Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 02:20:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: .  (Read 6029 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 12:39:34 AM
 #41

you CANNOT be a muslim unless you believe in the torah , injeel (gospel), quran , zabur, moses , joseph, jacob, jesus etc..basically all the prophets/messengers that god sent, and all the holy books that god revealed to us.

So what is your opinion of the Bahá'í Faith, which basically is a continuation of that; Islam 2.0, if you will?

Islam teaches that God has sent prophets before, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, and Bahá'í simply states that it's time for a new one.

Please note, I'm neither Christian, Muslim, Bahá'í, or Atheist. I would just like your opinion on that faith, as it seems to me that it would be natural for someone who believes that Moses was superseded by Jesus was superseded by Mohammad to take that next step.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513563658
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513563658

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513563658
Reply with quote  #2

1513563658
Report to moderator
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 01:41:58 AM
 #42

So what is your opinion of the Bahá'í Faith, which basically is a continuation of that; Islam 2.0, if you will?

no more messengers or prophets after mohammed, mohamed is the final messenger of god

"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing." Qur'an 33:40

So...Moses was good for his time, Jesus was good for his, but Mohammed is for everybody, forever?

Convenient. Considering how much the world has changed around Islam, I'd say that life has left it behind. Like the religions before it, it's got some good points, and some useful advice remains, but many of the teachings are outdated, at best, and backward, at worst.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 02:35:45 AM
 #43


So...Moses was good for his time, Jesus was good for his, but Mohammed is for everybody, forever?

yes

Convenient. Considering how much the world has changed around Islam, I'd say that life has left it behind. Like the religions before it, it's got some good points, and some useful advice remains, but many of the teachings are outdated, at best, and backward, at worst.

give me few examples, which you think are backward and/or outdated , some relevant link http://forum.islam.com/questions/3879/islamic-law-does-not-fit-for-modern-world-or-is-it-out-dated

Well, that link doesn't give me many examples to work with, but it does advance this argument:
Quote
if human nature does not change with time law given by creator of human being can get outdated or has to change with time?
Which is an interesting point. If that is to be the argument, what then of Moses and Jesus? Did human nature change from their time to Mohammed's? No, but society did. And I know you will not argue that society has been static since 632 CE.

The main problem most non-Muslims have with Islam is it's placement of women in the society. Women, in my understanding, have a strange "gilded cage" place in Islamic society. If I am incorrect, I welcome truer information.

i agree with you if you say so-called islamic countries are backward today, not always been backward though for instance consider islamic spain and baghdad library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

Aristotle / Plato , translated by islamic scientists/philosophers etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Classics

Don't get me wrong, I am tremendously thankful for the Islamic preservation of classical knowledge (and their improvement upon it). It just confuses me that a religion which openly acknowledges its basis in prior revelations would so vehemently deny the possibility of further revelations.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 02:45:16 AM
 #44

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)
All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
check_status
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 03:00:42 AM
 #45

Quote from: senbonzakura
you CANNOT be a muslim unless you believe in the torah

Can women be prophets?
Yes. Mirriam, the sister of Aaron was a prohetess. Exodus 15:20

Who can be a prophet?
Whom ever the Lord puts His spirit upon is a prophet. Numbers 11:29

How does God choose his prophets?
God will make Himself know to them in a vision and will speak to him in a dream. Numbers 12:6

Can a prophet be bad or evil?
Do not follow after a prophet who tells you to follow after other gods. Deuteronomy 13:1-3

What makes someone succeptable to becoming a prophet for God?
They are seers, today we call them psychics, who can become prophets for God. 1Samuel 9:9
Therefore, all prophets are phsychic, but not all phsychics are prophets of God.

Has God ever said he would no longer visit His spirit upon men?
Yes, but a specific group would be cut off. Those of the many nations who rise up against Mount Zion. Isaiah 29:8-10

Quote from: senbonzakura
"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing." Qur'an 33:40

The Koran contradicts the Bible. No where in the Torah does it say there will be no more prophets.

What do you do when the Koran contradicts a book you are told to believe in?
You must conclude that one of them is wrong, of course. I wonder which one is wrong?

For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise.
If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76.
P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List |  1EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 03:09:13 AM
 #46

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)
All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.


Very informative, and now I understand atheism at its core. Obviously I can read an neutral article on Wikipedia but nothing works like a one on one explanation.
So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity). I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information; Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 03:18:57 AM
 #47

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 03:22:23 AM
 #48

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)
All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.


Very informative, and now I understand atheism at its core. Obviously I can read an neutral article on Wikipedia but nothing works like a one on one explanation.
So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity). I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information; Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)


The typical flippant response to this is the flying spaghetti monster religion. There is a lack of proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 03:29:24 AM
 #49

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 03:45:33 AM
 #50

Well, that link doesn't give me many examples to work with, but it does advance this argument

i just posted that link for anyone to read, but you could give me some examples of someting that is outdated/backward in islam , such as a particular law in shariah etc..

The main problem most non-Muslims have with Islam is it's placement of women in the society. Women, in my understanding, have a strange "gilded cage" place in Islamic society. If I am incorrect, I welcome truer information.

http://youtu.be/tkUPvGZqP10 ,  Women in Islam: Oppressed or Liberated? (Yvonne Ridley) , for more info i am sure you can google, but if you have specific questions i will answer and reply , example:- women cant drive in saudi arabia, it has nothing to do with religion, its to do with culture/dictatorship etc..

If you could give me a few quotes on "the proper place of women" in Islam, like you have on Mohammed being the final prophet, I'd be appreciative. I don't really feel like sitting through a two-hour long lecture. Wink

Unfortunately, I'm no scholar in Shariah law, so I don't have any specific information. All I have is the government policies of the countries who have claimed to follow Shariah. And, I gotta say, those don't look good. Of course, government policies don't have a great track record of following the ideals they claim...

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
 #51

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

The possibility exists that Deity is not yet observable, with modern technology, and yet, does exist, or has already been observed, and been mistaken for something else (quantum mechanics, etc). That's why I did not say I am an Atheist.

My religious beliefs are... complex.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Brunic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 628



View Profile
August 05, 2012, 04:02:32 AM
 #52


I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

I'm an atheist, and I'll speak for myself only. I don't need other atheist to tell me their "rules" of atheism, I don't care.

My own belief is that you should believe what you want, I don't care. Do your own thing, but never try to impose your own belief unto myself, never ever. I think, when you wake up in the morning, you need some faith in something. You need dreams or beliefs to be able to be productive and create something wonderful. Before, people used to convince themselves in believing in all the same crap. Every religion started as a cult with a fucked up prophet who had "visions". Today, with the wave of atheism, I think faith is becoming more personal and private than before. Instead of listening to your neighbor to know which crap to believe, you make your own crap to believe in.

As an atheist, I build my own vision of life, my own vision of the world by using different elements of our knowledge and mixing it with my own creativity. In a way, life is simply a bad trip on oxygen. So, in my opinion, worldview is established by using respect and discussion between individual minds, and this worldview can be changed anytime. We need to have different worldview, the more the better. Humanity lose its soul the day where everybody is under the same banner, the same worldview, the same truth.

Faith is a powerful tool, it is what build this world. Everything has been built on what humans believe. And like any tool, it gets better with any new version. Sticking your faith to one of the basic organized religion is like sticking to use Windows 1.0. Challenge it! Change it! Try Linux! Try Mac OS! Try what you hate! It's the only way to evolve your faith and your own mind. Because, in a way....monotheism evolved from polytheism, Christians evolve from Jews and Muslim evolved from Christians. Atheism is simply a peer-2-peer and decentralized faith. Wink

But like I said, as an atheist, this is my own crap in which I believe, and I only share it. I don't really care in your faith, because it's yours, not mine.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 04:22:54 AM
 #53

I think this one, right here is probably the best of the bunch:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good."
 [Noble Quran 4:19]

I assume you added the emphasis. It's a great quote. Which raises the question, if a footing of "kindness and equity" is to be desired, why do so many Islamic nations oppress their women?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 05:28:48 AM
 #54

My mind = Blown
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 06:31:19 AM
 #55

Reffering to brunic and myrkulS reponeses
check_status
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 06:45:05 AM
 #56

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE. (RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )
"How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )

Funny you should quote that without knowing what is really being said.  Cheesy

"איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת יהוה אתנו אכן הנה לשׁקר עשׂה עט שׁקר ספרים׃"
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood."
(Darby Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )
I guess you don't understand the ironic humor of Israelites in the Bible. The tomes you quote are from "pens of the translators" (scribes) who are supposed wise men.
Jeremiah was a prophet (not a bullfrog, incase you were wondering), who made many future predictions having to do with the end times. In that 8th chapter, notice how it begins: "At that time". It is a future date. When is that date? When they begin to uncover the bones of the kings of Judah. Sounds like an archeological expedition in Israel to me.
Quote
In 1913, Raymond Weill found eight elaborate tombs at the south of the City of David, which archaeologists have subsequently interpreted as strong candidates for the burial locations of the former kings of the city;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Tomb

When is the copyright of those Bibles you quoted from?
Quote
The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

Quote
The RSV was published in the following stages:

    New Testament (first edition), 1946 (originally copyrighted to the International Council of Religious Education)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version

The Darby translation was published before the bones of the kings of Judah were uncovered. Therefore, according to Jeremiah, it is not made into falsehoods, so it should be OK to use for english quoting of Bible verses.

Edit: Added the above paragraph for clarity.

Quote
Darby published a translation of the New Testament in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. After his death, some of his students produced an Old Testament translation based on Darby's French and German translations (see below). The complete Darby Bible, including Darby's 3rd edition New Testament and his students' Old Testament, was first published in 1890.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

But that doesnt mean I wont use your bible/torah against you in an argument.
Your helping me prove my point by doing so. Thanks.

For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise.
If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76.
P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List |  1EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 07:46:19 AM
 #57

So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity).
The only way a rational person should come to accept anything is to discover evidence that justifies accepting it. Broadly speaking, the only source of information we have about the world is sensory.

Quote
I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information;
Say we constructed a machine that processed that information. By what means would we acquire the results that machine had gathered? If not by our senses, then how? So any mechanism you can imagine, ultimately, would reduce to sensory evidence. Senses are the only way the mind gathers information about the outside world.

You look through a microscope with your eyes. You hear a metal detector with your ears. Fundamentally, there is no difference between building a machine to gather data and moving something out of the way to see what's behind it.

Quote
Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.
I don't understand what you're saying. The point is, whatever proof you're imagining here doesn't yet exist.

Quote
So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)
I totally don't understand what this has to do with what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that rational people should reject faith and should only believe things and act on them in the presence of evidence. Otherwise, you are equally justifying being a good person because you think god wants you to and being a suicide bomber because you think god wants you to.

Plus, how is "you have to evidence to justify believing something" lazier than "you can believe whatever you want without having to justify it"? Faith is the lazy way to avoid having to actually understand the world.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 07:47:58 AM
 #58

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

Indeed....

Google Translate

"How smart we say and law of the Lord with us here lie did indeed lie pen books:"

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2012, 01:12:43 PM
 #59

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste)
Basically, you've just said that science is limited to gathering information through all of the means we have of gathering information. That doesn't sound like a limit to me.

Quote
don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?
Our perceptions are, by definition, how we perceive them. There's nothing to prove.

An "erroneous perception" is an oxymoron. Say, hypothetically, I could actually have an erroneous perception. In that case, the erroneous perception would be accurately reporting to me the true fact that I'm actually having that particular erroneous perception. Hence it wouldn't be erroneous at all. An "erroneous perception" is a self-contradiction.

Quote
With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?
A "false perception" is impossible. If I had a false perception, it would be the actual truth that I was having a false perception. The false perception would accurately report this fact to me. The accuracy of perception is axiomatic and definitional.

A mountain appears small when you are far away from it. But this is not a perceptual error, it is a perceptual fact. If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far you were from it, then it would be in error, hiding from me the actual fact that mountains appear small when you are far away from them. Our perceptions are just as much a part of reality as everything else and how our perceptions work and what they mean are just as much subjects of study and analysis as everything else.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume our senses are somehow fundamentally broken. Let's assume all of our reasoning is wrong. Let's assume everything we sense is somehow unreal and erroneous. What would that change? Would that mean anyone was perfectly justified in believing anything they want and acting on it? Would that make all actions, eating food or eating poison, equally good and valid?

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
August 05, 2012, 03:11:48 PM
 #60

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

Indeed....

Google Translate

"How smart we say and law of the Lord with us here lie did indeed lie pen books:"
ROFL!
Reminds me of:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!