7 of 7
7
Religion doesn’t hurt anything . . .
Posted: 30 January 2014 05:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Rodin, there’s no other reason for you to believe it. No known facts support it and far beyond that, it makes no sense. Taken literally, biblical theology is preposterous. It doesn’t even make a good fairy tale, and its values taken as a whole are atrocious.

When you cite McDowell, the response you’ll get from people here will consist mainly of rolling eyes, though you may not see them roll. An old high school friend sent me his Evidence That Demands a Verdict in 2001. Because she was a good friend with a kind heart, I took the time to read it. My review, dated July 4, 2001, is still on Amazon. You can narrow your search by limiting it to the one-star reviews. Intellectually, the book is trash, and the reasons for that are (1) McDowell is practicing apologetics and (2) even within that field, he’s not very good at it: he’s trying to justify a conclusion, instead of looking at the evidence and reasoning through to the most reasonable conclusion. The method is completely backward, and of all the people who’ve ever done apologetics, McDowell is not someone to cite to anyone with a decent education or any substantial intelligence.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2014 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2007-08-27

Sorry I put this response on the bottom of another port.  Here it is:


Godless people and morality.  F. Dostoyevsky said “without God all is permissible”  What do you think he meant?  Can there be a moral standard without God?  Onto…

Josh McDowell in “More than a Carpenter”  has in chapter4 called What about Science?  gives a clear example of the fallacious inconsistent application of the scientific method that this forum is rife with ...in my opinion.  I’ll leave it as a study for others to look up scientific method based proofs vs Josh’s legal-historical type proof.  This is the sort of proof that is used in legal proceedings.

He says “if the scientific method were the only method we had for proving facts, you couldn’t prove that you watched television last night or that you had lunch today.There’s no way you could repeat (and its only good for repeatable things) those events in a controlled situation.

The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.  We reach a verdict on the weight of the evidence (oral, written testimony and exhibits) and have no RATIONAL (logically sane) basis for doubting the decision.  With this method to determine the facts you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had lunch today. Your friends , the waiter and a receipt prove this.  SO…Jesus my friend, the Apostles-His servants and my brothers/sisters in Christ and the Bible and a boat load of history.

Get it?  It’s used every day around the world and has been for millennia and with the exception of corruption because we are dealing with people,  it is very reliable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2014 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Well, there’s ten minutes I won’t be getting back.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2014 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry, PLaClair, but I can’t help degrading the level of discussion here. smile

I don’t know, George, I’m quite certain that if I were to become Jewish it would really smart.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2014 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  756
Joined  2012-04-25

Why do you guys bother with folks like rodin46? Every once and awhile these so called believers swoop in, make themselves feel good by apparently defending their faith, then swoop out all self-satisfied. I doubt Jesus would put up with such behavior. It’s downright unbecoming.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2014 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  623
Joined  2013-06-01

It can be entertaining, example, just watch one of them get disrespectful to Lausten, who has probably forgotten more about the bible than these guys will ever know. Lausten will clobber them with knowledge. Rodin46 has not been disrespectful yet, but I think he is on thin ice pushing the belief system and not sticking to a subject.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2014 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
rodin46 - 30 January 2014 12:07 PM

Godless people and morality.  F. Dostoyevsky said “without God all is permissible”  What do you think he meant?  Can there be a moral standard without God?  Ont

Hi Rodin
Nice to be chatting with you again. smile

I was curious though, how can you logically decide if something is moral or not.
Now granted, morality is subjective so it may not always be enough to prove a faith wrong.
However, since it is subjective, why is a particular religious ruling necessarily more moral than a secular one?
Taken this example:
The death penalty and other punishments are sometimes controversial for various reasons.
This is why China and other countires are sometimes put under some pressure to change their laws
(putting aside the fact that many of those people who criticise hve never picked up a criminology book in thier life.)

Who gets to decide if one ruling is more moral than the other?

 

rodin46 - 30 January 2014 12:07 PM

 


Josh McDowell in “More than a Carpenter”  has in chapter4 called What about Science?  gives a clear example of the fallacious inconsistent application of the scientific method that this forum is rife with ...in my opinion.  I’ll leave it as a study for others to look up scientific method based proofs vs Josh’s legal-historical type proof.  This is the sort of proof that is used in legal proceedings.

Why do we even hae to go there? Chrisitianity, like most religious traditions, doesn’t have major issues with scientific procedure:

The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought…
the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule…
but while Brooke’s view [religion and science relationship is complex] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind

      Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
      page ix


http://books.google.ae/books?id=weOOCfiDhDcC&pg=PR9&dq=The+result+is+the+growing+recognition+among+historians+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIWoUsrGMoKF4ASyt4D4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The result is the growing recognition among historians of science&f=false

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 7
7