The Creation Museum

[Buckeye86]

Also by his question he wasn't asking for some standard of evidence that only pertained to me? Why would he? Why then would I use I?

Exactly, he was asking for a standard of evidence that is universally applicable. Deciding whether something is believable or not is an extremely subjective standard that is impossible to apply beyond an individual, so why wouldn't you use 'I'?

By that standard does someone deciding Jesus riding a dinosaur is not believable refute creationism and/or Christianity?

BOOM! I brought it back around to Jesus on dinosaurs, you are welcome AKAK.

 

[Brewtus]

I think we've established that empiricity isn't the only means of aquiring some degree of certainty of truth. Have we not? Are you're saying it's neither true nor false that Socrates lived since we can't empiricly test it?
Empiriclly prove that Alexander the Great conquered part of the world. If historical documents are considored hearsay than nothing in history is available to have a some degree of certainty of truth.

You are dealing with different levels of required evidence here. Proving the existence of a specific historical figure (such as Socrates, Alexander the Great or even Christ as an actual person) has a required level of evidence far below a claim of someone being a demi-god or raising from the dead. It's not inconceivable that these people lived in the past; however making extraordinary claims about miracles or the existence of a deity require a much higher level of evidence than hearsay.

We look at the claims themselves and try to figure out whether they are believable. First example. Islam claims that Ismael was the son Abraham built an alter with and was thus the child of God's promise, not Isaac. Problem this wasn't even really a known belief until Mohammed at 600 AD. The Jews (and Christians in this case) say wait a minute. The claim was made well over 2,000 years after we have the Jewish tales of the event happening with Isaac. I realize that goes far from proving either event happened, but if take any liklihood that the story of Abraham is true doesn't when the claim was made matter?

I'm certain that Muslims have a counter claim for every criticism that's made of the Qur'an, just like Christian do for the Bible. But what it really comes down to is faith - which is fine for religion. I only have a problem with that when religions make claims that they feel are on equal ground as scientific claims, such as Creationism.

On morality. Islam endorses killing those who leave it. Or just killing the infedels in general. I realize not every flavor of Islam endorses this, but hardly any of them will say the other guy is wrong either. I don't know about you but I have a problem with that based on morality as I understand it. (I do realize the Bible, especially the OT has given commands to kill people, but I'm comfortable with the explanation that it was only meant for certain people at certain times, whereas Islam's commands are general and universal.) But even then it's only an example and a tool to be used to compare to the reality we have.

The Bible and Qur'an are both a poor source for obtaining a moral code of conduct. There are many, many passages that give "commands to kill people" in the OT (in addition to promoting human sacrifice, rape, slavery, and many other immoral acts) and I'm not sure how you can brush them all aside.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The Bible and Qur'an are both a poor source for obtaining a moral code of conduct. There are many, many passages that give "commands to kill people" in the OT (in addition to promoting human sacrifice, rape, slavery, and many other immoral acts) and I'm not sure how you can brush them all aside.

Where Brewtus do you get the idea that those acts are immoral?

Edit: That's not a full answer to your whole post I know, but I'm getting ready to embark on more important business. On the Golf course.

 

[Brewtus]

....children are taught what is right and wrong religiously speaking with almost no leeway for interpretation, once again I go back to the Bible literally condemning non-believers to hell... which (from my experience) people aren't shy about sharing with little children with vivid descriptions of hell and all

I think a lot of parents like indoctrinating their children with religion because God is like an invisible baby sitter - kind of like Santa Claus but with much greater consequences if you do something bad.

 

[Buckeye86]

Where Brewtus do you get the idea that those acts are immoral?

The Golden Rule has been around a lot longer than most organized religions.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The Golden Rule has been around a lot longer than most organized religions.

Nice. Why should I care about the golden rule?

 

[Buckeye86]

Nice. Why should I care about the golden rule?

because it is the origin of the idea that raping, killing, and enslaving are immoral acts... thus answering your question

anyways, I meant to bow out of this one a few posts ago, so I will officially make this my last post in this thread for the foreseeable future

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

because it is the origin of the idea that raping, killing, and enslaving are immoral acts... thus answering your question

anyways, I meant to bow out of this one a few posts ago, so I will officially make this my last post in this thread for the foreseeable future

That doesn't explain why I should care. Why I should obey some golden rule? Or the rules you say follow it.

 

[AKAK]

Exactly, he was asking for a standard of evidence that is universally applicable. Deciding whether something is believable or not is an extremely subjective standard that is impossible to apply beyond an individual, so why wouldn't you use 'I'?

By that standard does someone deciding Jesus riding a dinosaur is not believable refute creationism and/or Christianity?

BOOM! I brought it back around to Jesus on dinosaurs, you are welcome AKAK.

Gee, thanks....

And the sniping ends now...

Seriously.

 

[Buckeye513]

That doesn't explain why I should care. Why I should obey some golden rule? Or the rules you say follow it.

That's between you and your conscience.

Why do you obey the bible?

 

[Brewtus]

Where Brewtus do you get the idea that those acts are immoral?

Edit: That's not a full answer to your whole post I know, but I'm getting ready to embark on more important business. On the Golf course.

I think what you're asking is where do I get my morals from? As B86 mentions, morals have been around far longer than the earliest writings of the Bible. Humans never would have survived to this point if murder, theft, etc. were acceptable behaviors. Humans are a social animal and it's in one's best self-interest to help others (and anticipate reciprocal behavior in the future) and not piss off too many other people along the way if they want to live a long life with many offspring.

We can pick up this discussion later. And I'm jealous you live somewhere where you can golf today.

 

[Taosman]

From Carl Sagan:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

 

[buckeyegrad]

From Carl Sagan:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

If Sagan is being honest in that statement it sounds as though he didn't leave his scientific circles very often. Reality is this occurs on the individual level with politics and religion daily, sometimes in small shifts, other times in deep, radical ones. If I were to go back in time 10 years and have a discussion with me at 25 years of age, I would have significant theological differences with myself over the role of Torah for a Christian, the degree to which the Protestant Reformation returned Christianity to its roots, and what the eschaton will look like.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Screw Carl Sagan.

Having read a few of the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, I became intrigued by 'catastophism', the notion that huge catistrophic events have occurred in historical times - notably the flood of Noah. A somwhat topical concept for this thread, I suppose.

The book 'Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky' details the crusade Carl Sagan led against Velikovsky's theories and it paints Sagan in a very bad light, imo.

An enjoyable read and could be preceeded by some of Velikovsky's books, if you're so inclined - they're not too long.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Upheaval-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp/1906833125/ref=pd_sim_b_3"]Earth in Upheaval[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collision-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp/1906833117/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Worlds in Collision[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ages-Chaos-Exodus-King-Akhnaton/dp/1906833133/ref=pd_sim_b_2"]Ages in Chaos[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sagan-Immanuel-Velikovsky-Charles-Ginenthal/dp/1561840750"]Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky[/ame]

 

[sandgk]

Screw Carl Sagan.

Wrong on many levels ... necrophilia being but one.