DeletedUser
I don't think Hellstrom thinks of his views as "beliefs".
At least I don't. I know it is that way, I don't "believe" it. There's no need for it, since there is evidence. And if there is evidence, you need to accept it.
- Status
I don't think Hellstrom thinks of his views as "beliefs".
At least I don't. I know it is that way, I don't "believe" it. There's no need for it, since there is evidence. And if there is evidence, you need to accept it.
DeletedUser10480
Epistemology 101. Are you ready, classmates?
You believe everything you know.
You may believe things that are not knowledge.
You believe everything you know.
You may believe things that are not knowledge.
DeletedUser10480
You can't claim to be right about something BECAUSE you believe it. Belief isn't a causative or sufficient element for knowledge. If it were such a thing then all 1,000 religions (or 5,000 or whatever) that contradicted your particular religion would also be true.
There's really only one law of logic. The law of Non-Contradiction. You can not contradict yourself. You can not believe 2 opposite views at the same time.
Any time you attempt to do so you have abandoned reason and all the pitter patter words you type on a keyboard are just smokescreens for nonsense.
DeletedUser
no, how does the Bible contradict itself, it says you must have faith, but with faith you must also have works, how is that contradictory?
And i do believe based on evident demonstration,
something that you haven't physically seen, but saying that's how it happend (evolution/creation) is a belief.
You guys believe the universe was made by some particle, but you've never seen it. Do you know what the word that fits that definition is? Faith
You guys think faith is a blind way of believing, actually faith is based on things seen.
And actually, no evidence points to the Higgs particle, yet you follow it blindly, as you say i follow the bible blindly.
You say evidence doesn't point to the Bible, which it does, but then you have no hard evidence of your evolutionary/higgs particle/primordial soup theories.
And i do believe based on evident demonstration,
something that you haven't physically seen, but saying that's how it happend (evolution/creation) is a belief.
You guys believe the universe was made by some particle, but you've never seen it. Do you know what the word that fits that definition is? Faith
You guys think faith is a blind way of believing, actually faith is based on things seen.
And actually, no evidence points to the Higgs particle, yet you follow it blindly, as you say i follow the bible blindly.
You say evidence doesn't point to the Bible, which it does, but then you have no hard evidence of your evolutionary/higgs particle/primordial soup theories.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser10480
DeletedUser
Since you use the word evidence so much in your last post Dirty Laundry.
I will ask you to provide "evidence" of how the books of Genesis and Exodus contradict themselves. I have studied them extensively from the Hebrew manuscripts and it does not have any contradiction.
The contradiction I am assuming you are speaking of are particular views shared by others that are so called teachers that have no clue what the original manuscripts teach.
Please provide the verses of the contradictions you have found and I will provide information to you that they do not.
I will ask you to provide "evidence" of how the books of Genesis and Exodus contradict themselves. I have studied them extensively from the Hebrew manuscripts and it does not have any contradiction.
The contradiction I am assuming you are speaking of are particular views shared by others that are so called teachers that have no clue what the original manuscripts teach.
Please provide the verses of the contradictions you have found and I will provide information to you that they do not.
DeletedUser10480
Sure! There are 2 varying creation stories in the Pentateuch. They are entirely different. They vary by the number of days the world was created in and in what order. They differ on what days the fishes, beasts, etc were created.
But it is really not important is it? I mean, you don't mean to tell me you believe the earth, stars, elements etc etc were created in 7 days or something like that do you?
To paraphrase an interesting encounter with renowned philosopher Bertrand Russel at a lecture where a woman stood up and said, "How do you know where the world came from? The earth stands on the back of a turtle!"
"What's the turtle standing on, Madam?"
She replied indignantly, "Sonny, it is turtles ALL the way down."
DeletedUser
I guess your not going to provide any real evidence.
The Pentateuch is the first 5 books of the Bible , you only mention the first 2 of them. You still gave no indication on the location of these so I could refresh my memory of them. I don't make a habit of assuming what others are talking about then replying.
If you don't feel providing the information on your rebuttals is important , then why are you even in this thread in the first place.
7 days as we know them are not the length of time that are mentioned in the Bible.
2 Peter 3:8 for the location in the Bible. Day with the Lord = 1000 years with man.
Your not doing a great job proving otherwise so far.
As for the renowned philosopher , never heard of them. The encounter is not interesting at all.
The Pentateuch is the first 5 books of the Bible , you only mention the first 2 of them. You still gave no indication on the location of these so I could refresh my memory of them. I don't make a habit of assuming what others are talking about then replying.
If you don't feel providing the information on your rebuttals is important , then why are you even in this thread in the first place.
7 days as we know them are not the length of time that are mentioned in the Bible.
2 Peter 3:8 for the location in the Bible. Day with the Lord = 1000 years with man.
Your not doing a great job proving otherwise so far.
As for the renowned philosopher , never heard of them. The encounter is not interesting at all.
DeletedUser10480
You're the one making a claim. I'm not even sure WHAT you are claiming.
What do you provide evidence for in order to substantiate your claim?
Whacha' talkin' 'bout, Willis?
What do you provide evidence for in order to substantiate your claim?
Whacha' talkin' 'bout, Willis?
DeletedUser
Again I quote myself ,
Again ,
Fail on the redirect there Dirty , you made the initial claim , I only asked for information on where you came to your opinion in the Bible as you claimed from the first 2 Books. The only thing you contributed was a silly 2nd hand story of turtles holding up the earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
As to "details" raised by brother Blondie14, we could be particular with details, but still as much as I believe in, there's no need to raise any point of debate as to language used - how can another country who don't speak Greek understand Greek? Let's put the scenario where the original manuscripts where written in a different language, Engilsh, for example..then when the word cross is used, would you say to the Greeks that using stauros for cross is a probable error?
Naturally, there is a need for translation of language on the part of non-Greeks, without changing the contents.. if such is not the point you were raising, then I submit my apology for my wrong understanding..
As to the point about knowledge, and understanding; which may lead to another evolution-creation debate..this has been touched in numerous discussions in this same thread in the past. And I would reiterate that such debate may continue for decades, yet it will still remain an unresolved issue..
However, no offense ..evolution is still a theory, and not a fact for certain gaps and missing link/s; and for believers, where knowledge and logical reasons end, that is where Faith begins, I may say I'm speaking for my own..
*******
11TH OF MARCH, 2010
Gospel for today:
Luke 11:14-23 Jesus and Beelzebub
Food for thought:
God’s whisper of comfort quiets the noise of our trials.
.
Naturally, there is a need for translation of language on the part of non-Greeks, without changing the contents.. if such is not the point you were raising, then I submit my apology for my wrong understanding..
As to the point about knowledge, and understanding; which may lead to another evolution-creation debate..this has been touched in numerous discussions in this same thread in the past. And I would reiterate that such debate may continue for decades, yet it will still remain an unresolved issue..
However, no offense ..evolution is still a theory, and not a fact for certain gaps and missing link/s; and for believers, where knowledge and logical reasons end, that is where Faith begins, I may say I'm speaking for my own..
*******
11TH OF MARCH, 2010
Gospel for today:
Luke 11:14-23 Jesus and Beelzebub
Food for thought:
God’s whisper of comfort quiets the noise of our trials.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Well, in my case, we have reached an impass, i like your attitude Lord3angle, i just wish the suckers known as atheists would keep their fat heads out of the false stories or at least leave us be.
And dirty laundry, you say the Bible has contratictions, well, i haven't seen you give one example except the creative days, which is a simple fascet.
Like dubb said, the bible says 1,000 years are as a day to God. Time is of no consequence to an eternal being. And "day" can refer to any given amount of time.
example: well, back in my father's day.
that could be a few decades or a few years. It is simply a way to explain it so that we can understand.
Besides, it would have to be more than 24 hour days, because it said that God said let there be light, and he then created the stars and the sun. then later it said that God made the light shine upon the earth, thus showing that it took time for the light from those stars' light to reach the Earth, which would take in some cases 100,000 years.
So how about an actual plausible example of "contradiction"?
And dirty laundry, you say the Bible has contratictions, well, i haven't seen you give one example except the creative days, which is a simple fascet.
Like dubb said, the bible says 1,000 years are as a day to God. Time is of no consequence to an eternal being. And "day" can refer to any given amount of time.
example: well, back in my father's day.
that could be a few decades or a few years. It is simply a way to explain it so that we can understand.
Besides, it would have to be more than 24 hour days, because it said that God said let there be light, and he then created the stars and the sun. then later it said that God made the light shine upon the earth, thus showing that it took time for the light from those stars' light to reach the Earth, which would take in some cases 100,000 years.
So how about an actual plausible example of "contradiction"?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
When Christ was tempted in the wilderness he was tempted by Satan with scripture. However he twisted it just enough to make it a lie. Christ corrected him of course and his temptation failed.
People that are against Christians these days do the same thing , however they usually know nothing of the scriptures they just make false claims.
So of course the same method continues to this day.
Why would you think they would leave you alone? You were given gospel armor to fight with. I may not agree with some of your views and opinions but seems to me you should give back the armor if your scared of a fight.
DeletedUser
A link to someone else's webpage is not what myself or Blondie asked for. We asked that of Dirty Laundry and his own opinions and where and why he came to the conclusion.
Even Jim Merrit says above on the webpage you provided , which is what I was asking of Dirty Laundry. Providing me with the contradictions he came across from his own intelligence.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Ive given all of my evidence, then they go back and ask the same question, frankly, it's irritating to have to repeat yourself fifteen times to the same people.
DeletedUser
Wow, wrong on so many levels there Blondie.
Now, I'll have to argue with DL for a second, in that I do not like to associate the word, "belief" to both evidence-based and faith-based. That which is faith-based is a baseless belief, in that it has no substantiating evidence, none, nada, nipso. That which are evidence-based are not really beliefs, as they are evidential, viewable, measurable, repeatable. The belief on evidence-based comes from those who are not educated on the evidence, and merely take the word of those who are educated, who have evidenced the information. But, and here's the crux of the argument, there IS evidence. The same cannot be said for religions.
And just to clarify, it is not that I disagree with the epistemological viewpoint on the definition of belief, it's that many wannabe theologians have adopted that expansive definition to try and say one is "the same" as the other, when they clearly are not. I refuse to cater to this misrepresentation, and thus do not accept the epistemological definition when debating religion, as it becomes a foolish argument on definition and thus a distraction from the base arguments, a red herring.
It's a hypothetical particle. Nobody believes it. There is substantial evidence to suggest it may exist, but the present endeavor is to find out if it does or does not exist, which is one of the many goals associated with the Large Hadron Collider project (LHC).
None, nada, nipso.
A scientific hypothesis differs from a scientific theory. They are not the same. We could discuss this in the Debate & Discussion section if you want, but it's another red herring so I don't want to continue discussing it here, I merely want to correct you on your casual transposition of hypothesis with theory.
As to believe, nope. Hypotheses are speculative, but ultimately testable, and it is in this that scientists set goals to evidence. It is in a hypothesis that a scientist attempts to find a means to test it, determine if it is valid or invalid. That's not belief. Belief comes when people ignorant on a subject, and who don't bother to do their homework, take for granted the words of other people ignorant on a subject. As in this case, where you believe the higgs particle hypothesis, evolutionary fact/theory, and Oparin-Haldine hypotheses are beliefs. Simply stated, you're wrong.
How about contradictions and incorrect/inaccurate statements (including two about the Earth's shape -- remember that claim you made earlier Blondie?)
That's what's available to review on that link Elmyr provided, with over 70 contradictions, most of which are glaringly obvious.
Now let's see you refute these, all of these, each and every contradiction, contextual error, and presented falsity. Let's see you do some homework for a change, both of you.
Now, I'll have to argue with DL for a second, in that I do not like to associate the word, "belief" to both evidence-based and faith-based. That which is faith-based is a baseless belief, in that it has no substantiating evidence, none, nada, nipso. That which are evidence-based are not really beliefs, as they are evidential, viewable, measurable, repeatable. The belief on evidence-based comes from those who are not educated on the evidence, and merely take the word of those who are educated, who have evidenced the information. But, and here's the crux of the argument, there IS evidence. The same cannot be said for religions.
And just to clarify, it is not that I disagree with the epistemological viewpoint on the definition of belief, it's that many wannabe theologians have adopted that expansive definition to try and say one is "the same" as the other, when they clearly are not. I refuse to cater to this misrepresentation, and thus do not accept the epistemological definition when debating religion, as it becomes a foolish argument on definition and thus a distraction from the base arguments, a red herring.
As DL posed, WHAT evidence?
I have seen the evidence, as have so many others, and there is plenty of evidence readily available on the net, in research facilities, in universities, at museums, etc and so on. As to the belief argument, I addressed that earlier in this post (red herring). But, I would like to add, God/religion, is belief-based and without any evidence whatsoever. Science, physics, geology, biology, and so on are fact-based and with a plethora of tangible evidence. The two are absolutely nothing alike. Your belief argument is baseless and, as previously indicated, a red herring.
And there's part of that wrong I mentioned earlier. You do not know what the Higgs Particle is, and despite my writing about it in a different thread (which you have conveniently forgotten about, but which I provide a link ---> here <---), you bring it up here with this "belief" argument, when not only are you wrong on your definition of it, but you're wrong on thinking anyone believes it.
It's a hypothetical particle. Nobody believes it. There is substantial evidence to suggest it may exist, but the present endeavor is to find out if it does or does not exist, which is one of the many goals associated with the Large Hadron Collider project (LHC).
Seen by whom? Primitive men in togas over 2,000 years ago. And did they truly see? You don't know that, you just have "faith" in these men, faith not in God (of which you have no evidence even exists), but in the word of men (which you take as Gospel). You believe in what these men say happened, with no evidence whatsoever to substantiate their stories.
None, nada, nipso.
And again you're wrong. The process of evolution is both fact and theory, and the amount of hard evidence is immense. The Higgs particle, a hypothesis, I already addressed here and in the other thread, yet you continue to cast blinders. The Oparin-Haldine hypotheses (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as primordial soup theories) based on evidence, as is the higgs particle, but a clarification needs to be made, because you are either intentionally, or ignorantly, defining hypotheses as theories.
A scientific hypothesis differs from a scientific theory. They are not the same. We could discuss this in the Debate & Discussion section if you want, but it's another red herring so I don't want to continue discussing it here, I merely want to correct you on your casual transposition of hypothesis with theory.
As to believe, nope. Hypotheses are speculative, but ultimately testable, and it is in this that scientists set goals to evidence. It is in a hypothesis that a scientist attempts to find a means to test it, determine if it is valid or invalid. That's not belief. Belief comes when people ignorant on a subject, and who don't bother to do their homework, take for granted the words of other people ignorant on a subject. As in this case, where you believe the higgs particle hypothesis, evolutionary fact/theory, and Oparin-Haldine hypotheses are beliefs. Simply stated, you're wrong.
Oh what a cop out. The link Elmyr provided gives clear evidence of contradictions. You didn't even bother to look at any of them, and instead want to argue that you want DL's findings on contradictions.
How about contradictions and incorrect/inaccurate statements (including two about the Earth's shape -- remember that claim you made earlier Blondie?)
That's what's available to review on that link Elmyr provided, with over 70 contradictions, most of which are glaringly obvious.
Now let's see you refute these, all of these, each and every contradiction, contextual error, and presented falsity. Let's see you do some homework for a change, both of you.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Dude, use your head for something besides a hat rack
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
Actually Hellstrom , I still have the web-page open , and I have been reading it , once again your assumption about me is wrong. So don't be foolish and think you know what my habits are. I do actually read the information that is provided to me by others in this forum.
I unlike others seek out knowledge as I posted in another thread. Why would anyone not want to know what all sides of an argument are? You cant have a real educated opinion if you don't.
You seem to have misread the reason to that particular post. DL stated he knew of the particular contradictions , I called his bluff . I still have not seen a reply. You know why I won't ? Because he doesn't have a clue , he just thought he would jump on the bandwagon with the rest. He jumped into the argument and that means I cant get the information from him? Jim Merrit did not post on this forum , Dirty Laundry did.
I will say again for emphasis to you , I have been reading the web-page that Elmyr provided since I read his post. Don't assume you know what I am doing.
Apparently you think that Blondie and I hold the same opinions. I assure you we do not agree on most things.
I respect another persons opinion enough not to throw insults and zingers out in their direction. Yes Blondie does the same I know. As David quoted above.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status