Recommended Posts
RonD1120 62
Quote
If that were true, why doesn't it work?Quote
It does. You're pretty much towing the company line aren't you? The vatican is THE most wealthy private organization on the planet.
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.Quote
You got older, you got scared of death,
Yes, that is certainly true. I saw that I was dead in my sin. I reached out Jesus and experienced being born again. Then I started reading and studying the Bible. My relationship with the Lord began to grow and I began experiencing blessings. Things started happening for me instead of to me.Quote
As for me and MY house, we follow logic and reason and laugh at invisible skygods and their self deluded followers.
And so you should. It does no good whatsoever to accept a path without heart. Just remember when you have your back against the wall, you're lost, and things seem hopeless they are not.
When you get to the point where Jesus is all that you have, you will find that Jesus is all you need. File the info in the back of your mind. It will come in handy.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
billvon 3,063
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So your base for all your beliefs is faulty and contains errors even those
>most loyal to it can not explain.
I have a book that I use for power supply design. It's a great book but contains a few errors. Yet somehow I design power supplies that work.
The Bible is not perfect. Doesn't mean it's worthless.
>most loyal to it can not explain.
I have a book that I use for power supply design. It's a great book but contains a few errors. Yet somehow I design power supplies that work.
The Bible is not perfect. Doesn't mean it's worthless.
kallend 2,106
Quote>So your base for all your beliefs is faulty and contains errors even those
>most loyal to it can not explain.
I have a book that I use for power supply design. It's a great book but contains a few errors. Yet somehow I design power supplies that work.
I am quite sure you appreciate that there IS a difference.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pbwing 0
QuoteAs for me and MY house, we follow logic and reason and laugh at invisible skygods and their self deluded followers.
So what you're saying is that you're just as narrow minded and intolerant as those you look down on?
antonija 0
But I'm pretty sure you are able to explain each and every error by yourself (without any help from supernatural forces). You can write down correct form and nobody in this world will be able to prove to you that you are wrong.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
billvon 3,063
>But I'm pretty sure you are able to explain each and every error by yourself
>(without any help from supernatural forces).
Right. And I've known several theologians who have written some very insightful stuff about the Bible without any hands of God appearing to help them.
> You can write down correct form and nobody in this world will be able to prove
> to you that you are wrong.
Oh, I'd be wrong too. I know the guy who wrote the book (Marty Brown) and I am sure I would make as many mistakes as he did. In addition, some of my shorthand tricks are just different than other people's, and so they may not work for everyone. But they work for me and at least some other people.
>(without any help from supernatural forces).
Right. And I've known several theologians who have written some very insightful stuff about the Bible without any hands of God appearing to help them.
> You can write down correct form and nobody in this world will be able to prove
> to you that you are wrong.
Oh, I'd be wrong too. I know the guy who wrote the book (Marty Brown) and I am sure I would make as many mistakes as he did. In addition, some of my shorthand tricks are just different than other people's, and so they may not work for everyone. But they work for me and at least some other people.
antonija 0
So you are saying that even though you can spot those errors you can not explain them or correct them?
Also religious text are full of contradictions. Not few errors, but full of them. The mere idea of god itself is contradictory one as he can not exist in christian (and other Judaism derivatives') form. The all- (mighty, present, knowing, etc.) can not exist. Ever. That is unless someone can prove that the logic rules we use today are wrong. All we need is one example of logic being wrong and it will fall. One example of any scientific theory and it falls.
Loads of examples of religions being wrong and they still hold their ground and try to defend their position no matter how ridiculous it is.
P.S.: I never said bible is completely useless... it's just as useless as green eggs and ham or any other fictional book out there. Nothing special about it, just a book.
Also religious text are full of contradictions. Not few errors, but full of them. The mere idea of god itself is contradictory one as he can not exist in christian (and other Judaism derivatives') form. The all- (mighty, present, knowing, etc.) can not exist. Ever. That is unless someone can prove that the logic rules we use today are wrong. All we need is one example of logic being wrong and it will fall. One example of any scientific theory and it falls.
Loads of examples of religions being wrong and they still hold their ground and try to defend their position no matter how ridiculous it is.
P.S.: I never said bible is completely useless... it's just as useless as green eggs and ham or any other fictional book out there. Nothing special about it, just a book.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
billvon 3,063
>So you are saying that even though you can spot those errors you can
>not explain them or correct them?
Some I could probably spot, but being 100% correct on everything is probably beyond me, because I'm not perfect. Some I think are correct; others would disagree. I could explain why I use them, but others might see other shortcuts as more useful.
>Also religious text are full of contradictions. Not few errors, but full of them.
Yes, they are - because many of them are condensed oral histories of a people, and oral histories are notoriously unreliable.
I'll take my family as an example. Once you go back four generations it gets very misty. My grandmother thought that her grandmother was a silkworm picker named Rosina Rosario, but when my father went to Italy, there was no such Rosario in the church register where the family lived.
From that I can conclude one of two things:
1) My grandmother got the name wrong (it was probably Rosalinda or something)
or
2) I do not have a great-great-grandmother.
Which is more likely?
>not explain them or correct them?
Some I could probably spot, but being 100% correct on everything is probably beyond me, because I'm not perfect. Some I think are correct; others would disagree. I could explain why I use them, but others might see other shortcuts as more useful.
>Also religious text are full of contradictions. Not few errors, but full of them.
Yes, they are - because many of them are condensed oral histories of a people, and oral histories are notoriously unreliable.
I'll take my family as an example. Once you go back four generations it gets very misty. My grandmother thought that her grandmother was a silkworm picker named Rosina Rosario, but when my father went to Italy, there was no such Rosario in the church register where the family lived.
From that I can conclude one of two things:
1) My grandmother got the name wrong (it was probably Rosalinda or something)
or
2) I do not have a great-great-grandmother.
Which is more likely?
antonija 0
Most likely one is that church registers were written by people and also include mistakes (intentional and non-intentional). I know my family tree is missrepresented in church registry because someone biological parents were in the proper social class so someone else is written in there.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
kallend 2,106
Quote>But I'm pretty sure you are able to explain each and every error by yourself
>(without any help from supernatural forces).
Right. And I've known several theologians who have written some very insightful stuff about the Bible without any hands of God appearing to help them.
> You can write down correct form and nobody in this world will be able to prove
> to you that you are wrong.
Oh, I'd be wrong too. I know the guy who wrote the book (Marty Brown) and I am sure I would make as many mistakes as he did. In addition, some of my shorthand tricks are just different than other people's, and so they may not work for everyone. But they work for me and at least some other people.
The errors in an engineering book are correctable. Engineering books are not considered by millions of people to be infallible guides on how to live life. Engineers generally do not condemn those who use different handbooks as evil and tell them they will burn in Hell for all eternity. Engineering books do not resort to the mythology of a neolithic tribe to explain the natural world, nor do they describe things that violate the laws of physics.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,063
>Engineering books are not considered by millions of people to be
>infallible guides on how to live life.
True. Engineers who think their books are infallible guides on how to build stuff are as foolish as religious types who think their texts are infallible guides on how to live life.
>Engineers generally do not condemn those who use different handbooks
>as evil and tell them they will burn in Hell for all eternity.
True. Of course, theologians do not construct nuclear weapons to incinerate a third of a million people (causing them to _actually_ burn.)
> Engineering books do not resort to the mythology of a neolithic tribe to
> explain the natural world, nor do they describe things that violate the
> laws of physics.
You know, quite a few engineering books revere Newton, and teach his principles - even though they are not quite accurate in the real world of gravity and relativisitic limitations. But he is such an iconic figure that we have even named equations after him and teach his (not quite accurate) equations to schoolchildren.
>infallible guides on how to live life.
True. Engineers who think their books are infallible guides on how to build stuff are as foolish as religious types who think their texts are infallible guides on how to live life.
>Engineers generally do not condemn those who use different handbooks
>as evil and tell them they will burn in Hell for all eternity.
True. Of course, theologians do not construct nuclear weapons to incinerate a third of a million people (causing them to _actually_ burn.)
> Engineering books do not resort to the mythology of a neolithic tribe to
> explain the natural world, nor do they describe things that violate the
> laws of physics.
You know, quite a few engineering books revere Newton, and teach his principles - even though they are not quite accurate in the real world of gravity and relativisitic limitations. But he is such an iconic figure that we have even named equations after him and teach his (not quite accurate) equations to schoolchildren.
kallend 2,106
Quote>Engineering books are not considered by millions of people to be
>infallible guides on how to live life.
True. Engineers who think their books are infallible guides on how to build stuff are as foolish as religious types who think their texts are infallible guides on how to live life.
>Engineers generally do not condemn those who use different handbooks
>as evil and tell them they will burn in Hell for all eternity.
True. Of course, theologians do not construct nuclear weapons to incinerate a third of a million people (causing them to _actually_ burn.)
> Engineering books do not resort to the mythology of a neolithic tribe to
> explain the natural world, nor do they describe things that violate the
> laws of physics.
You know, quite a few engineering books revere Newton, and teach his principles - even though they are not quite accurate in the real world of gravity and relativisitic limitations. But he is such an iconic figure that we have even named equations after him and teach his (not quite accurate) equations to schoolchildren.
The consequence of using Newton's Laws to calculate the trajectory of an artillery shell do not include burning in hell for eternity. Engineers who need to use relativistic corrections (for GPS, spacecraft...) can do so. Likewise, not praying to Newton on a regular basis for help with your calculations has never condemned anyone to an eternity of fire and brimstone.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
antonija 0
But the knowledge that Newtonian physics is just an approximation of real word is common and easy to find. And you probably can't find an engineer that will argue otherwise.
Also nuclear weapons weren't built to please the gods of science or to prove to someone that scientists got it right.
Also nuclear weapons weren't built to please the gods of science or to prove to someone that scientists got it right.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
QuoteQuoteAs for me and MY house, we follow logic and reason and laugh at invisible skygods and their self deluded followers.
So what you're saying is that you're just as narrow minded and intolerant as those you look down on?
Am I narrow minded because I refuse to believe in Santa?
~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~
QuoteTrue. Of course, theologians do not construct nuclear weapons to incinerate a third of a million people (causing them to _actually_ burn.)
No but they sure did like to burn people at the stake and start a lot of wars.
~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~
JackC 0
Quote>So your base for all your beliefs is faulty and contains errors even those
>most loyal to it can not explain.
I have a book that I use for power supply design. It's a great book but contains a few errors. Yet somehow I design power supplies that work.
The Bible is not perfect. Doesn't mean it's worthless.
Wow. Billvon can find the errors in the Bible with an oscilloscope and a signal generator by building and testing his very own god. Imagine that.
billvon 3,063
>The consequence of using Newton's Laws to calculate the trajectory of
>an artillery shell do not include burning in hell for eternity.
Right. They just involve burning a few people to death over the course of a few seconds. Claiming one is better than the other is pretty silly, IMO. (and represents the fundamental error in trying to apply a different magisteria to the same problem.)
>Likewise, not praying to Newton on a regular basis for help with your
>calculations has never condemned anyone to an eternity of fire and brimstone.
Do you really fear an eternity of fire and brimstone?
>an artillery shell do not include burning in hell for eternity.
Right. They just involve burning a few people to death over the course of a few seconds. Claiming one is better than the other is pretty silly, IMO. (and represents the fundamental error in trying to apply a different magisteria to the same problem.)
>Likewise, not praying to Newton on a regular basis for help with your
>calculations has never condemned anyone to an eternity of fire and brimstone.
Do you really fear an eternity of fire and brimstone?
billvon 3,063
>But the knowledge that Newtonian physics is just an approximation of real
>word is common and easy to find.
Correct! And the historical errors in the Bible are easy to discover as well.
>Also nuclear weapons weren't built to please the gods of science or to prove
>to someone that scientists got it right.
?? Uh, that's exactly what the Manhattan Project was. Every nuclear test we've ever done has been to 'prove that the scientists got it right."
>word is common and easy to find.
Correct! And the historical errors in the Bible are easy to discover as well.
>Also nuclear weapons weren't built to please the gods of science or to prove
>to someone that scientists got it right.
?? Uh, that's exactly what the Manhattan Project was. Every nuclear test we've ever done has been to 'prove that the scientists got it right."
kallend 2,106
Quote>But the knowledge that Newtonian physics is just an approximation of real
>word is common and easy to find.
Correct! And the historical errors in the Bible are easy to discover as well.
"
Not if you don't acknowledge the existence of any errors, as some Christians maintain.
And additionally, a mechanism exists for correcting errors in your design handbook. No such mechanism exists for the bible.
Finally, Newton's laws aren't "errors", they are approximations and no-one claims infallibilty for them. You can't claim that about the contradictions in the bible. There are apologist web sites that go to great lengths to prove that the contradictions are not contradictions at all.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
antonija 0
Quote?? Uh, that's exactly what the Manhattan Project was. Every nuclear test we've ever done has been to 'prove that the scientists got it right.
No, they were conducted to see _if_ the scientists git it right. Besides they were designed to be conducted away from general population and people got hurt conducting those tests because they weren't careful enough.
Now please don't try to convince me that religious murders are the same ball because they don't. They are not on the same field, and not in the same league. They are not even the same fuckin' sport as Joules would put it.
Besides I do believe every non-religious fella in here will agree that blaming people today for crimes done by their ancestors is silly. But I also hope you agree that propagating same issues that started those murders in the first place is very very wrong. Just like Nazis are not allowed to do public get-togethers.
EDIT: And I was not comparing Christians to Nazis, I was pointing out that propagating an idea which turned out to be disastrous in our history (many times) is wrong.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
billvon 3,063
>No, they were conducted to see _if_ the scientists git it right.
Right, and those tests constituted proof of their theories. Which is what I said.
>Now please don't try to convince me that religious murders are the
>same ball because they don't.
?? I wasn't trying to do that. Religious murders are as evil as any other murders, whether done for religious, secular, political or financial reasons.
>But I also hope you agree that propagating same issues that
>started those murders in the first place is very very wrong. Just like
>Nazis are not allowed to do public get-togethers.
What the heck are you talking about? Fervent patriotism and nationalism are still propagated. And the Nazis are allowed to "do public get-togethers." They have as much right to have parades as you have to protest those parades. Indeed, that's guaranteed by our Constitution.
Right, and those tests constituted proof of their theories. Which is what I said.
>Now please don't try to convince me that religious murders are the
>same ball because they don't.
?? I wasn't trying to do that. Religious murders are as evil as any other murders, whether done for religious, secular, political or financial reasons.
>But I also hope you agree that propagating same issues that
>started those murders in the first place is very very wrong. Just like
>Nazis are not allowed to do public get-togethers.
What the heck are you talking about? Fervent patriotism and nationalism are still propagated. And the Nazis are allowed to "do public get-togethers." They have as much right to have parades as you have to protest those parades. Indeed, that's guaranteed by our Constitution.
It does. You're pretty much towing the company line aren't you? The vatican is THE most wealthy private organization on the planet. Religion is the ultimate monster in the closet used exclusively to keep a population in line. It starts with a good premise, do no harm, dont eat foods that will kill you, be good to people. Then like any organized thing be it a company or bowling team, people in power want to stay in power. The best way to do that is by telling the people they are in mortal danger and you are the one with answers.
Why not worship Zeus or Odin? So far the ONLY basis for belief is "well the book is really really old so it must be true". Greek and Norse religions are far older, and frankly make about as much sense with far fewer contradictions.
You got older, you got scared of death, you turned to a 2000 year old boogieman story. Fair enough, but for fuck's sake, call a spade a spade. Being a father and husband has nothing to do with religion unless you're already religious, in which case you delude yourself into thinking everything good in your life is because "god did it". Religion is the ultimate sheep mentality, hell the bible even says so directly. Don't bother thinking for yourself, a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of xenophobic, racist, misogynistic men has all the answers and is totally applicable to life today!
As for me and MY house, we follow logic and reason and laugh at invisible skygods and their self deluded followers.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites