Summer means no religion or politics?

[Jim Reed]

Heh, my knowledge comes from my expirience. Btw, a man who can walk on water could probably fly, too.
Bet? If all I had were 20 euros, I'd bet 17.

Hey, Kris, could you lift me up over Allianz Arena if you have time, there's a man there playing for Bayern who allmost qualifies as omnipresent =D Would you like to guess his name?

No seriously, I don't think that I could make you believe that a man can walk on water or fly, so I'll drop it here. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true or a very hard thing to do.

Cheers!

[Nacho]

Honestly, do you think that the circumstances of how the story was witnessed, told, written and changed through the centuries makes is believerable?

EDIT: I've thought a better way to question it: "Do you think the story has the necessary guarantees to be considered believerable?"

My answer is NO. Yours, if you are a sensible guy should be no as well... Remember, I am no asking if you think it happened... I am just asking about if you consider is has the necessary circumstances to be believed.

Does that mean that I can say it didn't happen, or that I have an evidence that it didn't happen? No...

Of course I can't deny 100% that fairies, dragons and elves existed, or show evidences that they did not exist. You can't either.

But that's not how the world goes... Exceptional statements need exceptional evidences to be taken seriously. If a man comes to me saying "We went to moon" I wouldn't trust him. After seeing moon rocks, dozen of pics and hearing hundreds of witnesses of the launchings I would admitt it happened. Where are your evidences? What makes your believe undistinguishable from that bunch of nerds that honestly believe that Star Wars are real? (To clarify: Those nerds exist. Star Wars is a real, official religion in England)

My point... why should I respect your beliefs when you (Believers of "God") are the less respectfull (about beliefs, I mean) community ever?

[guitar_hero]

In the very first chapter of the bible, God creates all the animals, then man and woman (at the same time, it seems).
In the next chapter, he creates man, then a woman out of his rib, then all the animals.
So in what order did it actually happen? And why did at least one account get the order wrong? We're talking about the inspired word of god here, describing how the universe came into existence, right?

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to be able to deliver a satisfying answer here; I'm merely curious how you're gonna weasel out of this one and I'm going to base my decision whether discussing with you is worth my time on that.

That sounds so arrogant! Maybe I'll get back on that later but I don't really have the time now. In the meanwhile this psot might give at least some thoughts on the third of your questions.

@Guitar_hero,
I'm interested to know what you think of Jim's faith healing and other beliefs that he's laid out here.  Are you in agreement?

As I stated before, a totally naturalistic/materialistic worldview does not do juctice the reality we live in. Such phenomenon as mysterious healing exists in many cultures all over the earth. Just because we don't have scientific proof of it (and this something we can never have) that doesn't mean it's not real. Concerning Jim - how should I know? But I keep thinkig: a license??

@Guitar's statement: "Wrong axioms take to wrong conclussions". Okay... I was trying to find an evidence of the existence of God... I thought that maybe a God inspired book, flawless, could be a good evidence. I think we agree here Bible is not that.

Yes, we agree. But the Bible tells of a god who leaves all his glory and power behind to become a helpless human baby. Jesus had never any big success, he spent his time with poor, unimportant and sinful people and finally, despised by his people and abandoned by his friends suffered the death penalty like a criminal. That's the God of the Bible, that's how the allmighty creator of the universe shows himself to humanity. I think this imperfect, despised book does fit him very well.

So, what do we do? Go on looking for evidences? [...] Some of them tell me that there is no need to look at the things around bike to believe in God... The way He makes them feel, how joyfull they are when then think on Him is proof enough.

My reply: "The same way Aria Giovanni makes me feel".

I think what you're saying about feelings is right. If not God himself proves his existence to you (on a relational level, not a scientific one) you can never be sure. And that leaves us with absolutely nothing: No proof, no evidence.

[Jim Reed]

@Jim's statement: "You don' t need to believe in Bible to believe in God"

That's a false statement, I never said that you don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God. I did say that you don't have to know about the bible to believe in God.

Edit: guitar_hero: licence? I didn't realise I needed it before it was told to me.

But I suspect that you can't be authorised to do theese kind of things without the approval of the church, which was founded by Jesus, making st. Peter the first pope.

[Matti]

@Jim's statement: "You don' t need to believe in Bible to believe in God"

That's a false statement, I never said that you don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God. I did say that you don't have to know about the bible to believe in God.

And how can one believe in the bible without knowing it?

[Jim Reed]

The ten commandments, being good to other people, all men are like brothers and sisters etc. are things that you can discover for yourself, without ever realising that they were writen in a book.

[Misj']

Misj':
I'm still curious by the way why you're almost exclusively attacking the rationalist/scientific viewpoint.

I talk of things that I know and understand (and I happen to know and understand science). And I'm not attacking either side (nor do I believe that your side is - by definition - the rational side while the other side isn't (I believe that the literalist's side can be defended by reason and logic just as much as the atheistic side can)).

Would you mind stating what your religious convictions are? Everybody else did, iirc.

Yes.

Because my convictions (or lack thereof) shouldn't matter. Either my reasoning is valid or it is not...that is the rational route. So why does it matter?

So why am I (as you call it) attacking  the scientific viewpoint? - I am not. I am not attacking science, nor am I attacking rationality. I have pointed out a number of misconceptions of science common to those who aren't part of it (and promoted by some 'who want to sell you something' and I pointed out that depending on one's mindset something that might seem irrational to one person can be rationally explained by another.


Real actual studied scientists say: "Does it all really matter?"

[Nacho]

Guitar hero: Thanks. God does not give proof of his existence. Same as the Almighty Universal Unicorn...

That's why YOU, believers, YOU, who feel so attacked when somebody questions your faith, should apply that think Jesus said ("Do to the others what you want the others do to you") and accept that "God" is not the only answer. For me, the answer is the Almighty Universal Unicorn... If you don't accept my Faith, I will feel legitimated for not accepting yours.

[guitar_hero]

The ten commandments, being good to other people, all men are like brothers and sisters etc. are things that you can discover for yourself, without ever realising that they were writen in a book.

I'm sorry, nice thoughts but not the essence of neither christian faith nor the bible.

Guitar hero: Thanks. God does not give proof of his existence. Same as the Almighty Universal Unicorn...

That's why YOU, believers, YOU, who feel so attacked when somebody questions your faith, should apply that think Jesus said ("Do to the others what you want the others do to you") and accept that "God" is not the only answer. For me, the answer is the Almighty Universal Unicorn... If you don't accept my Faith, I will feel legitimated for not accepting yours.

"I don't accept your faith if you don't accept mine!" - how stupid is that! If you really believe that accepting one anothers faith is right you should just live by that - even if others don't accept yours.
But of course you're free to believe whatever you want. At what point did you have the feeling that your personal faith was "attacked"? And why do I get the feeling that you don't even believe in unicorns either?
I think we all know that there are many answers. Sometimes it helps to find the right questions before seeking an answer.

We're still talking about scientific proof, right? Why is that even important? There's no such proof for love either.

[Akatosh]

If you're talking about the emotion commonly known as "love", you're flat-out wrong. It can be observed both in field and in experiment. It might even be measurable, but I don't know enough about neuroscience to give an accurate answer to that question.

And scientific proof is important, because proof (or sufficient evidence) as defined by the scientific method is true beyond a reasonable doubt ("so that it would be perverse not to adopt the position")  and regardless of observer bias.

[Khris]

That sounds so arrogant! Maybe I'll get back on that later but I don't really have the time now. In the meanwhile this psot might give at least some thoughts on the third of your questions.

I know how it sounds, but at this point I don't really care any longer. Your world-view is inherently flawed, and I'm pretty sure, deep down, you know that.
It's pretty funny btw that you actually used the "I don't really have the time now" cop-out. Even lamer than I expected, to be honest.
Still waiting.

As I stated before, a totally naturalistic/materialistic worldview does not do juctice the reality we live in.

Can you provide evidence that there's more to reality than matter and energy? Or is this just your belief?

Such phenomenon as mysterious healing exists in many cultures all over the earth. Just because we don't have scientific proof of it (and this something we can never have) that doesn't mean it's not real.

Is there another form of proof -as opposed to scientific proof- to back up this extraordinary claim? Or do we again have to take this on faith?

And if I told you that I believe in an invisible naked midget who's living on my balcony, would you treat that belief with the same respect you demand for yours? And why not?

Misj':
So you're saying you don't argue against the kooks because you don't know or understand the concepts of creationism/biblical literalism/prayer healing?
And how on earth would you go about defending the literalist's side "by reason and logic"? The bible does make many unambiguous statements, and more than once, two of them are mutually exclusive, i.e. they simply can't both be true. So the notion that all the bible's statements are true is simply wrong from the start.

We're still talking about scientific proof, right? Why is that even important? There's no such proof for love either.

Proof for love? Always the same ol', same ol'. Love is the name for an emotion, so I guess what you mean by "proof for love" is "proof that X loves Y". (To cite the movie Contact: "Do you love your father?" "Yes" "Can you prove it?")
It's a bullshit argument and I'll tell you why:
Regardless of what I offered you as proof that I love person X, you could always dismiss it as not convincing.
If, on the other hand, you were to, say, pray to your god for hitting a tree with lightning and it happened, three times in a row, I'd readily accept it as proof and convert on the spot.

[Khris]

No seriously, I don't think that I could make you believe that a man can walk on water or fly, so I'll drop it here. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true or a very hard thing to do.

Well, how about filming somebody who can and uploading it to youtube? How long would it take you to find somebody who can? It's not a very hard thing to do so I guess there are plenty of people around who'd gladly demonstrate their powers, right?
I'm sure Randi would happily give them the million dollars, too.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU COULD MAKE US ALL BELIEVE YOU ON THE SPOT!

[Jim Reed]

It's a hard thing to do Kris, meaning not many people know how to do it. So why would I go around the world with a camera looking for one who does? To convince you that it can be done? That's why said that I think I couldn't make you believe me in this matter, and that I will drop it. I think that spending a lot of time to track one who can do it is a price I choose not to pay to convince you of the matter. So I'll drop it.

Guitar hero: what is the essence of the bible? And EDIT:- christian faith- while your at it, please.

[Khris]

Quote #1: "But that doesn't mean that it isn't [...] a very hard thing to do."
Quote #2: "It's a hard thing to do".
You're making this all up as you go along, right?

I guess it was naive of me to think that you believe people can fly or walk on water because you saw someone do it.
Is there a limit to the stuff you believe without evidence? If there is, where is it?

[Vince Twelve]

Khris, his statements are consistent.  (with each other, I won't speak to their consistency with the real world.)  I think you missed the double negative.

Now, everybody shh, and let Jim and Guitar figure out what Christianity is.

Guitar hero: what is the essence of the bible? And christianity while your at it, please.

Please continue... 

[Jim Reed]

Yeah, Kris, you've missed the double negative edit: or whatever it's called, a honest mistake, on your part, I hope.

Edit: btw, Akatosh, love can be measured without any background in neurology or whatever it's called.

As, I believe, to love someone is to put his wellbeing before yours, so if for example John loves Mary and takes a bullet for her or some similar situation where he can choose between her or his life, and gives his own to save hers, you can truthfully say that he loved here more than himself.

Or if he would give her a kidney but not 30000 dollars/euros etc., you can say that he loves her more than his kidney and less than the above mentioned amount.

It can be measured, in a way. =D

[Matti]

There was no double negative, Jim, though Vince thought so and accidently helped you out here..

"But that doesn't mean that it isn't true or a very hard thing to do." only makes sense (with regard to the previous sentence) when it can be split in those two sentences:

1. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.
2. But that doesn't mean that it is a very hard thing to do.

Khris just set the brackets wrong. It should be: "But that doesn't mean that it is (n't true or) a very hard thing to do."

Just my two cents  

[Jim Reed]

Sorry people, the finer points of English semantics sometimes elude me. English is not my native language.

It is a hard thing to do.

It is true that some men/women can walk on water and/or fly.

Is it clear now?

[Vince Twelve]

Ah, I didn't read the original post.  Thanks for the correction, Mr. Matti!  Though I believe Jim on this one.  He meant it is hard to do.  (Though I obviously don't agree that someone out there can do it.  It's a well known fact that only unicorns can fly.)

[Khris]

It's like Mr Matti said, but I too believe Jim.

So, Jim, how do you figure it is true that some men can fly?