Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
What is the Sun?
Religion: The sun is a God. Either that, or it's a gift from God.
Science: A sun is a massive lump of plasma held together by gravity.What are the stars?
Religion: The stars are gifts from Gods.
Science: The stars are distant suns, with their lights reaching us from hundreds of years in the past.
What is rain?
Religion: Rain is a gift from God.
Science: Rain is part of a water cycle, where water moves from various states in our environment before coming down as rain.
How did Man come about?
Religion: God made Man out of thin air, and Woman using a part of Man.
Science: Human beings are evolved from millions of years of evolution, which explains our similarities with the great apes, among other things.Why is this couple unable to have children?
Religion: Infertility is a punishment from God. Pray for redemption.
Science: Infertility is a medical condition. It may be treatable.
Why is this dude writhing on the ground?
Religion: He has been possessed by a demon. He needs an exorcism.
Science: He has epilepsy. He needs treatment.
What was the first origin of the universe?
Religion: The universe was made by God.
Science: We are not sure if there is such a thing as a first origin of the universe. We have theories like the M-theory, but these require much more investigation.
How was the first self-replicable cell reated?
Religion: It was made by God.
Science: We don't know for sure. There are theories using RNA, but these require further investigation. The element of chance could have played a part as well.--------------------
All but the last two questions have been satisfatorily answered by science (your denial of evolution notwithstanding). Furthermore, as I suggested above, the scientific method not only provides answers, it provides ways to run tests and predictions, such that we now have real ways of inducing rain (instead of praying), predicting the motion of distant "heavenly" bodies, and treating both physical and mental illnesses.
For most of these questions, the religious answers have been all but debunked. And yet modern-day Christian evangelists take refuge in the yet-unanswered questions, proffering the same God explanation that served ancients thousands of years ago.
You accuse me of "clinging" to naturalism by faith. If you look at the respective track records of science versus religion, you'll find that science has utterly trounced religion in its ability to explain the world around us. If I had to bet on the next few unanswered questions, I would say that science will most likely provide the better answer -- once again.
And then I predict that the Christian apologists will shift to the next unanswered questions, and claim to see God's active hand in them. Classic God-of-the-Gaps. If there's a caricature, I'm afraid you've drawn it yourself.
reasonable.atheist, It is clear that you have chosen to engage in caricaturing the Christian answers to make reliogion esp Christianity look bad. Tell me, which Christian will disagree with a scientific explanation of how things work under Experimental Science? You seem to again forgot that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview. So for you to perpetuate some kind of eternal warfare between science and religion is to perpetuate an insidious myth. In fact, the question of the origins of the universe would capture the whole debate. You believe the universe made itself but I believe the universe was made by God. Both are religious beliefs about the origins of the universe. Question is, which is the most reasonable explanation? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist, It is clear that you have chosen to engage in caricaturing the Christian answers to make reliogion esp Christianity look bad. Tell me, which Christian will disagree with a scientific explanation of how things work under Experimental Science? You seem to again forgot that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview. So for you to perpetuate some kind of eternal warfare between science and religion is to perpetuate an insidious myth. In fact, the question of the origins of the universe would capture the whole debate. You believe the universe made itself but I believe the universe was made by God. Both are religious beliefs about the origins of the universe. Question is, which is the most reasonable explanation?I don't think I misrepresented the "answers" provided by religion at all. That is exactly how the ancients believed it: God made the sun, God made it rain, God made the earth, and so on. Instead, we later found that the real reasons were more interesting and more complex.
To say that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview is incorrect. I would argue that modern science progressed despite a Christian worldview. Just as Socrates died for his rejection of the state religion, Galileo was persecuted for heliocentrism amd Darwin famously grappled with his religious views.
You say that God made the universe, but I don't say that the universe made itself. I say this:
- There are theories that the universe does not have a beginning. These may or may not be proven correct.
- Whether our current theories are satisfactory, chances are that the scientific process will eventually give us an answer.
- Chances are, this answer will be in line with naturalism.
So unlike you, I don't claim to know the answer. Maybe the universe made itself. Maybe we'll find that Godzilla gave birth to the universe. Whichever the case, I do think that the scientific is far more likely to yield an answer than religion would.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I don't think I misrepresented the "answers" provided by religion at all. That is exactly how the ancients believed it: God made the sun, God made it rain, God made the earth, and so on. Instead, we later found that the real reasons were more interesting and more complex.
To say that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview is incorrect. I would argue that modern science progressed despite a Christian worldview. Just as Socrates died for his rejection of the state religion, Galileo was persecuted for heliocentrism amd Darwin famously grappled with his religious views.
You say that God made the universe, but I don't say that the universe made itself. I say this:
- There are theories that the universe does not have a beginning. H These may or may not be proven correct.
- Whether our current theories are satisfactory, chances are that the scientific process will eventually give us an answer.
- Chances are, this answer will be in line with naturalism.
So unlike you, I don't claim to know the answer. Maybe the universe made itself. Maybe we'll find that Godzilla gave birth to the universe. Whichever the case, I do think that the scientific is far more likely to yield an answer than religion would.
It is always easy to demolish strawman arguments and you have completely ignored what I said. Instead you insist on saying that the ancient people believed that and simply ascribed them to me. If I deny the scientific explanation then you at least have a case, but I don't. So please respond to MY arguments rather than attack strawman points. That modern science owes its rise to the Christian worldview is a well documented fact of history. You show me your evidence that it is despite of and I will show you that it is because of. Fair challenge to you, you up to it? As to the origins of the universe, you again appeal to ignorance and a fallback on scientism and naturalism. Appeal to future knowledge is moot. I can also rebutt that by saying that in future science will prove that God did it, so? Please stick to what we know now and not make a fallacious argument from ignorance. As it now stands you are guilty of a naturalism of the gaps argument. Which is to say, we don't know how the universe made itself but surely no God did it, it must be a natural process that science has yet to discover. If this is not naturalism of the gaps then I don't know what is. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
What is the Sun?
Religion: The sun is a God. Either that, or it's a gift from God.
Science: A sun is a massive lump of plasma held together by gravity.What are the stars?
Religion: The stars are gifts from Gods.
Science: The stars are distant suns, with their lights reaching us from hundreds of years in the past.
What is rain?
Religion: Rain is a gift from God.
Science: Rain is part of a water cycle, where water moves from various states in our environment before coming down as rain.
How did Man come about?
Religion: God made Man out of thin air, and Woman using a part of Man.
Science: Human beings are evolved from millions of years of evolution, which explains our similarities with the great apes, among other things.Why is this couple unable to have children?
Religion: Infertility is a punishment from God. Pray for redemption.
Science: Infertility is a medical condition. It may be treatable.
Why is this dude writhing on the ground?
Religion: He has been possessed by a demon. He needs an exorcism.
Science: He has epilepsy. He needs treatment.
What was the first origin of the universe?
Religion: The universe was made by God.
Science: We are not sure if there is such a thing as a first origin of the universe. We have theories like the M-theory, but these require much more investigation.
How was the first self-replicable cell reated?
Religion: It was made by God.
Science: We don't know for sure. There are theories using RNA, but these require further investigation. The element of chance could have played a part as well.--------------------
All but the last two questions have been satisfatorily answered by science (your denial of evolution notwithstanding). Furthermore, as I suggested above, the scientific method not only provides answers, it provides ways to run tests and predictions, such that we now have real ways of inducing rain (instead of praying), predicting the motion of distant "heavenly" bodies, and treating both physical and mental illnesses.
For most of these questions, the religious answers have been all but debunked. And yet modern-day Christian evangelists take refuge in the yet-unanswered questions, proffering the same God explanation that served ancients thousands of years ago.
You accuse me of "clinging" to naturalism by faith. If you look at the respective track records of science versus religion, you'll find that science has utterly trounced religion in its ability to explain the world around us. If I had to bet on the next few unanswered questions, I would say that science will most likely provide the better answer -- once again.
And then I predict that the Christian apologists will shift to the next unanswered questions, and claim to see God's active hand in them. Classic God-of-the-Gaps. If there's a caricature, I'm afraid you've drawn it yourself.
yes you can see the answers provided by the zealots, so simple and naive. thank goodness for science. dun think a 3 year old kid will also believe those replies given.
Yes christians will attribute science as the work of god in a deflective way that disguise their earlier failings to explain nature, the manner science is able to.
-
Originally posted by Lucifer_tan:
yes you can see the answers provided by the zealots, so simple and naive. thank goodness for science. dun think a 3 year old kid will also believe those replies given.
Yes christians will attribute science as the work of god in a deflective way that disguise their earlier failings to explain nature, the manner science is able to.
Thank goodness for science? What goodness are you talking about? You should be thanking God for science, and give credit to the Christian worldview that provided the impetus for modern science. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thank goodness for science? What goodness are you talking about? You should be thanking God for science, and give credit to the Christian worldview that provided the impetus for modern science.He is lucifer, you know?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thank goodness for science? What goodness are you talking about? You should be thanking God for science, and give credit to the Christian worldview that provided the impetus for modern science.thats nonsense, utter nonsense. denial as usual. what a load of crap your claim is.
even a 3 year old kid wont believe what you have said.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
He is lucifer, you know?
Yes I am well aware that he purposely chose a nick that would be a direct affront to the Christian. In fact I doubt his surname is Tan too. He is simply playing on the SATan name. He does not hide the fact that he is a troll out to troll here, and his responses pretty well confirmed that. This is just an account newly created today to troll the forum here. -
hahahah, hahahahahhahahaha! or kong or ching ho chio
-
wow, you guys are still at it??? Looks like even TCMC had given up discussing and arguing, from the lack of posts here.
I posted the video to offer a possibility to the story of Jesus and at the same time a controversial new idea.
Thought Jesus went to Narnia and was taught by Darth Vader? Or were you guys arguing that it was actually Dumbledore, instead of Darth Vader?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is always easy to demolish strawman arguments and you have completely ignored what I said. Instead you insist on saying that the ancient people believed that and simply ascribed them to me. If I deny the scientific explanation then you at least have a case, but I don't. So please respond to MY arguments rather than attack strawman points. That modern science owes its rise to the Christian worldview is a well documented fact of history. You show me your evidence that it is despite of and I will show you that it is because of. Fair challenge to you, you up to it? As to the origins of the universe, you again appeal to ignorance and a fallback on scientism and naturalism. Appeal to future knowledge is moot. I can also rebutt that by saying that in future science will prove that God did it, so? Please stick to what we know now and not make a fallacious argument from ignorance. As it now stands you are guilty of a naturalism of the gaps argument. Which is to say, we don't know how the universe made itself but surely no God did it, it must be a natural process that science has yet to discover. If this is not naturalism of the gaps then I don't know what is.BIC: "Instead you insist on saying that the ancient people believed that and simply ascribed them to me."
On the contrary, I've never said that you believe in a Sun God, or a Rain God. You've missed my point by some distance. What I'm saying is that modern Christians claim that God made the universe and first self-replicable cell. I argue that this is no different from ancient Christians who thought that God made the Sun, God made the earth, God gave us rain, and so on. The ancients were wrong. What makes you think you're correct.
BIC: "That modern science owes its rise to the Christian worldview is a well documented fact of history."Certainly, I've heard the argument that Judeo-Christian worldview helped influence science, and there have been many great clergy-scientists (e.g. Mendel) over the years. But I can't name a single direct contribution from Christianity (rather than Christian individuals) to modern science. Did the bible give us clues to dissecting the atom? Or the secret of flight? Or the double helix? If you've found the Higgs-Boson, you have to tell us, BIC.
BIC: "Which is to say, we don't know how the universe made itself but surely no God did it, it must be a natural process that science has yet to discover."
On the contrary, the only one who speaks with the language of certainty ("surely", "must be") is you. I was at pains to emphasize my ignorance. My point remains:
Unlike you, I don't claim to know the answer. Maybe the universe made itself. Maybe we'll find that Godzilla gave birth to the universe. Whichever the case, I do think that science is far more likely to yield an answer than religion would. And chances are, the more satisfactory answer is naturalism, as all the answers have been since the Age of Enlightenment.And this is really it from me. I'm too busy to be wasting my time debating you, and your fellow Christians don't seem interested in picking up the gauntlet. Besides, the Buddhism forum seems kinda interesting too.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
BIC: "Instead you insist on saying that the ancient people believed that and simply ascribed them to me."
On the contrary, I've never said that you believe in a Sun God, or a Rain God. You've missed my point by some distance. What I'm saying is that modern Christians claim that God made the universe and first self-replicable cell. I argue that this is no different from ancient Christians who thought that God made the Sun, God made the earth, God gave us rain, and so on. The ancients were wrong. What makes you think you're correct.
BIC: "That modern science owes its rise to the Christian worldview is a well documented fact of history."Certainly, I've heard the argument that Judeo-Christian worldview helped influence science, and there have been many great clergy-scientists (e.g. Mendel) over the years. But I can't name a single direct contribution from Christianity (rather than Christian individuals) to modern science. Did the bible give us clues to dissecting the atom? Or the secret of flight? Or the double helix? If you've found the Higgs-Boson, you have to tell us, BIC.
BIC: "Which is to say, we don't know how the universe made itself but surely no God did it, it must be a natural process that science has yet to discover."
On the contrary, the only one who speaks with the language of certainty ("surely", "must be") is you. I was at pains to emphasize my ignorance. My point remains:
Unlike you, I don't claim to know the answer. Maybe the universe made itself. Maybe we'll find that Godzilla gave birth to the universe. Whichever the case, I do think that science is far more likely to yield an answer than religion would. And chances are, the more satisfactory answer is naturalism, as all the answers have been since the Age of Enlightenment.And this is really it from me. I'm too busy to be wasting my time debating you, and your fellow Christians don't seem interested in picking up the gauntlet. Besides, the Buddhism forum seems kinda interesting too.
reasonable.atheist, It seems that you have shifted the goalposts. Now you are talking about who made the sun? The Bible teaches that God made the stars and the sun and the heavenly hosts on Day 4 of creation week. The founders of modern science who were believers also believed that. What caused rain to fall? Well we know about the water cycle and science can tell us what happens. But who set the laws of nature in motion that allows for rain? Again the point is that what we do KNOW about the world does not negate the need for God as the ultimate explanation for all that exists. You should not project your ignorance to me. Why can't I be certain that God created the universe just as you are certain that He did not? Again the point is that he who has no roof over his head should not challenge the owner of the house to a rock throwing contest to see who breaks more of each other's windows. Your faith in science is mere scientism, a religion in itself. Thus it is special pleading on your part to uphold naturalism while faulting me for my belief in a Creator God. In any case it is still a naturalism of the gaps argument you are invoking. Fine with me if you think the Buddhism thread is more interesting. I suspect you will purposely find little to disagree even though it has its own metaphysical beliefs and supernatural elements. There is really little more we can talk about if you refuse to see that it boils down to worldviews that cannot be proven but are held by faith. Have fun at the Buddhist forum. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Fine with me if you think the Buddhism thread is more interesting. I suspect you will purposely find little to disagree even though it has its own metaphysical beliefs and supernatural elements.Heh. I have been willing to debate vigorously against other atheists on various topics, while also agreeing with you on one or two. And yet you think I'll "purposely" give Buddhism a free pass?
You can try to damage my credibility, but I'm afraid your poorly judged words speak more of your character than of mine. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Heh. I have been willing to debate vigorously against other atheists on various topics, while also agreeing with you on one or two. And yet you think I'll "purposely" give Buddhism a free pass?
You can try to damage my credibility, but I'm afraid your poorly judged words speak more of your character than of mine.
No need to be so defensive. It is just a suspicion that I think you would be more forgiving towards other religions than to Christianity. Dawkins like to reserve his ammunition for Christianity too. Anyway how you choose to handle your opponents in the Buddhist forums is really none of my concern so I shall not say anymore. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No need to be so defensive. It is just a suspicion that I think you would be more forgiving towards other religions than to Christianity. Dawkins like to reserve his ammunition for Christianity too. Anyway how you choose to handle your opponents in the Buddhist forums is really none of my concern so I shall not say anymore.Usual tactic of BIC -
1. Refuses to read carefully and look at the evidence
2. Refutes all our statements without credible evidence
3. Throws in a lot of christian jargon, as if everyone's christian here and as if the bible is applicable to everyone.
4. Makes alot of baseless statements
5. Accuses others of logical fallacies but commits 2 fallacies - confirmation bias and special pleading
6. Uses only religious sources
-
I'm sure all of us have our own unique point of views.....perhaps its best to be more objective than personal....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
I'm sure all of us have our own unique point of views.....perhaps its best to be more objective than personal....
Demon Bane
When doing a research paper or finding an answer, all of us (me including) must try to look at all kinds of sources.
When discussing with BIC, I look at both christian and non-christian sources and even agree to some of his points.
But BIC chooses only christian religious sources and insists he is being more objective than me.
I dont expect him to agree with me. BuT I do expect that if we want an intellectual discussion, we should look at more sources instead of committing the error of confirmation bias by looking at what we want to look at only.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Demon Bane
When doing a research paper or finding an answer, all of us (me including) must try to look at all kinds of sources.
When discussing with BIC, I look at both christian and non-christian sources and even agree to some of his points.
But BIC chooses only christian religious sources and insists he is being more objective than me.
I dont expect him to agree with me. BuT I do expect that if we want an intellectual discussion, we should look at more sources instead of committing the error of confirmation bias by looking at what we want to look at only.
Yeap I do read what u guys posted....perhaps its the difference in style?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Yeap I do read what u guys posted....perhaps its the difference in style?
Difference in style yes, but not accepted academically speaking.
His way of sourcing and arguing will never be accepted in any universities or tertiary institutions.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Difference in style yes, but not accepted academically speaking.
His way of sourcing and arguing will never be accepted in any universities or tertiary institutions.
Wow...arguments must be scholarly ? I dunno about that....Hahaha!
I tot we just have casual conversations and try to be nice.... -
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Wow...arguments must be scholarly ? I dunno about that....Hahaha!
I tot we just have casual conversations and
try to be nice....Not scholarly...
That's basic method of sourcing.
Even if we use our common sense, we know it's not good to just quote from all the same source. It's call confirmation bias.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thank goodness for science? What goodness are you talking about? You should be thanking God for science, and give credit to the Christian worldview that provided the impetus for modern science.
thanking god for science? thats something real new to me... no wonder i always feel most christians are intoxicated in one way or another. Their eyes only have god... in that case why only thank god for science? can we thank buddha, allah and religious figures from other religions? or shld we onli be thanking christian's god (aka jesus, correct me if im wrong) -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Not scholarly...
That's basic method of sourcing.
Even if we use our common sense, we know it's not good to just quote from all the same source. It's call confirmation bias.
Ok ok I got you....I talked to a pastor once....along time ago, he said Jesus this, Jesus that, ....he didn't answer my questions too....I guessed its just christian style lah....
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
thanking god for science? thats something real new to me... no wonder i always feel most christians are intoxicated in one way or another. Their eyes only have god... in that case why only thank god for science? can we thank buddha, allah and religious figures from other religions? or shld we onli be thanking christian's god (aka jesus, correct me if im wrong)Agreed.
If we "MUST" thank the Christian God, then let us also thank all the other Gods. From Allah, Sikh God to Lord Krishna and the Jade Emperor.
Let's be ".fair"
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Ok ok I got you....I talked to a pastor once....along time ago, he said Jesus this, Jesus that, ....he didn't answer my questions too....I guessed its just christian style lah....
Yes it's their style, but it's not very objective loh. :)