumerians… but I've never seen an Annunaki and I can't say if they are real.

 

Heiroglyphs also predate the Bible but Ra doesn't seem to be around. (though the Kings [Dynastic] lists are pretty accurate so far, backed up by actual DNA and other evidence).

 

It seems to me that a lot of people really don't understand how science works.

 

The number one most important observation I make of most people that are not scientists and most "christian scientists" I have met.

 

I highlighted it above and made it BIGGER.

 

This is an empirical observation nothing more.

 

I know it can be hard but to accept science on faith alone is like lighting yourself on fire then screaming to everyone around you need a towel to dry yourself off because you are wet.

 

We were having a discussion about the definition of evidence. It's reprehensible that "clues" are just evidence to some archeologist (scientist) that routinely declare "facts" of past societies, yet the contributions to the Bible are somehow dismissed as "clues" to "facts" about past people???? And then to bias all this behind "stupid Christians can't understand science"?

 

What a hoot.

 

 

Do you feel the career phrase 'publish or perish' affects an archeologist's work?

[midniterider]

So here's a thought.

 

Science asks for evidence to support a mechanism

 

where Christianity says do this mechanism to generate evidence.

 

What mechanism has created what evidence? Do you have an example? So I can understand.

[Guest end3]

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

So, what's keeping you here?  I don't mean that as an invitation to leave, but as an honest question.

 

By the way, I don't have a PhD.

 

I use y'all as a stress relief valve.....keeps me from wandering around doing compulsive tasks. And it's all family of origin related crap that I'd just not soon dive back into.

[Guest end3]

 

So here's a thought.

 

Science asks for evidence to support a mechanism

 

where Christianity says do this mechanism to generate evidence.

 

What mechanism has created what evidence? Do you have an example? So I can understand.

 

It's faith without works M. The act of love, whatever that may be (mowing a lawn), is the manufactured evidence for God per Christianity, IMO.

[florduh]

I use y'all as a stress relief valve

 

 

We live to relieve stress suffered by Christians!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

So, what's keeping you here?  I don't mean that as an invitation to leave, but as an honest question.

 

By the way, I don't have a PhD.

 

I use y'all as a stress relief valve.....keeps me from wandering around doing compulsive tasks. And it's all family of origin related crap that I'd just not soon dive back into.

 

Fair enough.  Now back to the science issue.  Why would you demand that we view scientific evidence that supports your religion, but you are unwilling to view evidence that supports the mohammedan religion as scientific?  Isn't that a double standard?

[midniterider]

 

 

So here's a thought.

 

Science asks for evidence to support a mechanism

 

where Christianity says do this mechanism to generate evidence.

 

What mechanism has created what evidence? Do you have an example? So I can understand.

 

It's faith without works M. The act of love, whatever that may be (mowing a lawn), is the manufactured evidence for God per Christianity, IMO.

 

 

Oh ok.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

So, what's keeping you here?  I don't mean that as an invitation to leave, but as an honest question.

 

By the way, I don't have a PhD.

 

I use y'all as a stress relief valve.....keeps me from wandering around doing compulsive tasks. And it's all family of origin related crap that I'd just not soon dive back into.

 

Fair enough.  Now back to the science issue.  Why would you demand that we view scientific evidence that supports your religion, but you are unwilling to view evidence that supports the mohammedan religion as scientific?  Isn't that a double standard?

 

Never said that. What I read of the site you posted does pretty much what I do...looks at phrases and contemplates if modern science correlates. When I said no, I was using the "what is scientific evidence" definition as a standard. That anyone could basically come up with an objective result.

 

And I don't demand, I just think the view is skewed based on desired outcome. If I can't get an objective outcome then we have to say X (it's not science), when the side you argue for doesn't always get an objective outcome. That, to me, is the double standard.

 

And don't forget to add nasty annoying condescension in with all the responses. This really makes it enjoyable.

[florduh]

I just think the view is skewed based on desired outcome.

 

We couldn't cut through the irony with a chainsaw!

[Guest end3]

 

I just think the view is skewed based on desired outcome.

We couldn't cut through the irony with a chainsaw!

 

yeah, but I can't even see the middle from where I am standing

 

Edit: Except as Nivek states, when I eyeball rape some unsuspecting young lass.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

So, what's keeping you here?  I don't mean that as an invitation to leave, but as an honest question.

 

By the way, I don't have a PhD.

 

I use y'all as a stress relief valve.....keeps me from wandering around doing compulsive tasks. And it's all family of origin related crap that I'd just not soon dive back into.

 

Fair enough.  Now back to the science issue.  Why would you demand that we view scientific evidence that supports your religion, but you are unwilling to view evidence that supports the mohammedan religion as scientific?  Isn't that a double standard?

 

Never said that. What I read of the site you posted does pretty much what I do...looks at phrases and contemplates if modern science correlates. When I said no, I was using the "what is scientific evidence" definition as a standard. That anyone could basically come up with an objective result.

 

And I don't demand, I just think the view is skewed based on desired outcome. If I can't get an objective outcome then we have to say X (it's not science), when the side you argue for doesn't always get an objective outcome. That, to me, is the double standard.

 

And don't forget to add nasty annoying condescension in with all the responses. This really makes it enjoyable.

 

Science is willing to change when the outcome demonstrates it should; religion is not.  

 

And I take exception to your remark about "nasty annoying condescension" in all the responses as I have displayed none of these.

[Neverlandrut]

 

No.. it actually isn't.

 

The Bible is taken at face value by historians, as are all other written works by ancient peoples. The DIFFERENCE is that it is NOT considered evidence of the supernatural… neither are the Vedas, the Egyptian Pyramid Texts or the Enuma Elish, just another clue to who the ancient hebrews were - it is definitely not considered factual history though - just one more pointer to what may have really happened. Another difference is that in science all conclusions are subject to revision with new evidence. Example: We originally thought that the Pyramids were built by slaves… we now know, through archaeology, that the workers were paid and treated well, they were not slaves.

 

You do not understand the definition of 'facts' in science.. nor does science EVER say it has PROOF of anything. Just the best possible explanation given the available evidence. Do you have ANY clue as to the amount of written works we have from the ancient middle east alone? The Torah is one very small portion of it. To give it more weight than any others would be BAD SCIENCE. The Hebrews were a minor people in a very busy area with some HUGE empires. (Persian. Akkadian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoneician, Hittite, etc…)

 

The Hebrew texts are NOT ignored by historians.. good grief, look up biblical archaeology, it's all over the place - the hard part is keeping it real science and not conjecture. Here is the difference.. honest scientists follow the evidence and come up with a conclusion… dishonest people (scientists included) start with a conclusion and try to find the evidence.

 

It's BULLSHIT to say the historical community ignores the hebrew texts or archaeology.. absolute bullshit.

 

if you don't want to be derided for not understanding science.. don't show that you don't understand science by blathering about things you are obviously ignorant of. You WILL get called out for it. And if it's about ancient history or archaeology I will call you out because it's a subject I am passionate about.

Who said I am ignoring weighted input? Again, the discussion was about evidence period. Everyone yesterday was saying the Bible could not be submitted as any type of evidence period.

 

Reasonably sure we are miscommunicating. Y'all are saying scientific evidence regarding the supernatural and I am saying evidence of a culture. Big difference.

No End3. We said the bible is not evidence of it's own SUPERNATURAL claims! It is evidence of what it's authors thought, believed, and how they lived (biblical archeology). It cannot be evidence of it's own supernatural claims because the bible, itself, is the one making the supernatural claims. To say that it is evidence of it's own supernatural claims is circular reasoning. I could write a book that claims I rose from the dead and that 500 people saw it. That would not be evidence, it would be the CLAIM. CLAIMS require evidence for belief in them to be justified.

[Guest end3]

Science is willing to change when the outcome demonstrates it should; religion is not.  

 

And I take exception to your remark about "nasty annoying condescension" in all the responses as I have displayed none of these.

What would you like me to say, that I've see any reconversions from this open-mindedness here?

 

Yes, I wasn't specifically referring to you, but the other > 99% population and their nastiness.

[Roz]

Anyone else remember how he tried to pass off epigenetics as the justifcation for his god committing mass genocide?

 

Now he's trying to pass that same shit off here, equating the standards for scientific scrutiny with personal supernatural convictions.  Either he's playing dumb or he's really that stupid, who knows, but it's a good laugh nonetheless.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Please let me know where you stand on these

 

 

Theoretical physics.....hard, soft, or science at all.

Anthropology...hard, soft, or science at all.

 

Thanks

As a biologist, I have no qualifications to speak on either of those two fields.

 

Thanks.

 

That's what I thought.

 

So, admitting that I am not qualified in those fields leads you to think you've scored a point?  Where exactly were you trying to go with that?

 

You with a PhD in science can't speculate on whether these pursuits are science????

 

What about dear BAA, holding his hopes on some multiverse for proof of no God??? Will humanity be able to fly out to the edge or ours and say look, there's another and another?

 

And all the minions here...Jesus.

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

 

 

When you think you know how someone else thinks, you're usually wrong, End.  And you're 100%  wrong about what I think about the multiverse.

 

It's not something (or someone) I'm in love with and can never give up, regardless of the evidence.

My thinking about the multiverse is guided purely by the evidence.  If the scientific (not your definition of what science is, btw) evidence doesn't hold up for the multiverse - I won't hold out for it either.  I'll discard it, as all theories that don't have supporting evidence should be discarded.

.

.

.

I can even prove what I'm stating here.

.

.

.

 

When I post updates about the multiverse to this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62672-big-bang-discovery-opens-doors-to-the-multiverse/#.U63KCPldVzM ...I source my information from this site... 

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  

Peter Woit is the harshest critic of the multiverse on the entire Internet.  So, if news about the multiverse appears on his site, I know for sure that it's been subjected to the most intense scrutiny.  

 

That's the point you don't get about science, End.

Science isn't about the connections and the correlations YOU think you see.  It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda.

.

.

.

 

If the evidence isn't there - I ditch it.

 

Can you say the same about your beliefs?

Or will you just **** around with the meaning of the word, 'evidence' so that you can hang on to your baby-slaughtering God?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

Please let me know where you stand on these

 

 

Theoretical physics.....hard, soft, or science at all.

Anthropology...hard, soft, or science at all.

 

Thanks

As a biologist, I have no qualifications to speak on either of those two fields.

 

Thanks.

 

That's what I thought.

 

So, admitting that I am not qualified in those fields leads you to think you've scored a point?  Where exactly were you trying to go with that?

 

You with a PhD in science can't speculate on whether these pursuits are science????

 

What about dear BAA, holding his hopes on some multiverse for proof of no God??? Will humanity be able to fly out to the edge or ours and say look, there's another and another?

 

And all the minions here...Jesus.

 

If y'all do not have any more intellectual skill than the current effort, it's a waste of my lifetime.

 

 

When you think you know how someone else thinks, you're usually wrong, End.  And you're 100%  wrong about what I think about the multiverse.

 

It's not something (or someone) I'm in love with and can never give up, regardless of the evidence.

My thinking about the multiverse is guided purely by the evidence.  If the scientific (not your definition of what science is, btw) evidence doesn't hold up for the multiverse - I won't hold out for it either.  I'll discard it, as all theories that don't have supporting evidence should be discarded.

.

.

.

I can even prove what I'm stating here.

.

.

.

 

When I post updates about the multiverse to this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62672-big-bang-discovery-opens-doors-to-the-multiverse/#.U63KCPldVzM ...I source my information from this site... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  Peter Woit is the harshest critic of the multiverse on the entire Internet.  So, if news about the multiverse appears on his site, I know for sure that it's been subjected to the most intense scrutiny.  

 

That's the point you don't get about science, End.

Science isn't about the connections and the correlations YOU think you see.  It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda.

.

.

.

 

If the evidence isn't there - I ditch it.

 

Can you say the same about your beliefs?

Or will you just **** around with the meaning of the word, 'evidence' so that you can hang on to your baby-slaughtering God?

 

So is it science by your standards?

[Roz]

BAA, one word for you:  Thumbelina

[Guest end3]

BAA, one word for you:  Thumbelina

Why don't you answer my question Nimroz while you are just hanging around.

[Roz]

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

[Guest end3]

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

[Roz]

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

 

 

The stupidity knows no bounds, this is truly the brain on christian dogma. 

 

Why haven't any other christians come and declare their support for what you're spouting off?  Could it be the ramblings of a man gone mad by his christian beliefs?  Or is yeshitwa really talking through you?  I'll go with the former.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

 

Are you saying that science has no objective end?

[Guest end3]

 

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

 

 

The stupidity knows no bounds, this is truly the brain on christian dogma. 

 

Why haven't any other christians come and declare their support for what you're spouting off?  Could it be the ramblings of a man gone mad by his christian beliefs?  Or is yeshitwa really talking through you?  I'll go with the former.

 

Insults are not an answer...

[Guest end3]

 

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

 

Are you saying that science has no objective end?

 

I'm thinking both as we will never have all the answers.

[Roz]

There really is no hope for End3, so I'll write this up for the lurkers.  I'm betting they're more rational.

 

Lurkers, why do we hold scientific claims to such rigorous testing?  RNP can confirm this, but the best thing anyone can do in science is to prove a current scientific theory wrong.  That way science can advance, our knowledge about how things work can advance.

 

Now, think about your religion.  You have the conclusion, as does End3, as does IH, as does every other christian who has poked around in the Den.  You all claim your religion is true, and that all the other claims somehow got either parts of it wrong or all of it wrong.

 

Yet you all claim to have this personal relationship with your god.

 

If we hold scientific claims to the same standards of evidence as your religion, would you trust its engineering methods?  Its scientific theories?  It's medical breakthroughs?

 

Now End3's saying there is no 'objective end' to any of it.  Is he right?  Do you think there's no point in finding any of this out?

We will never have all the knowledge obtainable, it will only ever asymptote as its limit approaches infinity. 

 

But ask yourself this.  Do you trust the biblical cure for leprosy?  Or do you trust our modern medicine?

 

Do you trust the geocentric views of the bible?  Or do you trust modern astronomy?

 

The fact that we will never get all the knowledge obtainable does not mean that the knowledge we do have can't be tested.  This is why the scientific method has given us all the modern advances we have today.  Our lifespans have literally doubled since the ancient world.  40 used to be old, now it's only middle aged.  Infant mortality's gone down immensely thanks to modern medicine.  Life threatening diseases are now perfectly treatable.

 

If the bible is god's book for mankind, then why, in 1000+ years called the dark ages, hasn't it advanced the quality of life?  Think about the age of enlightenment, the renaissance, and the testing/re-testing of ideas against reason.  In a few centuries it's done all the things listed above.

 

Christian lurkers, I hope you'll see the points we Ex-Cs have made and are continuing to make.  That's all.