Author Topic: Call for a discussion about whether science is true/reliable/trustworthy/etc.  (Read 2156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6866
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Mooby, what is sin? Do only humans have it and not, say, dinosaurs? Is that why you say there was no sin a billion years ago?

Welcome back, btw.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Of course there was.  1 billion years ago there was no sin.  Today, there is sin.  Therefore, at some point in the middle there must have been an original sin.

According to magicmiles, death and disease came about because of sin.  Do you hold that belief as well?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6866
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Of course there was.  1 billion years ago there was no sin.  Today, there is sin.  Therefore, at some point in the middle there must have been an original sin.

According to magicmiles, death and disease came about because of sin.  Do you hold that belief as well?

That would imply that, since only humans can sin, pre-human life forms like dinosaurs, prehistoric ferns and trilobites never got diseases, did not die and certainly could not have gone extinct. A very enlightened perspective for the 19th century. Pre-Darwin. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Mooby, what is sin? Do only humans have it and not, say, dinosaurs? Is that why you say there was no sin a billion years ago?
Sin comes from a word meaning roughly "missing the mark." It is what occurs when someone fails to act in accord with (God-given) natural moral law, and must be done knowingly and willingly.  Yes, only humans can sin to my knowledge.

According to magicmiles, death and disease came about because of sin.  Do you hold that belief as well?
Physical death and disease? No.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
That would be a supernatural moral law, not a natural one.  Just sayin'.  Natural things are naturalistic.  Your computer screen would be a good example of the latter.  Gods, miracles, etc., belong to the former.

Physical death and disease? No.

Hmm.  I wonder how he came to believe the opposite.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Sin comes from a word meaning roughly "missing the mark." It is what occurs when someone fails to act in accord with (God-given) natural moral law, and must be done knowingly and willingly.  Yes, only humans can sin to my knowledge.
Does it stand to reason, then, that if god wanted to eliminate sin, one way he could achieve that would be to repeal the moral laws that he has given?

Quote
According to magicmiles, death and disease came about because of sin.  Do you hold that belief as well?
Physical death and disease? No.
Do you at all feel compelled to resolve that discrepancy in beliefs?  Would you consider it a major or minor discrepancy?
(I realize that you haven't talked directly with magicmiles regarding this, so perhaps those are unfair questions.)
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Sin comes from a word meaning roughly "missing the mark." It is what occurs when someone fails to act in accord with (God-given) natural moral law, and must be done knowingly and willingly.  Yes, only humans can sin to my knowledge.
Does it stand to reason, then, that if god wanted to eliminate sin, one way he could achieve that would be to repeal the moral laws that he has given?

Similarly, he could also have eliminated "sin" by not making anyone aware of what his moral laws were in the first place.  If I have no idea what the rules are, I cannot "knowingly and willingly" transgress them - hence, by this definition, there would be no sin.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
That would be a supernatural moral law, not a natural one.  Just sayin'.  Natural things are naturalistic.  Your computer screen would be a good example of the latter.  Gods, miracles, etc., belong to the former.
The term has been around for thousands of years; I didn't invent it.

 
Does it stand to reason, then, that if god wanted to eliminate sin, one way he could achieve that would be to repeal the moral laws that he has given?
I'm not sure, but I think that would require rewiring the universe. So my guess is no.

Quote
Do you at all feel compelled to resolve that discrepancy in beliefs?  Would you consider it a major or minor discrepancy?
No, I do not, though I am open to discussing it with him if such a discussion should arise. I consider it a minor discrepancy.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
That would be a supernatural moral law, not a natural one.  Just sayin'.  Natural things are naturalistic.  Your computer screen would be a good example of the latter.  Gods, miracles, etc., belong to the former.
The term has been around for thousands of years; I didn't invent it.

I know.  But we can always try to change, rather than condone, things that don't make sense.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Considering that 'supernatural' is synonymous with 'imaginary' I think that rather than trying to interpret how to follow imaginary laws we'd do better to simply make real ones that reflect the needs of the real world.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Does it stand to reason, then, that if god wanted to eliminate sin, one way he could achieve that would be to repeal the moral laws that he has given?
I'm not sure, but I think that would require rewiring the universe. So my guess is no.
Is that in a 'god wouldn't have the power or ability to rewire the universe' kind of sense, or a 'god wouldn't be able to achieve what he wants to achieve by doing such an act'[1] kind of sense?
 1. Basically, a 'best of all possible worlds' view.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Is that in a 'god wouldn't have the power or ability to rewire the universe' kind of sense, or a 'god wouldn't be able to achieve what he wants to achieve by doing such an act'[1] kind of sense?
 1. Basically, a 'best of all possible worlds' view.
Aren't those two heads of the same coin under "best of all possible worlds?" I'm not sure on the specifics as I'm not 100% sure where I stand on BOAPW.  My current thought is that it might be true.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
The Catholic Creed requires you to swear before God that you believe in Adam and Eve
Which line of the Nicene and/or Apostles Creed are you referring to?
I apologise. I am obviously not 100% on the various rituals, dogma and names of Rome. This is what I was referring to:

"A [wiki]catechism[wiki] is a summary or exposition of doctrine and served as a learning introduction to the Sacraments traditionally used in catechesis, or Christian religious teaching of children and adult converts. Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorised."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER ONE
I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER
ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
Paragraph 6. Man
355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

383 "God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons" (GS 12 § 4).

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Ah, I see.

In that case, Catholics are not required to swear by the Catechism.  Here is the Catechism's role:
On 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II presented the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the faithful of the whole world, describing it as a “reference text”[1] for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith.

So no, nothing in the Catechism requires a Catholic to swear by anything.  Rather, it is an organized text of Church teachings.

But even looking at the teachings themselves, they do not rely on a literal Adam and Eve (see my citation in Reply #23.)
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
OK. But isn't it a little disingenuous to be having people learn this stuff?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
How so?
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.