Summer means no religion or politics?

[miguel]

Akatosh, I didn't understand why you've put so many adjectives homogenized and compared them to my thoughts, the same ones I try to give my best explanation. One line posts on subjects like this are a bit unfair and do seam like politician "sound-bites".
I will quote myself on page 7 to you as I was discussing the same thing with KhrisMUC:
   "When a Christian tells someone something like 'It's God will' he's just reassuring and softening his pain. Psychologists do it with other words but it's the same."
So, please do read the thread, I'm sorry if it's becoming a long one but apparently people are enjoying themselves. I know Natch is having the time of his life.

Natcho, Khris has proven to be capable of providing answers without your acceptance. A 10 year old isn't capable of such a definite notion.

Vince, for a person that likes profs of everything I could link you to experiments done by scientists just to mention the last 25 years of history. If we go back to the beginning of what is called "modern medicine" then some documented events are just to horrible to talk about. I will not go before that because you might say the persons involved were not "scientists".
Man has based his concepts of right and wrong entirely on God(s), kings and emperors have then moulded it at their flavour but the very foundation of modern civilization is based on God commandments. Isn't the American constitution based on it? Did I read it the wrong way? Maybe I don't know how to interpret it? Maybe its written in metaphors?
Oh, I get it, it was written 200 years ago and people were different. Got it.
Nice quote by me, btw. I just hope people will get it!
About your last comment, yes I have to agree with you on that and I do have an answer.
Like everything else in life, the virtue is in the middle term. What is common to all those branches of Church?  Why search among difference? You will surely miss the similarities.
 

[Vince Twelve]

Vince, for a person that likes profs of everything I could link you to experiments done by scientists just to mention the last 25 years of history. If we go back to the beginning of what is called "modern medicine" then some documented events are just to horrible to talk about. I will not go before that because you might say the persons involved were not "scientists".

And I could quote you thousands of cases of terrible things being done in god's name.  Wars waged by churches.  Priests raping little boys.  Bombings and terrorist attacks by Christians.  Hell, even the pope has gotten in on the bloody, corrupt, and amoral action.

Lets not say that all scientists are amoral because some have done bad things, and I won't say that churches are amoral because they all have blood and hypocrisy throughout their history.

What is right and wrong are defined by the people and is constantly changing and evolving with society.  The notion that killing another person is wrong has been around much longer than Christianity, and whether or not this concept of morality and good will towards men was first planted in our souls by a god, or even whether or not we have souls, is not something that you can state as fact, or use as proof of some other point, because there is no evidence, nor can there be.

State it as a belief, and I won't have a problem with it.

I believe that men are naturally good and are born with some sense of morality.  That morality is governed by their understanding of the world around them and the society that they live in.  I don't think that we are so weak that we needed to be given this by a supernatural being.  Again, maybe it's just that I have more faith in humanity than you do.

[Nacho]

I find amazing that believers spent half of his life telling atheistics about "the worlds of God", the "Meaning of God", blah,blah, blah... And when we, atheistics, ask believers about the meaning of those things, the replies are something like "We are mere humans and can't try to understand God's  thinking" or "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" ^_^

[Khris]

For example, how come prayer healing isn't any more effective than placebos, at best? Makes you wonder, doesn't it...

Because god detects that he's being tested and makes the outcome appear as if it were a product of chance to fool those pesky scientists!
Where were you during Christianity 101...?

"Reasoning" like that is precisely why it is impossible to argue against a belief system that relies on a supernatural being. And that's why it is pointless to refer to the bible or some other feature of any religion in a debate.
The choice for atheism comes with the realization that all "knowledge" or "truths" religion has to offer are man-made, exaggerated myths.

miguel: Maybe I wasn't ten, but I wasn't much older. And you don't have to be to see through the irrationality of faith.

By that token, if I disagree with you that automatically invalidates both YOURS and MY beliefs...

You are (I assume, on purpose) disregarding the nature of the involved claims. A person is much more prone to swallow claims based on exclusively faith if they haven't heard of any other, contradicting claims yet. That's why all children who were raised religiously believe the particular myths of their parents' faith. They listen to their parents if they get practical advice that's immediately beneficial (don't jump out of the window, don't eat green bread, etc.) and they are simply not equipped yet to differentiate between those and the 'other' advice (sacrifice a goat to make it rain).
My impression is that an overwhelming majority of atheists lost their faith somewhere during their basic education. Often that's all it takes to see that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that not all opinions are of equal value.

I'm sure you'd agree that arguing over the size of fairies or the color of the celestial teapot is pointless and doesn't invalidate my 'belief' that neither exists.

[Snarky]

So you can't really approach the bible in any meaningful critical way. There is nothing to study. All you are left with is the written word of men who claim to have witnessed This and That happening There, and who, for some reason, had a hotline to what God was thinking at the time. It tells me nothing of why or how God exists, leaving me nothing to study or question or form alternate explanations for.

There's actually quite a lot of interesting stuff to study in the Bible if you approach it in a "meaningful critical way". You can start to figure out the history of the text and of the understandings of it (including the process of canonization). You can discover that many of the books of the Bible have been compiled from several different texts edited together. You can pick those apart and compare and contrast them to see the different perspectives and understandings by the individual authors. You can show (roughly) when they were written and when they were edited. You can compare these source texts to other documents and historical evidence (the myths of Ugarit and Mesopotamia, the wisdom literature of Egypt, testimony of apocalyptic Jewish prophets in the Roman era, biographies of Greco-Roman miracle workers, the rites of mystery religions, stories of the dying and rising god in many mythologies, etc.) to discover many literary genres being employed (which allows you to distinguish what is specific to the Biblical texts from what is conventional and generic or inherited from literary tradition), and you can start to explain who the writers were, what they meant by what they wrote, what their agendas were, and - maybe - what they believed.

If you do that, you'll learn a lot about the history, cultures and religions of the Near East in the period of ca. 1200 BC to 200 AD. You'll most likely also see that the Bible is a clearly human document, written by people very specifically for their own times and for their own purposes. That, to me, makes it less plausible that it is divinely inspired, or contains genuine revelation. So like you say, LimpingFish, I don't think it teaches anything about God, other than the inspiration one person's thinking may draw from the beliefs and experiences of another regular person.

This is just a desperate attempt to reconcile the bible with what science found out. It's like claiming that Jesus was an illusionist and didn't actually turn water into wine but used a magic trick.
The bible doesn't even mention dinosaurs explicitly. Did Noah put them on his ark, too? Or did the flood kill them? Why all of them but no other species? Etc., etc.

The problem, Khris, is that 100% of bible was considered as "totally accurate" by believers some centuries ago. Now they put "lines": "This part is real... this is a metaphor... This is totally uncorrect, it's a missinterpretation humans did... This paragraph is ok, but the following is not...".

Actually, theologians have always considered the Bible to be large parts allegory, partly because much of it would otherwise be pretty boring and irrelevant to Christian readers. While orthodoxy has generally asserted that there are two or more layers of meaning: the literal truth and the allegorical truth, there are enough passages in the Bible that, on a plain reading, are obviously wrong (even to a reader in antiquity or the middle ages) that even the "literal truth" often required non-obvious, far-fetched interpretations to uncover. Examples may be taken from many prophetic predictions that failed to occur, such as Paul's claim that the end of the world would come in the lifetime of his correspondents.

"Desperate attempts to reconcile the Bible" can be found inside the Bible itself. For example, Jeremiah's prophecy that Israel would be restored to (everlasting) glory 70 years after being destroyed by Babylon was problematic for the author of The Book of Daniel, who lived in a time of Jewish persecution during this supposed "golden age". Therefore he had Daniel reinterpret the prophecy in a transparently implausible way (reading some of the words twice) so that it said 70*7 (=490) years, providing an extension to the prophecy's deadline (however, that prophecy doesn't seem to have come true, either--and inconveniently for Christian interpreters, it falls about 100 years short of the birth of Jesus).

My point is that metaphorical readings and attempts at reconciliation are not some modern innovation, but a very traditional part of the interpretation of the Bible. And there is in fact pretty solid evidence that important parts of the Bible were not understood literally by their writers. Many bits are written in poetic language, other use formulaic forms, puns and figures of speech that are not obvious to modern readers. If these are read literally, we misunderstand their intended meaning.

From comparative religious studies, particularly how origin myths (cosmogonies) were understood by the Egyptians, in Mesopotamia, and by the Greeks, there's some reason to think that the creation (or rather, the first of the two creation stories) in Genesis was not meant literally, as a simple historical account of how the world was created, but as an instructive explanation of how the world is structured. The six days of creation and the seventh of rest then serve as a mythic template for the ritual that is continually enacted in the workweek and the sabbath.

[Misj']

Let me start with a question: how did you define 'people like Dawkins'?

And I'm not sure he doesn't say this as a scientist. What makes you think that?

Since the remark is outside of the 'realm of science' it is impossible to make a claim about it as a scientist. So he either said it as a pseudo-scientist or didn't say it as a scientist but 'merely' as mr. Dawkins (my guess here is the latter option by the way).

Plus, it's not just an opinion but a pretty solid argument; why don't you try to refute it?

Then either I don't understand the argument (because to me it doesn't make that much sense) or it's not a solid argument (because - again - to me it doesn't make sense). The notion of beauty is also different around the world as well as throughout time (with no real evidence to back what is beautiful)...does that also mean that beauty is in the trash now too? - Because that would be a really bad thing considering how good I look.

Ps. I don't believe in a 'formula of everything'; science won't be able to answer everything, simply because there a limits to (the realm of) science (this is by the way the strength of science). Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand what science is; it's as simple as that.

[LimpingFish]

There's actually quite a lot of interesting stuff to study in the Bible if you approach it in a "meaningful critical way".

I was speaking, as you pointed out further down your post, about the bible's complete lack of a Why and How approach to the existence of God (as opposed to Evolution; I can question the Why and How of one animal's transformation into another, because I have a solid beginning and end to the equation).

The only critical way to approach the bible (with the intention of disputing it as a document purporting to contain the word of a deity) is to dismiss it in it's entirety on the grounds that it can't be validated as anything other than an historical document interspersed with myth and theological musings. You can study the editorial variations between, say, the Lutheran and King James editions, but you won't bring you any closer to validating the existence of God. Every edition takes it as writ that He exists.

As a way of documenting the rise of the Judeo-Christian tradition, you can study and compare the various editions and translations of the bible. But you won't find anything to help shape a unbiased debate on the existence of God or whether or not the book contains His words. You won't find proofs that can be tested and debated.

But then if you could, it would invalidate the whole concept of faith. And this is what Organized Religion hinges on.

[Khris]

Since the remark is outside of the 'realm of science' it is impossible to make a claim about it as a scientist. So he either said it as a pseudo-scientist or didn't say it as a scientist but 'merely' as mr. Dawkins (my guess here is the latter option by the way).

I sincerely don't understand the significance of your "argument". Why does it even matter if he says it as a scientist or while wearing a pink bunny suit?
To elaborate a bit: one of the main criticisms of "The God Delusion" was that Dawkins couldn't criticize theology because it isn't his field of study. Denying theology the status of being a field of study was simply his response.

In Theology, there's no research, no empirical evidence, no theories, no progress, no nothing.
Either swallow what you're told is the truth or leave.*
Imagine biologists or physicists working like that.

*I'm sure there are numerous debates in theology, but they're all completely moot. There's no way to settle them using anything else than authority.

Then either I don't understand the argument (because to me it doesn't make that much sense) or it's not a solid argument (because - again - to me it doesn't make sense). The notion of beauty is also different around the world as well as throughout time (with no real evidence to back what is beautiful)...does that also mean that beauty is in the trash now too? - Because that would be a really bad thing considering how good I look.

The argument is simply that theology isn't a field of study like geology, biology, physics, etc. It's a set of beliefs about how the world works and what happened a few thousand years ago.
Thus, anybody can address the specific claims of theology without going through its courses first, because there is no basis for deciding whose opinion is more valid (or more worthy of checking against facts).
If I were to tell you that Jesus could shoot heat rays from his eyes, how could you honestly deem that claim any less valid than the claim that he was born of a virgin and came back from the dead?

Much unlike in real science. Eventually, the debate will get settled by the evidence that's produced. And since actual studied scientists are way more likely to produce evidence to back up their claims than Joe from the gas station, scientists decided not to indulge in fact-checking every outlandish claim that's made. This ensures progress and the accumulation of ever more real knowledge.

Science produces answers, theology doesn't. It's as simple as that.

I can't believe you dragged beauty into this, btw. How does it relate to anything either of us has said? Science can research the perception of beauty, or how it changed over time. But of course it can't tell us what true beauty is or isn't, but neither can theology. So what's the point? This is just another of your tiresome non-arguments.

[Khris]

KhrisMUC, a theology course isn't something you take around the corner.  And I can see you still did not bother to search more into Christianity. The concept you have from the God that most of you write about and even Jesus is not accurate. I would like you to spend just half-an-hour on it and then we could talk again.
A Christian, a Hindu and a Muslin share many things btw.
How could you understand something that well when you were 10 years old. And haven't you questioned your absolute certainties until now?

Please do read my previous post. I've answered most of this in there. In short, you have no way of knowing whether your concept of god and Jesus is accurate. And I don't need to listen to half-an-hour of Christianity to conclude that my concept of Jesus being a simple man (if he even existed) and god being the projection of people desperate for answers is very probably the most accurate, based on the evidence.

I could somehow understand your position if you rejected all science. That's at least a coherent delusion. But you decided to only reject it when it interferes with superstition planted by other people.

Rejecting the concept of a Christian omnipotent, omniscient, loving God and understanding why is extremely simple. That's why even a ten-year old can do it. This has nothing to do with absolute certainty. I'm not absolutely certain of anything. I'm content with 99,9%.

[Misj']

I sincerely don't understand the significance of your "argument". Why does it even matter if he says it as a scientist or while wearing a pink bunny suit?

Since YOU 'strengthened' your argument using his name, it is more than valid to question whether what he said was as a scientist or simply as mr. Dawkins. If it was merely mr. Dawkins speaking then your 'strengthening' wasn't a 'strengthening' at all, but a fallacy (mis-use of a title). So in reality it weakened your argument to the absurd.

To elaborate a bit: one of the main criticisms of "The God Delusion" was that Dawkins couldn't criticize theology because it isn't his field of study. Denying theology the status of being a field of study was simply his response.

So...that's the right response? - If someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about I just say that it's not a subject worth of knowing...which makes me an expert? - I really still don't get this.

The argument is simply that theology isn't a field of study like geology, biology, physics, etc.

But that doesn't mean it's not a field of study at all. Philosophy, art, history, and mathematics are also not fields of study like geology, biology, or physics...how does that make them 'not fields of study'? - That's just plain idiot if you ask me.

Much unlike in real science. Eventually, the debate will get settled by the evidence that's produced. And since actual studied scientists are way more likely to produce evidence to back up their claims than Joe from the gas station, scientists decided not to indulge in fact-checking every outlandish claim that's made. This ensures progress and the accumulation of ever more real knowledge.

Right...and since you're technically that Joe form the gas station in this story, I should decide not in indulge in fact-checking every outlandish claim that you make; thus ensuring progress and the accumulation of ever more real knowledge. Got it, Joe.

Science produces answers, theology doesn't. It's as simple as that.

Science answer the question HOW things work (mechanisms). Theology answers a whole different set of questions. Claiming that it doesn't answer any questions at all is just plain stupid.

I can't believe you dragged beauty into this, btw. How does it relate to anything either of us has said? Science can research the perception of beauty, or how it changed over time. But of course it can't tell us what true beauty is or isn't, but neither can theology.

I understand why you can't believe that I dragged beauty into this, since you clearly didn't understand my argument (or didn't read it too well). I never claimed that theology could tell us what real beauty is, I just argued that there are things outside of the realm of science (which you now said you agree with)...which in turn means that requiring scientific evidence for things not within the realm of science makes no sense.

So what's the point? This is just another of your tiresome non-arguments.

Tiresome maybe (since they disagree with your opinion). But I can assure you that I have given not a single non-argument (you have given a couple though). If you consider it a non-argument than that likely originates from you mis-understanding them.

Ps. You still haven't told me how you defined 'people like Dawkins'.

[Stee]

I'm not talking about teaching religion in schools.  I'm talking about people putting stickers like this

All I have to say to that is:



If you're going to criticise one, criticise the other. Otherwise you're just being a dick.

Personally, I believe in critical thinking, not centuries old superstition mumbo jumbo. I agree im not an optimist, it's debatable whether im a pessimist, but you can't argue that I'm a realist.

[miguel]

Vince, when you say "(...)What is right and wrong are defined by the people and is constantly changing and evolving with society(...)" I do agree with you but maybe you can acknowledge that Moses did established the principles of it to a universal prism. What made him change is mind and reveal this to his people? Did he actually heard God's voice? We clearly can't scientifically prove it but there are many written documents that prove that he was inspired by God.
By now you know my perspective of this issues is one of a believer.
And of course I have faith in humanity, I just believe that we can't make it on our own.

KhrisMUC, I'm sorry if I missed something you wrote, I can only come to the forum when I've got spare time from the café and sometimes a lot of stuff as been written.
But let me say that I don't reject science at all, it just doesn't make me a big fan of it when I clearly see that the commercial implications get bigger and bigger every day. Rumours that laboratories develop diseases with the purpose of selling the cure make me sad and I try to put in my "conspiracy theory basket" of things to look later.
"(...)Rejecting the concept of a Christian omnipotent, omniscient, loving God and understanding why is extremely simple(...)", your presence in this debate and the energy you put into it clearly prove the opposite, Khris.

Snarky, your presence into this debate is a source of knowledge, thank you.

[Matti]

Miguel, Moses' commandments were mostly a crapload of bullshit, starting off with GOD being the ONLY god and being a jealous one and that mankind must not bow down to other gods and stupid things like that.

Do you think mankind did pick some of those (like not stealing and not killing) because people thought these were the most useful ones?

How the hell would humans build up cities, societies and nations while constantly killing each other and stealing stuff? Do you seriously believe that it was due to Moses that mankind has certain "rules" of living together? And do you think that it lies within human's nature to kill each other?

[discordance]

I'd have to disagree with the statement that the ten commandments are "mostly bullshit". The first four are religion-based (don't chase around other gods, take a day off, don't make idols) which I suppose you could see as bullshit, but the other six (i.e. the majority) are pretty foundational to most systems of morality: Don't kill people! Don't sleep with other people's wives! Don't steal stuff! Don't lie about stuff! Seriously guys! And being God, he gets even more obnoxious about this stuff: Don't get all mad at your neighbor for having a hot wife and a Ferrari and wish you had them.

I basically learned all that in kindergarten. And if every person in the world did all that, the world would be a much better place. So please don't call it "mostly bullshit".

[Khris]

Misj':
I didn't drop Dawkins' name to strengthen my argument. Nor does him stating it as Mr. Dawkins make it any less valid.
You keep attacking me instead of the argument.

There are experts in the field of, say, geology. But there aren't any experts in the field of theology. And there never will be. Is this so hard to get? Since you beg to differ, what, in your opinion, makes somebody an expert in theology?

I know there are numerous other fields like art or philosophy. But I want to focus on those that make claims about the nature of reality. Did I really have to spell it out? Jeez.
The point is that of those particular fields, only theology can't back up its claims with evidence. Not because they haven't found it yet but because it's founded on faith. Yet they make claims about reality.
In other words, reality and science are in the same realm, while theology is outside. And as soon as they want in, they have to produce the goddamn evidence.

Right...and since you're technically that Joe form the gas station in this story, I should decide not in indulge in fact-checking every outlandish claim that you make; thus ensuring progress and the accumulation of ever more real knowledge. Got it, Joe.

You are once again deliberately misunderstanding my point. We aren't arguing about scientific hypothesises, are we? I'm really having a very hard time keeping a civilized tone. Your condescension is simply pathetic. And not even slightly warranted, btw.

Your BS about beauty doesn't say anything at all about the fact that science has found a reliable method to increase knowledge while theology didn't and never will.

Science answer the question HOW things work (mechanisms). Theology answers a whole different set of questions. Claiming that it doesn't answer any questions at all is just plain stupid.

Well, what questions does theology answer? (Actually. Answer.) You didn't bother to provide any examples when you thought it necessary to flog this rotten horse, but I hope you will now.

And you have to explain that "out of the realm of science" stuff. How do you determine that something is out of the realm of science?
Regarding beauty, scientists conducted studies about it and found that the more average somebody looks, the more beautiful they are perceived by the majority of people. So much for "with no real evidence to back what is beautiful".
Please state an aspect of beauty that is outside the realm of science and explain why it can't be researched by science. Please also state something else that is outside the realm of science and how theology is successful in addressing it.

I can't wait.

[Vince Twelve]

I do agree with you but maybe you can acknowledge that Moses did established the principles of it to a universal prism.

No.  Sorry, but there isn't even proof that Moses was real.  There's a very strong possibility that he's just a fictional character in a really old book...

Regions of the world where the teachings of Judaism hadn't reached still developed concepts of wrong and right and also believed killing and stealing to be wrong.  And societies had established laws about it before the time Moses may or may not have been born.  So, no, I can not agree that Moses established any principles.

We clearly can't scientifically prove it but there are many written documents that prove that he was inspired by God.

Again, sorry but I can't accept the bible as proof that anything it contains actually happened.

[Snarky]

No.  Sorry, but there isn't even proof that Moses was real.  There's a very strong possibility that he's just a fictional character in a really old book...
:
:
Again, sorry but I can't accept the bible as proof that anything it contains actually happened.

To expand on this, historians generally don't see the Hebrew Bible as anything like a halfway reliable historical account until about the time of Samuel, Saul and David.* Some say a little earlier and include some of what's described in Judges, some say a little later and prefer to view the united Kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon as a highly legendary and exaggerated account of a former golden age, written much later (similar perhaps to the legend of King Arthur and Camelot).

Anyway, the scholarly consensus is that the story of Exodus and the invasion of Canaan - in the form we have it preserved - was written maybe 600 years after the events it claims to portray (based on earlier texts, and before that on oral tradition), and offers a literary rendition of stories about legendary folk heroes like Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. There may be nuggets of historical truth in there (among other things, the fact that Moses and some other characters carry Egyptian names, cf. e.g. Thutmosis, lends credence to the idea that some segment of the Israeli populace did have some connection to Egypt at some point in time), but too much simply does not fit with what we know about the history of the Hebrew people.

For example, the Jews were not monotheistic at the time; they did not in fact follow one single god. There was no large-scale invasion of Canaan with destruction of major cities like Jericho. Most of the laws supposedly given by Moses fit much better with the agenda of the priesthood around the time the story was written. Egyptian sources give no indication of the plagues described in the Bible, nor of a significant emigration. And some scholars have argued (based on certain characteristic parallels in wording) that the golden calf has been inserted into the story to discredit certain religious factions in the northern Kingdom of Israel (hundreds of years later), since those factions used two large bulls as religious and political symbols.

The way many historians interpret the evidence, the nation of Israel was formed by a coalition of different tribes, each with their own legends, their own oral histories and their own (related) religious beliefs. These traditions were then combined, both organically, simply by contact, but also deliberately for nationalistic purposes. The notion of the "twelve tribes of Israel" was invented to account for the differences between the tribes while claiming common origin, and Exodus is in part a foundation myth for the Israelites as a single people with a single religion.


________
* This judgment is based in part on the time between the events and the written account, in part on ability to correlate with external evidence (mentions in Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, archeological finds in Israel, etc.), and in part the nature of the texts themselves, which start to offer a lot more dry historical data (including quoting from official documents and in some cases from accounts and ledgers) once you get into the time of the Kingdom of Judah, but are pretty vague on many of the details when it comes to Moses (for example, we don't even know which mountain is Mount Sinai, and there's good reason to believe the Israelites never did - or that the different tribes each had their own version).

[Misj']

I didn't drop Dawkins' name to strengthen my argument.

Then why on Earth did you start dropping his name? - Because to me it was clearly name-dropping.

There are experts in the field of, say, geology. But there aren't any experts in the field of theology. And there never will be. Is this so hard to get? Since you beg to differ, what, in your opinion, makes somebody an expert in theology?

In the case of Christian theology: somebody who has studied the field, preferably knows either Hebrew or Greek (preferably both), and is able to study the texts in their original language. It must be someone who critically tries to understand these texts. He should have studied church history.

I know there are numerous other fields like art or philosophy. But I want to focus on those that make claims about the nature of reality. Did I really have to spell it out? Jeez.

Now you have! - Because philosophy makes claims about the nature of reality, art functions as a mirror and as such also makes claims about the nature of reality. In my opinion, your rejection of theology is based on your own opinion rather than any true argument. You consider it bullocks, and therefore you do not accept it or anything that comes out of it.

In other words, reality and science are in the same realm, while theology is outside. And as soon as they want in, they have to produce the goddamn evidence.

You clearly mis-understand science. So I'll tell you AGAIN what science is: Science is the approach to gain knowledge about the mechanisms of 'the universe' by means of objective observations. So while these mechanisms are part of reality, reality and science aren't is the same realm, because there is a lot that is real that is not part of the realm of science. You preposition about theology - stating that is is by definition not about something real - is the obvious problem here, and therefore you claims about the field of theology are - by definition - invalid. You reject theology based on the face that you reject it; that seems to be the entire (and only) basis for all your arguments.

You are once again deliberately misunderstanding my point. We aren't arguing about scientific hypothesises, are we? I'm really having a very hard time keeping a civilized tone. Your condescension is simply pathetic. And not even slightly warranted, btw.

But neither were you when you name-dropped Dawkins, and THAT was what we were talking about. I have been considering you condescending (towards me) for many posts; starting by you stating:

Misj':I knew it would be only a matter of time before you'd start to piss me off with silly posts. Business as usual I guess. If there really is a point to that last two posts of yours, try to convey it like an adult please.

So I guess it was warranted from my point, because there was no validity to your condescending tone.

Your BS about beauty doesn't say anything at all about the fact that science has found a reliable method to increase knowledge while theology didn't and never will.

You apparently define 'knowledge' as 'stuff you agree with', because you claim that theology makes claims about the nature of reality (which means that if those claims are true than it did increase knowledge), but you state they are not true, simply because...they are in disagreement with your own opinion. And you still don't understand what I was saying with the beauty-thing.

Well, what questions does theology answer? (Actually. Answer.) You didn't bother to provide any examples when you thought it necessary to flog this rotten horse, but I hope you will now.

In the smallest sense, theology answers questions about how God wants humans to live. In a broader sense, theology answers questions about how certain religious ideas and views came into existence. The fact that you consider God fiction and therefore consider the 'smallest sense' bollocks doesn't necessarily make it so; but even if it did, then the broader sense still makes theology a valid field of study.

And you have to explain that "out of the realm of science" stuff. How do you determine that something is out of the realm of science?

If you look at the definition above then it's very clear: if it's not looking at mechanisms, then it's not science. If it's not using objectivity as a basis, then it's not science. If it doesn't use observations, then it's not science. But science is not a more valid (or higher) field than other fields of study including philosophy, art, mathematics, quantum physics, and theology. It's among the fields of study the one looking at mechanisms.

Regarding beauty, scientists conducted studies about it and found that the more average somebody looks, the more beautiful they are perceived by the majority of people. So much for "with no real evidence to back what is beautiful".

So where are the mechanisms in this story, and where is the objectivity (perceived is by definition not objective). This wasn't a scientific study (and it clearly doesn't explain why everybody seems to think Angelina Jolie is beautiful)

Please state an aspect of beauty that is outside the realm of science and explain why it can't be researched by science.

See above.

Please also state something else that is outside the realm of science and how theology is successful in addressing it.

See above.

You base most of you arguments on an invalid mis-conception of science (and on 'fields of study' in general).

Ps. Oh...and are you going to tell already me how you defined 'people like Dawkins'?
Pps. If you think I'm being imature and condescending...please know that I think the same about you.

[Khris]

I don't know why you keep asking me about Dawkins or what I meant by "people like him". It doesn't have anything to do with my argument.
He's an atheist with a solid scientific background, and I agree with many if not all of his views. I didn't want to make an argument from authority, please.

On to theology: I'm fully aware that it contains a few valid subjects like ancient languages or biblical/church history. But those are not what I'm talking about. Christian theology does make specific claims like 'There is a god', 'Jesus was the son of god and divine himself', 'Jesus was born of a virgin'.
This is what my argument is about. The nature of these claims is thus that they can not be proofed nor refuted. And they don't have a single piece of evidence to back them up.
That's why I reject that particular part of theology. (I don't reject something because I reject it. That's circular reasoning and certainly not what I'm using).
Because if I didn't reject those claims of theology, I'd consequently have to believe everything every person has ever claimed as long as it can't be proven or disproved and doesn't have any evidence.
But nobody does that. No matter what claim somebody makes, people usually want evidence before they believe it.

The main point here is that to me, there's no difference between being of Christian faith and believing in unicorns of fairies. To you, there is, obviously.

In the smallest sense, theology answers questions about how God wants humans to live. In a broader sense, theology answers questions about how certain religious ideas and views came into existence. The fact that you consider God fiction and therefore consider the 'smallest sense' bollocks doesn't necessarily make it so; but even if it did, then the broader sense still makes theology a valid field of study.

(Let's disregard the broader sense. That's really more history or psychology rather than theology. I want to focus on the faith stuff.)
How does it answer those questions? I don't accept answers I simply have to believe. If sciences states something, I can verify the claim myself, at least in theory. With theology, I have to swallow whatever I'm being told about how God wants humans to live. And how do I decide whether Theology A or Theology B provides the true answer? How can be determined if I'm supposed to love my neighbor as myself or to convert or kill all infidels?
And the fact that I consider unicorns fiction doesn't make unicorns fiction. The fact that I consider Goblins, Orcs or Hobbits fiction doesn't make them fiction. But the continous and obvious lack of evidence for their existence eventually does.

[miguel]

Snarky, again thanks for participating but I would not write about Moses without some research. Please take a look at this:

The Papyrus Ipuwer, Egyptian Version of the Plagues ~
                                                       A New Perspective
By Henry Zecher,

"
In the spring of 1940, Immanuel Velikovsky (...) pondered what kind of natural catastrophe had turned the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah into the lake which Joshua and the Israelites came upon after the Exodus. He pondered the plagues described in the Book of Exodus, whether or not they were real and whether or not there was an Egyptian version of them.
        In search of just such a document, he soon discovered in a reference book the mention of an Egyptian papyrus by a sage named Ipuwer declaring that the Nile River was blood. Locating and studying the English translation of the papyrus by Alan Gardiner, he was struck by the fact that the papyrus seemed to be a description of a great natural disaster. To Velikovsky, however, it appeared to be more than that. He believed he had found an Egyptian version of the plagues described by Moses in the Old Testament Book of Exodus.

"All the waters that were in the river were turned to blood," Moses had written.  "The river is blood," Ipuwer concurred.

Moses wrote that "the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field."  Ipuwer lamented, "Trees are destroyed" and "No fruit nor herbs are found..."

Finally, Moses wrote that "there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt."  As Ipuwer succinctly put it, "The land is not light."

        Verses common to both sources told of Egyptians searching frantically for water, the death (or loss) of fish and grain, massive destruction of trees and crops, plague upon the cattle, a great cry (or groaning) throughout the land, a consuming fire, darkness, and the escape of slaves. Moses did not specifically say that the pharaoh had perished in the Red Sea, but Ipuwer lamented the king's disappearance at the hands of poor men under circumstances that had never happened before.
"
The article this was taken out is quite extent and fascinating and you can check it out yourself googling the main title.
I hope it does ignites some doubt on you about the notion that Moses didn't exist.
See, I do love everything that involves ancient artefacts related to religion and spend some time on it while not making backgrounds for games. I will find some hieroglyphs that showed the Plagues witch I saw on some documentary and send it to you.

KhrisMUC, you're going around in circles with your issue with Misj'. Please do realize he has explained quite well what he thinks science is and religion is. Plus he does not have to keep reminding you that you don't believe in God,Jesus,etc... while you constantly do it to him. He could criticize you because you don't believe, couldn't he?
And you came back to unicorns again. Yet this thread does not discuss unicorns nor would keep it interesting if it did.
If Christians have no evidence, then atheists have temporary evidence because science will constantly destroy its rules and build another.
100 hundred years ago, most well respected scholars in medicine believed in things we can only laugh now. Yet, the arguments we are debating here were the same. Imagine a priest and a doctor sitting at a table having a smoke and a cup of tea. They are friends and they like to debate their opinions. I guess the doctor would use the same arguments you're using now, yet you claim that only Church will not develop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On theology, it not only contains a "few" valid subjects like ancient languages (yes, how easy is that?) or biblical/church history (I guess it's on the tip of your fingers, not the work of dedicated geologists and voluntaries around digging sites), but is one of the most difficult fields of study. And surprise, the work isn't finished because new evidences keep popping out of the earth.