DaVinci Code Protesters

[cardaway]

If someone is ever talking about why they don't believe in God or why they think Jesus = One way and I respond with a of any kind, please kick my butt -- I don't think I've ever done that.

I'm sure you've used them for the same reason as the rest of us. Just because it's supposedly are serious discussion doesn't mean things aren't posted that make us or .

This tangent started because some felt they needed to call out somebody. It was out of line given the number of people who do it on both sides.

 

[auntpolly]

I'm sure you've used them for the same reason as the rest of us. Just because it's supposedly are serious discussion doesn't mean things aren't posted that make us or .

This tangent started because some felt they needed to call out somebody. It was out of line given the number of people who do it on both sides.

You and I both know that I've probably given you a --- that's why you don't like me. I usually do it when people are attacking other people. I have a "defend the underdog" complex, and I feel that if someone is going after someone without just cause, a is in order.

I would never have given it to you for what you believe. If you find an instance of my doing it merely to attack someone's beliefs, please show me. I'll keep checking back to read what you find and I'll be the first to apologize for making fun of what someone believes. I'll be mortified, but I'll apologize.

 

[goofygirl]

Wow, I should hurry and reply before this gets locked, lol!


I find it interesting that people see things in black and white and completely ignore the middleground which includes BOTH science and religion. Some food for thought:

Einstein believed in God.

Pope John Paul II supported evolution.

The man who pioneered genetics was Mendel, a monk.

 

[auntpolly]

Wow, I should hurry and reply before this gets locked, lol!


I find it interesting that people see things in black and white and completely ignore the middleground which includes BOTH science and religion. Some food for thought:

Einstein believed in God.

Pope John Paul II supported evolution.

.

LOL great minds think alike! I agree with them both!

 

[cardaway]

You and I both know that I've probably given you a --- that's why you don't like me.

I have been responding to you haven't I? Maybe I shouldn't be.

 

[auntpolly]

I have been responding to you haven't I? Maybe I shouldn't be.

Oh, sorry, I forgot you weren't talking to me -- sorry! Carry on -- my bad! But didn't you just quote me and say I use them for the same reason as everyone else?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

And by the same token it's completely offensive to claim there is only one way and everybody else is wrong.

Just out of curiosity, why is that completely offensive, especially if the person making that claim believes that claim and has evidence to support that claim?

 

[auntpolly]

Just out of curiosity, why is that completely offensive, especially if the person making that claim believes that claim and has evidence to support that claim?

I'm not sure I would agree with your use of the word "evidence" -- but I agree with the rest of your statement -- if someone says they believe Jesus is the only way, or if someone says there is no way (no God) -- same difference to me.

 

[Viking]

Wow, I should hurry and reply before this gets locked, lol!


I find it interesting that people see things in black and white and completely ignore the middleground which includes BOTH science and religion. Some food for thought:

Einstein believed in God.

Pope John Paul II supported evolution.

The man who pioneered genetics was Mendel, a monk.

-Count out good ol' Albert, as he was a product of his time and the belief in religion was deeply rooted in him due the education of his time.
BTW, this is why I'm against exposing children to religion before they are able to THINK for themselves. Say, like age 14.

-JPS nevertheless believed in a creator. He just put him before evolution: HE created and then let evolution do its work.

-Mendel doctored his result and can't be taken completely serious as a scientist.

But there is a multitude of examples of the church's -and other religions'- practice of suppressing scientific progress. Ever heard of Galileo Galilei?

 

[auntpolly]

But there is a multitude of examples of the church's -and other religions'- practice of suppressing scientific progress. Ever heard of Galileo Galilei?

So you are saying that only men of faith have made mistakes or suppressed the truth (not that they thought that was the truth) or did or said something that history proved incorrect?

Humans make mistakes -- sure. The church was and still is make up of humans.

 

[Viking]

Just out of curiosity, why is that completely offensive, especially if the person making that claim believes that claim and has evidence to support that claim?

Your problem is that you obviously don't have a clue about the meaning of the word 'evidence'
You can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true.
Using that approach I can also prove that Harry Potter really exists

 

[auntpolly]

Your problem is that you obviously don't have a clue about the meaning of the word 'evidence'

See, I agree with you, but when you say it like that, with the and the "you don't have a clue", it makes you sound mean -- and like you don't have the good point that you do.

Evidence is something that surely is debatable and even a believer like me can't say that there is "evidence" -- at least scientific evidence of God.

Why do you have to ruin your good arguments like that?

 

[Viking]

So you are saying that only men of faith have made mistakes or suppressed the truth (not that they thought that was the truth) or did or said something that history proved incorrect?

Humans make mistakes -- sure. The church was and still is make up of humans.

Do you need a drawing?
Where did I say that ONLY the church made mistakes or suppressed the truth?

Please don't assume things and please be fair.

 

[Viking]

See, I agree with you, but when you say it like that, with the and the "you don't have a clue", it makes you sound mean -- and like you don't have the good point that you do.

Evidence is something that surely is debatable and even a believer like me can't say that there is "evidence" -- at least scientific evidence of God.

Why do you have to ruin your good arguments like that?

Fom Wikipedia:
Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses. For example an observer wishing for evidence that the sky is blue need only look at the sky.

Evidence in science

In scientific research, evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards proving or disproving a hypothesis.


BTW, don't you think that ncdisneyfan spreads a very suspicious troll-smell? Usually people who have such a low post-count, but are involved in such a discussion like this are
Of course I have no evidence for this, but if necessary I can 'prove' it in 12 steps

 

[cardaway]

BTW, don't you think that ncdisneyfan spreads a very suspicious troll-smell? Usually people who have such a low post-count, but are involved in such a discussion like this are
Of course I have no evidence for this, but if necessary I can 'prove' it in 12 steps

It's like the teachers who can spot a term paper that was obviously copied from another paper and had very little changed. The teacher has no actual evidence, no video footage of the event or witnesses coming forward, but the teacher still rejects the term paper as copy.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Your problem is that you obviously don't have a clue about the meaning of the word 'evidence'
You can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true.
Using that approach I can also prove that Harry Potter really exists

Sure, I know what evidence means. Incidentally, I also know what "mountains of evidence" means, but not that anyone who says they have it have been able to give any of it...

Where did I say I would use the Bible to prove the Bible is true? I think if you look back, you would see that I said I could walk you through 12 points - logical, scientific, historical points - to show you that the Bible, God, etc... are real and true. Of course I can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true to a person without faith, b/c by definition they won't believe it unless they have "proof." I never said that.

You're trying to paint me into a corner attributing words to me that I didn't say, and it's not working...

 

[auntpolly]

Please don't assume things and please be fair.

Honestly, I'm trying to be fair. I'm just trying to extract the histrionics and the personalities from what is an otherwise interesting discussion.

I agree with much of what you say -- I disagree with other things .

I'm not too good at identifying trolls.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Do you need a drawing?
Where did I say that ONLY the church made mistakes or suppressed the truth?

Please don't assume things and please be fair.

See, even you don't like it when people attribute things to you that you didn't say.

 

[declansdad]

No, it actually misses the point. I said I'd be happy to walk anyone through 12 steps that show the Bible to be true, God to exist, etc... These are 12 logical, scientific points that start from the point of pure skepticism and end up with showing that they are true. I never said I'd show you it was true by my faith, but by 12 steps. Incidentally, I do believe the Bible to be true, NOT ONLY by my faith in it, after seeing what it says be true in my life, but also after doing research into evidence that is there for its truth. My judgment of other theories isn't biased, I just don't believe them after seeing the evidence for the Bible and God.

You, and many others, are already operating from the mindset of "it can't be proven to be true." If you hold that mindset b/c it hasn't YET been shown to you and you're waiting to be shown, with an open mind to facts even if they show your current point of view to be wrong, then that's an intellectual roadblock that can be overcome. However, my point was that if you hold the mindset that it can't be proven to be true and NOTHING will change your
mind, then that's a volitional roadblock that can't be overcome until you ("you" in the general term) decide to be open-minded about the evidence provided.

Sorry but I have never said that I don't think it can't be proven to be true. In fact I haven't even said what I believe. I was arguing that both sides believe that that their points are valid and do not accept the others because of what they believe. My point is based on the difinition of the word bias.

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim's correspondence with one's own preconceived ideas. (from wikipedia)



As for your 12 steps to logical, scientific proof in regard to the Bible being true and the existance of God, please post them. I would love to read them and I'm sure so would many others. I was raised in the Anglican Church and have read many things in regard to the existance of God and on the subject of the Bible yet no one has ever offered scientific proof before. It has been based on faith that it is true.

 

[cardaway]

BTW, don't you think that ncdisneyfan spreads a very suspicious troll-smell? Usually people who have such a low post-count, but are involved in such a discussion like this are
Of course I have no evidence for this, but if necessary I can 'prove' it in 12 steps

It's like the teachers who can spot a term paper that was obviously copied from another paper and had very little changed. The teacher has no actual evidence, no video footage of the event or witnesses coming forward, but the teacher still rejects the term paper as copy.