Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  5    7
Author: Subject: Religion thought as science
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 15-1-2018 at 11:08


JJay, don't worry about the sinning. You can go to confession, eat some wafer and wine, and all your sins will be forgiven, ie, you get to go to heaven no matter how egregious your sin!



The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrP
National Hazard
****




Posts: 413
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: exothermic

[*] posted on 16-1-2018 at 02:59


Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  

And what about Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Georg Lemaitre? Although I think that Isaac Newton was actually an atheist and did his alchemy in secret. He was Britain's treasurer and was a prominent scientist. But not being a Christian would be career limiting.

Georg Lemaitre was a Catholic priest and was author of the expanding universe theory.

I'm sure the list of famous Christian scientists would be huge. Many productive scholars and mathematicians were Muslim.



Most of these were hundreds of years ago - it was just accepted as true in those days and we knew no different. Knowing what we know today I would assume most of them would no longer believe in god. Mainly due to the overwhelming evidence against and pretty much zero evidence for the being being real - apart from subject 'feelings in the heart' and lies about miracles (every reported one explainable once investigated) - what evidence is actually there?.







\"It\'s a man\'s obligation to stick his boneration in a women\'s separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation\" - Eric Cartman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 16-1-2018 at 05:53



4. Stan is a frictionless, massless Mormon in a rest state. His sin level for his faith is currently 11 McBeals. He eats 0.3 kg of pork, and enjoys it very much. Assume that the Jews are right about, well, pretty much everything. a. (10 pts) What is Stan's sin level now? b. (10 pts) Stan is one of them Salt Lake City Mormons. He ain't so damn smug now is he?




The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1108
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 16-1-2018 at 06:31


The other day I was recalling a children's book entitled "Gladiator". In it they had drawings and such of a different mindset. At noon or half-time women and children were torn to bits by beasts but not as many paid attention or were disinterested rather wanting to see the main events. It occurred to me our whole planet is one big sporting event.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Gladiator.html?id=LkypP...

It's sort of like the otters ...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/225221-i-was-walking-along-...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 17-1-2018 at 16:07


5. (20 pts) Let the eternal, all abiding love of the Holy Spirit be the xy plane. Let Sue's soul be at (0, 0, 5) at t = 0 sec., traveling at 5 m/s in the direction of the positive z axis. Everything is in Cartesian coordinates bespeaking a subscription to a perfectly rational Enlightenment attitude towards the Universe. At what time t will Sue be saved? (Hint: Assume a point soul).



The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1428
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 07:36


Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist  
However, they, I, and many others have indeed seen God back up the fact that Christ indeed was raised from the dead.

How?

I understand this probably got buried when the thread was in full swing, but I'm still very interested to hear an answer to this.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
sodium_stearate
Harmless
*




Posts: 36
Registered: 22-4-2011
Location: Way out near the edge
Member Is Offline

Mood: wondering why

[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 11:26


Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist  
However, they, I, and many others have indeed seen God back up the fact that Christ indeed was raised from the dead.

How?

I understand this probably got buried when the thread was in full swing, but I'm still very interested to hear an answer to this.


Yup, I too really want to hear this one...:cool:




"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and it
looks like work" T.A. Edison
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1108
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 14:01


Quote: Originally posted by sodium_stearate  
Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist  
However, they, I, and many others have indeed seen God back up the fact that Christ indeed was raised from the dead.

How?

I understand this probably got buried when the thread was in full swing, but I'm still very interested to hear an answer to this.


Yup, I too really want to hear this one...:cool:


I'll save you some time, it all comes down to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP-UNSv4DLs#t=2m25s
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 16:26


WTF



The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3394
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Undergoing decantation and leaving all the crap behind.

[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 16:50


I too question tbe relevance of that clip.

I can give you the gist of the argument later today if you are interested.




A little shameless self-promotion: You are welcome to tour my newly-completed lab.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1108
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 17:28


The relevance is the witness. As Wikipedia points out there are many other versions of what occurred. And this doesn't even entertain other religions or their view of the world. Are you going to at least entertain their truths? Or how about scientists stringent to their beliefs?


As metaphor[edit]
In his book The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, Thomas Sheehan argues that even Paul's account of the resurrection is not meant to be taken as referring to a literal, physical rising from the grave, and that stories of a bodily resurrection did not appear until as much as half a century following the crucifixion.[39] Instead, Sheehan believes that Paul's understanding of the resurrection, and perhaps Peter's as well, is a metaphysical one, with the stories of Jesus's (figurative) resurrection reflecting his triumphant "entry into God's eschatological presence,"[40] and that Paul's reference to Jesus having risen "on the third day" (1 Corinthians 15:4) "is not a chronological designation but an apocalyptic symbol for God's eschatological saving act, which strictly speaking has no date in history. Thus the 'third day' does not refer to Sunday, April 9, 30 C.E., or to any other moment in time. And as regards the 'place' where the resurrection occurred, the formula in First Corinthians does not assert that Jesus was raised from the tomb, as if the raising were a physical and therefore temporal resuscitation. Without being committed to any preternatural physics of resurrection, the phrase 'he was raised on the third day' simply expresses the belief that Jesus was rescued from the fate of utter absence from God (death) and was admitted to the saving presence of God (the eschatological future)."[41]

Other interpretations[edit]
An early alternative interpretation was provided by the George Bush, Professor of Hebrew at New York City University in 1845 in a book entitled The Resurrection of Christ.[42] He reviews in detail the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus and demonstrates how they can be better understood as visions of a spiritual or celestial body rather than as appearances of a material body using, in many cases, a careful analysis of the original Greek or Hebrew words.

Peter Kirby, the founder of EarlyChristianWritings.com, states that, "Many scholars doubt the historicity of the empty tomb."[43][a] According to Robert M. Price, Christian "apologists love to make the claims ... that the resurrection of Jesus is the best attested event in history", but "probabilistic arguments" show that "the resurrection is anything but an open-and-shut case".[44] Robert Greg Cavin, a professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Cypress College, states that, "our only sources of potential evidence, the New Testament Easter traditions, fall far short of providing the kind of information necessary for establishing the resurrection hypothesis."[45]

Biblical scholar Géza Vermes analyzes this subject in his book, The Resurrection. He concludes that there are eight possible theories to explain the resurrection of Jesus. Vermes outlines his boundaries as follows,

I have discounted the two extremes that are not susceptible to rational judgment, the blind faith of the fundamentalist believer and the out-of-hand rejection of the inveterate skeptic. The fundamentalists accept the story, not as written down in the New Testament texts, but as reshaped, transmitted, and interpreted by Church tradition. They smooth down the rough edges and abstain from asking tiresome questions. The unbelievers, in turn, treat the whole Resurrection story as the figment of early Christian imagination. Most inquirers with a smattering of knowledge of the history of religions will find themselves between these two poles.[46]

From his analysis, Vermes presents the remaining six possibilities to explain the resurrection of Jesus account, (1) "The body was removed by someone unconnected with Jesus", (2) "The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples", (3) "The empty tomb was not the tomb of Jesus", (4) Buried alive, Jesus later left the tomb", (5) Jesus recovered from a coma and departed Judea, and (6) the possibility that there was a "spiritual, not bodily, resurrection". Vermes states that none of these six possibilities are likely to be historical.[47]

According to N. T. Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, "There can be no question: Paul is a firm believer in bodily resurrection. He stands with his fellow Jews against the massed ranks of pagans; with his fellow Pharisees against other Jews."[48] And according to Gary Habermas, "Many other scholars have spoken in support of a bodily notion of Jesus’ resurrection."[49]

Habermas also argues three facts in support of Paul's belief in a physical resurrection body. (1) Paul is a Pharisee and therefore (unlike the Sadducees) believes in a physical resurrection. (2) In Philippians 3:11 Paul says "That I may attain to the ek anastasis (out-resurrection)" from the dead, which according to Habermas means that "What goes down is what comes up". And (3) In Philippians 3:20–21 "We look from heaven for Jesus who will change our vile soma (body) to be like unto his soma (body)". According to Habermas, if Paul meant that we would change into a spiritual body then Paul would have used the Greek pneuma instead of soma.[50] Although others argue that a "body" (or "soma") can be a spirit "body", not necessarily "flesh", in order for it to be a body, according to Paul's own words to the Corinthians, regarding "spiritual body". But they say that it was a true resurrection nonetheless.[51]

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews c. 93 which contains a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum. This passage mentions John the Baptist and Jesus as two holy men among the Jews.[52] Most modern scholars believe the original text of the work has been changed by Christian editors. The text mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus: "When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned [Jesus] to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him."[53]

There are various other arguments against the historicity of the resurrection story. For example, the number of other historical figures and gods with similar death and resurrection accounts has been pointed out.[54][c] However the majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth.[55] Robert M. Price claims that if the resurrection could, in fact, be proven through science or historical evidence, the event would lose its miraculous qualities.[54] In a more focused argument, Carrier asserts that, "The surviving evidence legal and historical, suggests that Jesus was not formally buried Friday night," but that "it had to have been placed Saturday night in a special public graveyard reserved for convicts. On this theory, the women who visited the tomb Sunday morning mistook its vacancy."[56]

New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman recognizes that "Some scholars have argued that it's more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals." He further elaborates by saying: "[T]he accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened."[57]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3394
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Undergoing decantation and leaving all the crap behind.

[*] posted on 18-1-2018 at 18:29


The clip was Grand Funk Railroad - She's Some Kind Of Wonderful live
That is what provoked the reaction.

What you have written, Morgan is an ok summary of the main approaches to the topic.

Habermas performed an exhaustive literature survey of some 35000 scholarly papers in three languages by both Christians and skeptics on the resurrection. He then works with the three items of historical evidence that are almost universally accepted by those scholars. This, he calls a minimal evidence approach. He then examines the 23 or so different stories that have been presented to account for the evidence and discovers that all of them fail to adequately account for the historical observations. Then via a Sherlock Holmes style process of elimination he concludes that the Resurrection must be considered factual.
Better minds than mine have been convinced by this approach. The logic is robust. The problem is the nature of the evidence, or, in some of the 23 cases arguing from the lack of evidence. For those not in the field of ancient history the whole argument comes across as less than compelling or something of a trick. For those who are used to working with sparse historical data of that nature, the argument is a difficult one to ignore. In my view it is a better argument for the veracity of the New Testament text than for Christianity as a whole.

N.T. Wright takes a different approach -- a similar way of reasoning but considering more socio-political factors. He reasons that early Christianity survived and took the precise form that it took because those early adherants genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. He then examines in a similar Holmsian fashion what might have given rise to that belief if it did not in fact happen. The body of evidence he presents in his writings is considerably deeper and more detailed and the argument more nuanced.




A little shameless self-promotion: You are welcome to tour my newly-completed lab.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 582
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 20-1-2018 at 08:11


Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
The clip was Grand Funk Railroad - She's Some Kind Of Wonderful live
That is what provoked the reaction.

What you have written, Morgan is an ok summary of the main approaches to the topic.

Habermas performed an exhaustive literature survey of some 35000 scholarly papers in three languages by both Christians and skeptics on the resurrection. He then works with the three items of historical evidence that are almost universally accepted by those scholars. This, he calls a minimal evidence approach. He then examines the 23 or so different stories that have been presented to account for the evidence and discovers that all of them fail to adequately account for the historical observations. Then via a Sherlock Holmes style process of elimination he concludes that the Resurrection must be considered factual.
Better minds than mine have been convinced by this approach. The logic is robust. The problem is the nature of the evidence, or, in some of the 23 cases arguing from the lack of evidence. For those not in the field of ancient history the whole argument comes across as less than compelling or something of a trick. For those who are used to working with sparse historical data of that nature, the argument is a difficult one to ignore. In my view it is a better argument for the veracity of the New Testament text than for Christianity as a whole.

N.T. Wright takes a different approach -- a similar way of reasoning but considering more socio-political factors. He reasons that early Christianity survived and took the precise form that it took because those early adherants genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. He then examines in a similar Holmsian fashion what might have given rise to that belief if it did not in fact happen. The body of evidence he presents in his writings is considerably deeper and more detailed and the argument more nuanced.


I think what Morgan is saying by posting that video is that some people claimed to be witnesses to the Jesus resurrection and they wrote it on goat skins.

But, who wrote them? Who knows. How reliable is/are the guy who wrote them? Who knows.

I have had some christians tell me, that they risked their lives, so they are unlikely to be liers. I don't think that people who invent religions are normally liers, except perhaps for Joseph Smith who started the Mormon religion and perhaps Lafayette Ron Hubbard of Scientology.
People who are into religion, they take it very seriously. My guess is that they think about it so much, that they dream about it. What they call "visions", are probably dreams they had while sleeping from 11 PM to 7 AM. It is also possible that this type of personality have mental problems. Perhaps they are schizophrenic.

There are other cases where the believer has risked their lives. Joseph Smith from Mormonism is one example. There are such people in China right now. Mohamed from Islam. Dying is not a problem for these guys because they know that they are going to heaven.

Catholics say that they are the continuation of the church started by Jesus. This is none sense. Just like there is no single jewish religion, there is no single christian religion. There is evidence that different christian sects from the 1st century were arguing with each other. You can watch Dr Richard Carrier on Youtube. He discusses them. The so-called gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John don't even agree with each other. There is even evidence of forgeries in them. No one even knows who wrote them. Some pope from the 4th century decided to put those names on them.

I was watching another video. The guy makes a pretty good case that christianity is older than the 1st century. They just modified and placed Jesus in the 1st century for political and religious reasons, such as the destruction of the Jewish temple.

So witnesses.... what witnesses? They probably took some real events and modified and modified the story some more.

Some guy here mentioned Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and other scientists. Have you noticed that scientists don't invent any religions? That's because they tend to focus on evidence, rather than "visions". Religion and science are polar opposites of each other.




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
sodium_stearate
Harmless
*




Posts: 36
Registered: 22-4-2011
Location: Way out near the edge
Member Is Offline

Mood: wondering why

[*] posted on 20-1-2018 at 08:20
eye-witness!


Yep. Yep. Same old story:

Just about the same as all of the riveting "eye-witness"
accounts of live encounters with Sasquatch.

Then we have all of the endless "eye witness" stories
told by people who claim to have seen all sorts
of weird unidentified flying objects at night.

Most of those stories have the obligatory portion
where the teller tells the tale of how the object made
aerial maneuvers which defy all known properties
of inertia and mass.

Oh, sure, there was some guy who walked the earth
some 2000+ years ago, then he was murdered, then
he arose from the dead.

Sure he did. Yep. It is all written by "eye-witnesses".

As reverend Jim Jones told his followers:

"Drink it down, drink it down, drink it down, down, down."

:cool:






"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and it
looks like work" T.A. Edison
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 20-1-2018 at 14:00


This is the final theological engineering exam question, available for extra credit. The author was our very own "I am a fish."



[file]64277[/file]

Attachment: extra credit.odt (10kB)
This file has been downloaded 17 times





The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 6385
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 20-1-2018 at 14:51


1.61842 obviously



Madness is thinking i'm not drunk.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5592
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 20-1-2018 at 16:34


I'm sorry aga but I have to mark that one wrong. Fully sanctified water has a molecular weight of 18. Water with only hydrogen sanctified has a sanctified weight of only 2. Therefore the ratio of power is 18/2 = 9.

Also, you must show all work.




The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  5    7

  Go To Top