7 of 7
7
A Metaphysics introduces himself, or just call me Kurt ~
Posted: 26 May 2011 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
Mriana - 25 May 2011 11:54 PM

Too bad he’s not around to take you up on that.  I can see people placing bets now.  LOL

Can I bet against myself? I do better one on one debate in real time. However I was kidding, I am not a professional debater’, and to make matters worse I have horrible stage fright.

That’s nice and yes, I do have a degree and more, as do probably many on this board do.  Big deal.  Were you expecting any differently? 

No not at all, It was you that seemed to be taunting me and questioning the scope of my education, I was simply answering your question. I am a fan of the book the art of war. Debate is sometimes like war. I never underestimate my debate partner, and attempt to give him a full measure of respect, even if its not reciprocal.

Am I suppose to be impressed?  I’m not trying to be insulting, but at the same time, that really does not impress me at all, in part because it sounds like a bit of arrogance coming through.  I’m sure several of us here could compete, so I’m not sure is you are trying to be impressive or what

Again it was your question. If you had not have questioned my education etc I never would have mentioned it.  What was I supposed to do? Sorry I am not a meek man (even though I am working on eliminating the cancer of pride from my personality).

So which sect of Xianity are you talking about?  Is it Calvinistic or Wesleyan?

With the respect I have always given you or tried to, I am speaking of traditional modern Christianity, not the philosophy of Christianity. As you may or may not know, there are several branches of Christianity, whose beliefs differ in detail. The one standard that is accepted by most Christians, and the sect I was speaking of is the ‘Apostles’ Creed’. I would be happy to expand on that if you wish. Now that you brought it up both Augustine (Calvin) philosophy and the philosophy of Arminius (Wesley) is interesting.

No, God is a concept created by humans, but I don’t have to use science to show that. 

I would only agree that humans wrote it but God ordained it.

I can stick strictly to religion, not even using psychology, if you please, to show that it is a human concept with no evidence of existing, except in the minds of humans.  In fact, I can show that Jesus never existed as presented in the Bible and what is written is purely literature, rewritten mythology.

These days there are almost no scholars that deny the historical Jesus existed. Christ and Christians are mentioned in not only the gospels but even secular roman documents as well as other writings. So I think you will have a very difficult time proving that the historical Jesus did not exist. If you are speaking of miracle working etc that is more difficult to prove or disprove. There was no MTV, CNN or thank God no MSNBC. I would like to point out that due to our diametrically opposed beleifs we will have to agree to disagree much. That’s ok in my book, and I unlike some of my atheist peers still respect an opposing viewpoint and the person delivering it.

I am also secure in my beliefs, or rather disbelief, more so than I ever was before.

I am happy for your temporal happiness.

rhb

 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 02:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02
RevHeadBanger - 26 May 2011 02:10 AM
Mriana - 25 May 2011 11:54 PM

Too bad he’s not around to take you up on that.  I can see people placing bets now.  LOL

Can I bet against myself? I do better one on one debate in real time. However I was kidding, I am not a professional debater’, and to make matters worse I have horrible stage fright.

Go right ahead.

Again it was your question. If you had not have questioned my education etc I never would have mentioned it.  What was I supposed to do? Sorry I am not a meek man (even though I am working on eliminating the cancer of pride from my personality).

Touche

So which sect of Xianity are you talking about?  Is it Calvinistic or Wesleyan?

With the respect I have always given you or tried to, I am speaking of traditional modern Christianity, not the philosophy of Christianity. As you may or may not know, there are several branches of Christianity, whose beliefs differ in detail. The one standard that is accepted by most Christians, and the sect I was speaking of is the ‘Apostles’ Creed’. I would be happy to expand on that if you wish. Now that you brought it up both Augustine (Calvin) philosophy and the philosophy of Arminius (Wesley) is interesting.

I know the Apostle’s Creed.  One can find it in the Common Book of Prayer.

No, God is a concept created by humans, but I don’t have to use science to show that. 

I would only agree that humans wrote it but God ordained it.

No, it was purely created and inspired by humans.

I can stick strictly to religion, not even using psychology, if you please, to show that it is a human concept with no evidence of existing, except in the minds of humans.  In fact, I can show that Jesus never existed as presented in the Bible and what is written is purely literature, rewritten mythology.

These days there are almost no scholars that deny the historical Jesus existed.

That is simply not true.  There are many scholars who deny JC ever existed.

Christ and Christians are mentioned in not only the gospels but even secular roman documents as well as other writings.

Again, that is simply not true.  Much of that is forgery and extrapolation.

So I think you will have a very difficult time proving that the historical Jesus did not exist. If you are speaking of miracle working etc that is more difficult to prove or disprove. There was no MTV, CNN or thank God no MSNBC. I would like to point out that due to our diametrically opposed beleifs we will have to agree to disagree much. That’s ok in my book, and I unlike some of my atheist peers still respect an opposing viewpoint and the person delivering it.

No I would not be, because Jesus never did exist and there are plenty of scholars who state that.  There is so much forgery and extrapolation and the time lines of the authors are not conducive to actually talking about a historical Jesus.  On top of it, very little in the Bible is historical.  It is no more historical than John Jakes North and South.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 05:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4836
Joined  2007-10-05

If you two had read this post, which preceded your argument, you could have saved a lot of time.

Piltdown Man shows the strength of science, not its weakness.

Oh, and RHB, I’m still waiting for you over on the KCA thread.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  971
Joined  2005-01-14

Sorry I came in late on this.  First of all welcome.  I can see from following this topic that there have been ups and downs.  I just hope the ups win out in the end.  One observation though, or question maybe…

RevHeadBanger - 25 May 2011 05:56 AM

Evidence; 1.  sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

It seems to me that what you’re leaving out here is the fact that “something” is generally taken to be tangible, at least that’s the way most of us see it.  Evidence is something you can see or observe, or more to the point, something you can show another person, to get them to see your point.  Of course, the way they interpret or explain that tangible evidence is something else.  You mentioned the KCA as “evidence”, for example.  The KCA is an argument, a logical construction, not something tangible you can show somebody.  Does that mean you consider feelings or intuition to be “evidence” as well?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
advocatus - 26 May 2011 07:28 AM

Sorry I came in late on this.  First of all welcome.  I can see from following this topic that there have been ups and downs.  I just hope the ups win out in the end.  One observation though, or question maybe…

RevHeadBanger - 25 May 2011 05:56 AM

Evidence; 1.  sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

It seems to me that what you’re leaving out here is the fact that “something” is generally taken to be tangible, at least that’s the way most of us see it.  Evidence is something you can see or observe, or more to the point, something you can show another person, to get them to see your point.  Of course, the way they interpret or explain that tangible evidence is something else.  You mentioned the KCA as “evidence”, for example.  The KCA is an argument, a logical construction, not something tangible you can show somebody.  Does that mean you consider feelings or intuition to be “evidence” as well?

Right. I would add to this that I would even willing to go with something intangible if it were repeatedly shown to have an effect. E.g., if prayer had any statistical significance on reality. Of course this intangible thing must be subject to testing and repeatability. Otherwise, this intangible thing is just like the way-too-many ghost and paranormal hunting shows wasting bandwidth.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
traveler - 26 May 2011 07:50 AM

[...] E.g., if prayer had any statistical significance on reality.

It does. It makes things worse.  cheese

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
George - 26 May 2011 10:17 AM
traveler - 26 May 2011 07:50 AM

[...] E.g., if prayer had any statistical significance on reality.

It does. It makes things worse.  cheese

I just read the original papers of the first two studies (the third one is not freely available). The first one from 1988 (Southern Medical Journal) by Dr. Byrd admits that the study is flawed in that it is not possible to know who, outside of the study, is praying for the control group. It may be that Muslim prayers were more beneficial than the Judeo-Christian prayers or that no prayer mattered at all. He also admits that there were too many variables and their was no stat sig until he reassigned a ‘severity code’ and used multivariate analysis. The sample is also biased in the sense that patients had to consent to the study - they were ‘prayer receptive’. In this study, the staff and patients were aware of the purpose of the study.

In the 1999 study, the first names of patients were given to a team of outside intercessors. It doesn’t mention whether the control group contained patients with the same names.Under the outcomes section of the paper, it is stated apologetically, “There were 2 patients in the prayer group whose hospital stays were approximately twice as long (137 and 161 days) as those of any other patient in the study. Without these 2 patients, length of hospital stay for the prayer group dropped from 6.48 ± 0.54 days to 5.84 ± 0.31 days.” The IRB for this study did not require consent, so the patients and staff were unaware of the study. This means that no additional data were collected for these patients. Such data might have shown strong differences between groups. The study concludes “All we have observed is that when individuals outside of the hospital speak (or think) the first names of hospitalized patients with an attitude of prayer, the latter appeared to have a “better” CCU experience. Although our findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only 1 out of 25 times that such an experiment was conducted, chance still remains a possible explanation of our results.” At any rate, the only things they found stat sig were length of stay and duration of fever.

It’s funny (not ha-ha funny) that the website criticizes the 2006 American Heart Journal study - the study that shows a worsening of prayed-over patients. They say that study was flawed because the people praying had to use a prepared prayer.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6092
Joined  2009-02-26
RevHeadBanger - 25 May 2011 06:34 PM

Mriana, here is a cut and paste describing the piltdown hoax. Its one of the nicer sites and its secular in nature, for you. As I said I use Piltdown as a standard so I do not have to argue if or if not the piltdown man was a real hoax. Its undeniable and I do not use it, at least not here, to instigate but rather to demonstrate why I personally don’t use science as the main authority to construct a reality model. We all have one eh?

The Piltdown Hoax
This is probably one of the most famous science frauds of all time, which persisted for many years. A fossilized skull, apparently of the ‘missing link’ between apes and humans, was discovered in a quarry in Piltdown, Sussex, England. The find was taken to a distinguished paleontologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, head of the Geological Department at the British Museum.

He declared the find authentic, but almost straight away, questions were asked, and it gradually came to light that it was made up from bones of at least 3 hominid species, including the jawbone of an Orangutan with filed down teeth. Poor Woodward was the victim in this fraud, and his otherwise notable career became forgotten, his name forever linked with the fraud.The perpetrators remain unknown, although the discoverer, Charles Dawson is suspected as an attempt to find fame and fortune.

Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/science-fraud.html#ixzz1NPy3fKqb

rhb

Yes, a clear case where science won over “belief”.  First there is belief, then there is science to test that belief. When science proves the belief false, it is discarded as an “unbelievable” assertion.

So is the case with Theism (and religion in particular). There is “belief, but science has proven this belief to be false in many areas and concepts. But theologist persist in “believing” in God as described in the Bible (the spiritual Piltdown man).
far

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 7
7
 
‹‹ new here      newbie Gordon ››