Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Outside of Christianity


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#61    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,488 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:34 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 08 July 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

You may imagine yourself as having an open mind, but you have precluded learning anything from me (and possibly others) because your mind is made up before you even attempt to engage in dialog.
So what dialogue would you like to engage in?  If you're talking about theological ideas, I'm a poor choice.  Theology is a subject I avoid because of its ephemeral nature.  But if you want to talk about the dates the gospels were written, or about the Red Sea Crossing, or something more concrete, then have at it.

Parsing things - that's how we do science - break it down into its constituents and look at each one individually.  Then reassemble the idea.  It may be linear thinking, but it's n-dimensional linearity.

Quote

You don't discuss; you refute.
You haven't presented anything to discuss, let alone refute.  Why not actually present something?  Like:  did Moses have a military background?  Or:  which mountain was Mt. Sinai?  Or:  was Seneca the original author of the gospels?  If I say something you don't like, counter it with your own evidence and thinking.  I, in turn, will counter your idea.  That's a discussion I would like to have, but to have it, both sides must have a body of knowledge to draw on.  If you don't know that Aristotle was Plato's student and wrote about him, then you will say dumb things, like there not being eye-witness accounts of Plato.  That's not the kind of discussion I want - I prefer one based in fact.

I have several times posted things which are a little shaky just to see if anybody would catch them.  But none of our "Bible students" with all their many years of Bible reading, caught them.  I have said that Luke/Acts was written in about 159 AD.  There is a counter to that argument.  What is it?  Come on you Bible experts; let's hear why 159 AD has to be wrong.

Quote

If I said, "I have an open mind, but I don't accept material reality as ultimately real" (not my position), would you say I have an "open" mind?
I do not understand the point of this question.  If you choose to reject material reality (or not), that is your affair and has no bearing on whether you have an open mind.

Quote

Lots of stuff in human experience is inaccessible to physical observation/experimental repitition: Memory; poetry; feelings; thoughts; mysticism; visions internal and external; imagination (the sound of one hand clapping), etc.
There are a lot of things that science should stay out of.  Poetry and mysticism are probably two of them.  But inroads are being made into memory and how it works and how imagination alters memory.  And who knows?  Maybe the others in your list will be next.  Because nobody has been able to observe something in the past does not mean that it will always remain so.

Quote

Science does not, or thus far has not, answered many of its own questions
Part of the scientist's job is to raise questions.

Quote

about physical reality (how do migratory birds navigate? why did Hitler not advance his tanks upon the beach at Dunkirk in 1940?).
I suggest you do some reading on both these topics as there are peer reviewed articles available on both.

Quote

I've only published two articles, although I do not measure my intellect or value as a human by that meager standard. My only claim to fame came in 1981 when I defeated (by student and faculty acclamation) my graduate school  ethics professor in a debate about the relative validity of marxist analysis of revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the US government's response thereto. One of my skills is identifying internal inconsistencies in others' thinking. The professor had an open mind, and conceded his weakness on the marxist angle, thus giving me the edge. Other people can't admit such, and simply go on a long excursus ultimately validating only themselves, resistant to any nuance, rejecting or misinterpreting others' positions, swallowing their own tail (tale?) like the mythical dragon.

I wish you success in whatever you do. Publish often, and well.

Thus proceed both the religious fundamentalist and the scientific
Congratulations on your accomplishments.

Please don't mistake my investigation of the evidence pertaining to the gospels and Jesus as an attack on religion or, specifically, fundamentalism.  All I could discover is that there is no evidence to support the existence of Jesus.  But that would also mean there is no evidence to refute it, either.  The argument about whether Jesus had a physical existence has been going on since the second century, at least, and is still being debated.  If I found he didn't have a physical existence, then that still leaves a spiritual existence, a subject that is beyond my reach.

We get the best religion when religionists stay out of science and we get the best science when scientists stay out of religion.  The problem for most people is that they can't seem to draw the line between the physical and the spiritual.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 08 July 2013 - 06:49 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#62    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:07 PM

Doug, you continue to repeat the same unilateral, monological "discussion." An example: You have stated that there is no evidence Jesus existed (no eyewitnesses); I responded that there is about as much evidence for Jesus being an historical personage as there is for Plato (no eyewitnesses except people who spoke to and wrote about him) and other historical personages. You misinterpreted and misquoted what I said, paraphrasing it as "there were no eyewitnesses to Plato." I did not say that. I said ". . . as much evidence for Jesus as Plato." Going back to one of my earlier posts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus, and 3 (perhaps 4) were eyewitnesses, who passed that witness on to generations and centuries of others who never saw Jesus, but accepted the deposit of previous witnesses. Your reply is, "Let's talk about Seneca writing the gospels," and then use one-sided scholarship to date the gospels. That's why I perceive you as attempting to argue with things I never said.

And you do it again, and again and again. . . A second example: "There are peer reviewed articles on both" migratory avian navigation and Hitler's use of armor at Dunkirk--but there are no definitive answers. That has been my point--no definitive answers--precisely because no one can enter Hitler's mind and know why he decided what he did, and there are only theories unproven about certain bird behaviors. "Science does not have definitive answers to everything" was my point. Your response: "Peer reviewed articles on those subjects exist." Those are two different things. Do you understand why my statement was not refuted by your statement, and yours only changed the vector of the discussion?

I can cite hundreds of peer reviewed theological articles I have read, and hundreds more that I have skimmed, but I would never state that they "proved" anything.

If religion is of such little consequence to you, why do you comment on it so "authoritatively" in these threads?

Putting it another way, I'm a practical adept regarding ice storms because of the localities and climates in which I have lived. I have lived, for years, what you write about. Fine. Maybe you have more than paper experience of ice storms, too. Good. Would I attempt to refute your peer reviewed article(s) on ice storms? Of course not. I've just chipped a lot of ice and rescued a few errant vehicles. Yet some scientifically-oriented persons deem it laudable to make judgments about religion and theology; in your case cherry-picking the information to suit your materialism.  

We get the best out of science and religion when each respects the other and keeps an open mind to differance (Jacques Derrida). Some people can do that. Some cannot.

Trusting that you will prosper in your chosen endeavors, I wish you well.

Edited by szentgyorgy, 08 July 2013 - 07:25 PM.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#63    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,488 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:32 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 08 July 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Going back to one of my earlier posts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus, and 3 (perhaps 4) were eyewitnesses, who passed that witness on to generations and centuries of others who never saw Jesus, but accepted the deposit of previous witnesses.
So you're one of those people who actually believe that the gospels are eye-witness accounts by people who really lived!

Well, I did say that you should bring up a subject for discussion, and you did:  who wrote the gospels and when.

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who was martyred by beheading in 165 AD:  Mark never talked to any of the Apostles, let alone, Jesus.  He obtained all his information third hand from "presbyters (people who had talked to an Apostle who had talked to Jesus)."  According to Papias, what Mark wrote was a collection of sayings, not a biography.  But what we call the Book of Mark is a biography.  So who actually wrote the Book of Mark?  And when?

OK.  Your turn.  Who wrote the Book of Mark and when did he do it?

BTW:  All these ancient texts are available on line.  Check out www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html.

Quote

And you do it again, and again and again. . . A second example: "There are peer reviewed articles on both" migratory avian navigation and Hitler's use of armor at Dunkirk--but there are no definitive answers. That has been my point--no definitive answers--precisely because no one can enter Hitler's mind and know why he decided what he did, and there are only theories unproven about certain bird behaviors. "Science does not have definitive answers to everything" was my point. Your response: "Peer reviewed articles on those subjects exist." Those are two different things. Do you understand why my statement was not refuted by your statement, and yours only changed the vector of the discussion?
Sorry.  I was hoping you would read up on those subjects and learn something about science and history.  Peer-reviewed articles each tell what was done, why, what was found and what it might mean.

Quote

I can cite hundreds of peer reviewed theological articles I have read, and hundreds more that I have skimmed, but I would never state that they "proved" anything.
Theological articles!  Peer reviewed!  I have seen a few of these, myself, and while that is probably a lot fewer than you, the ones I have seen do nothing but stack speculation on top of speculation.  They don't back up their claims!  Their idea of "evidence" is to cite somebody else's speculation!

Quote

If religion is of such little consequence to you, why do you comment on it so "authoritatively" in these threads?
I seek the truth behind the myths.  I believe that there is a kernel of truth that started each of these legends.  I am curious about whether Jesus actually lived and if so, how much is actually known about him.  I have heard all sorts of wild claims from all sides of the issue.  I do not feel that I can take anybody's word on anything when it comes to Jesus, god, etc.  There is so much B--- S--- surrounding this subject that the easiest way to accomplish my goal seems to throw it all out and start over.  Start with the best evidence possible and follow it wherever it leads.

Quote

Putting it another way, I'm a practical adept regarding ice storms because of the localities and climates in which I have lived. I have lived, for years, what you write about. Fine. Maybe you have more than paper experience of ice storms, too. Good. Would I attempt to refute your peer reviewed article(s) on ice storms? Of course not. I've just chipped a lot of ice and rescued a few errant vehicles. Yet some scientifically-oriented persons deem it laudable to make judgments about religion and theology; in your case cherry-picking the information to suit your materialism.
What my ice storm papers are about is 1.  a shortleaf pine regional chronology for the Ouachita National Forest, 2. the identification of an ice-storm signal in tree ring series that can be used to identify the years in which major winter storms occurred (going back to 1745) and, 3. an analysis of how tree breakage relates to merchantability, diameter and height.

You misunderstand me.  I am not making judgements about religion.  I don't care whether my findings support this or that religion.  There are so many opinions out there that no matter what I discover, I will offend some and vindicate others.  All I'm doing is seeking truth and I still have a long way to go.  Just why is it that you think you'll be on the losing side?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#64    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:43 PM

Doug, you write so many non-starters and personal jargon; you like being opaque. I challenged you on not replying to things I said, and replying to things I did not say. You kept it up. You failed the challenge.

The most recent example: I'm getting the impression you have not lived through as many ice storms as I have. Your papers will not help me in my next one.

Publish well. Take care. "Losing side?" I've already won.

Edited by szentgyorgy, 08 July 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#65    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:53 AM

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?


#66    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:55 AM

View PostBeany, on 09 July 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?

This stuff happens.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#67    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 7,999 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:47 AM

Let's hustle up a posse ....

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer

~


#68    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:30 AM

View PostBeany, on 09 July 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?

Not quite. :no:

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#69    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:45 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 09 July 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

This stuff happens.

It does. Mostly I just ignore it, though I admire the passion. Just wondered how Ron was doing.


#70    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:51 PM

View PostRon Jeremy, on 09 July 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Not quite. :no:

Oh, sad little unhappy face! There's no perfect solution to anything. What worked for me when I was going through a hard time was making small steps, because honestly, that's all I could manage. When I felt good about something, it encouraged me to take another small step. Then that felt good, etc. I think I regained confidence in myself through that process. But there sure wasn't one big solution, and if there was, I wouldn't have been up to it, anyway. I worked a lot on accepting myself for who I was in the moment. My mantra was: however I am right now, however I am feeling in this moment, is perfect for me. I got this from a Science of the Mind magazine article I had read, decided to try it, and it worked.


#71    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:27 PM

View PostBeany, on 09 July 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

It does. Mostly I just ignore it, though I admire the passion. Just wondered how Ron was doing.

Sorry, I was thinking out loud, and feeling guilty for "going on." Yours as a kind post.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#72    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,488 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:29 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 09 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Sorry, I was thinking out loud, and feeling guilty for "going on." Yours as a kind post.
Me too.  Sorry about that.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#73    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:17 PM

A few days ago I found exchristian.net.

I agree pretty much most of the articles posted up there.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#74    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:39 PM

Good you have found friends.  :yes: I have a friend who goes to atheist/humanist  meet ups. Takes the kids, has a good time.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#75    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:54 PM

View PostDarkwind, on 12 July 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Good you have found friends.  :yes: I have a friend who goes to atheist/humanist  meet ups. Takes the kids, has a good time.

I gotta be honest with you.

I am beginning to realize that I really don't belong here. There are too many people whom I can't agree with at best. There are quite a few who are totally out there( to put it nicely) and many of the people in here are completely stuck in mystical and supernatural perspective, which I can't stand.

There's a very personal and private reason why I became so hostile and hateful to mysticism and supernatural views. And I don't think I can really make others understand my situation.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users