- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
Your chinese and north korean compatriots would certainly agree with your views
1
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:44 pm to Fun Bunch
Such a brilliant man 
America doesn't produce men like that anymore
America doesn't produce men like that anymore
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:46 pm to mattloc
Yes, communist regimes have typically used getting rid of religion as a tool to make the state more powerful.
Just like regimes have used religion to make the state more powerful, ie Iran.
It goes both ways.
Just like regimes have used religion to make the state more powerful, ie Iran.
It goes both ways.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:49 pm to mattloc
quote:
Your chinese and north korean compatriots would certainly agree with your views
You have literally no idea about the state of God and religion in those countries
Belief in God is not against the law in either China or Korea. In China, Muslims, Jews and Christians have open worship services in designated houses of worship as often as they like. Only official members of the party are not allowed to publically profess a religion.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:49 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
They were just meant to be fun and lighthearted.
Look, I don't know if God exists. His existence at this point can neither be proved or disproved.
That being said, this discussion was not talking about the existence of god. It was simply talking about the debate. A debate that while Nye won factually I think he actually lost.
And even after that being said, the point many of us on this board just want out there is that god did it is not something that should be taught in science class. Sorry.
There is no reason that god put us here should be taught as a viable alternative to evolution. Teaching the debate is not correct.
The science taught is that which is best known and believed at this time. And God has no point in science. Not because science disproves gods existence and not because science proves his existence.
It is because science isn't about god.
many times a thread will be pulled off topic I agree with most of this but because it was just about the debate I will stop my discussion with you on this
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:54 pm to Roger Klarvin
Many chinese places of worship were destoyed in the 60s, during the cultural revolution and the 5 official religions now officially " recognized"are tightly controlled by the government
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:56 pm to mattloc
quote:
Many place of worship were destoyed in the 60s and the 5 official religions now officially " recognized"are tightly controlled by the government
And none of this supports your initial assertion that you would be jailed or killed for publically debating religion in China.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
China has repeatedly jailed and persuecuted those religious individuals who refuse to join the State controlled organization, many whos whereabouts are still unknown. The last well publicized case being that of a Catholic priest August 2013.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:07 pm to mattloc
quote:Could be, but I didn't see evidence of that in China.
Many chinese places of worship were destoyed in the 60s, during the cultural revolution and the 5 official religions now officially " recognized"are tightly controlled by the government
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
trying to avoid a derailing of this thread I will try and explain this quickly
The perpetual virginity of mary is simple. Mary was an ever virgin Mary. According to Protestants this is absurd because the scripture says that Mary had other children.
Just to refer to the CCC passages see numbers 496-507. You may or may not agree with them but that will give you an overview of what the Church teaches. There are a multitude of other resources I could present you with but that would take me way to long and this place isn't the best to do it.
I'm guessing he would primary refer to Mark 3:31 where it says his mother and his brothers came. Now depending on the translation it either says brothers or brethren. Now I trust the RSV translation the most because of its close translation of the greek. It says brethren rather then brother. Does that hint that these are not really the brothers of Christ I'm not sure.
Now certain Catholic Commentaries on this passage will say that Christ's mother and brethren are friends rather than blood related. This would be hinted by the fact that later in that passage it says Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister and mother. So in light of this I think it can be easily refuted that Mary children other than Jesus.
Another way to look at this is to see what old testament figures or stories point to Mary and give us deeper information about her. One basic one is Eve. The Church holds that Eve is a prefigurement of Mary but Mary is now the New eve who didn't fall like our first eve.
Another hint at why the perpetual viringity of mary is in fact true is Ezekiel Ch 44 v 2
I'll let Aquinas explain it
pretty much because the Virgin Mary was inpregnanted by the Holy Spirit her womb is now a temple of the Holy Spirit which no-one should enter.
again I could go much deeper into this but I don't have time
But the Church in light of the Old Testament has declared that Mary must always be a virgin. One of the main reasons is that her womb is a temple of the Holy Spirit and because the Church believes that Ezekiel 44:2 is a prefigurement (or type) of Mary's womb that means that she will always remain a virgin.
Note: I will not debate this but will provide further clarification on Church Teaching.
The perpetual virginity of mary is simple. Mary was an ever virgin Mary. According to Protestants this is absurd because the scripture says that Mary had other children.
Just to refer to the CCC passages see numbers 496-507. You may or may not agree with them but that will give you an overview of what the Church teaches. There are a multitude of other resources I could present you with but that would take me way to long and this place isn't the best to do it.
I'm guessing he would primary refer to Mark 3:31 where it says his mother and his brothers came. Now depending on the translation it either says brothers or brethren. Now I trust the RSV translation the most because of its close translation of the greek. It says brethren rather then brother. Does that hint that these are not really the brothers of Christ I'm not sure.
Now certain Catholic Commentaries on this passage will say that Christ's mother and brethren are friends rather than blood related. This would be hinted by the fact that later in that passage it says Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister and mother. So in light of this I think it can be easily refuted that Mary children other than Jesus.
Another way to look at this is to see what old testament figures or stories point to Mary and give us deeper information about her. One basic one is Eve. The Church holds that Eve is a prefigurement of Mary but Mary is now the New eve who didn't fall like our first eve.
Another hint at why the perpetual viringity of mary is in fact true is Ezekiel Ch 44 v 2
I'll let Aquinas explain it
quote:
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 44:2): This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it. Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii.): What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this—‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this—‘it shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?
pretty much because the Virgin Mary was inpregnanted by the Holy Spirit her womb is now a temple of the Holy Spirit which no-one should enter.
again I could go much deeper into this but I don't have time
But the Church in light of the Old Testament has declared that Mary must always be a virgin. One of the main reasons is that her womb is a temple of the Holy Spirit and because the Church believes that Ezekiel 44:2 is a prefigurement (or type) of Mary's womb that means that she will always remain a virgin.
Note: I will not debate this but will provide further clarification on Church Teaching.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:33 pm to RTOTA
quote:
Ah, the "first cause" philosophical argument. This has been going on for thousands of years. Both sides have claimed to prove their position correct through philosophical arguments, but neither side conclusively wins.
I agree this has been a heated topic and far from finding a agreement on both sides. I've been trying to show a deeper understanding of this passage but it looks like people don't want to discuss it.
quote:
And even if there is a first cause, it does not necessarily have to be a God.
no it doesn't
quote:
And even if there was a God, how can you claim it is the christian one, from the thousands to choose from?
by the argument itself I can't. This is why we have faith. Now just because I have faith in something doesn't mean that position is unreasonable or absurd. I approach by faith like this, quoting JPII
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
quote:
BTW you can't choose what parameters must be proven for not believing in God. The burden of proof lies completely with those who make supernatural claims. It is ridiculous to say not believing in the creation account is a supernatural claim of its own.
the burden of proof on the existence of any God lies equally on both those for or against it.
This is what I claim (the burden is on both those for this position and against it)
God must necessarily exist
Reason can reach this understanding
Who is this necessary being?
Only faith can answer this question because this necessary being can't be fully understood through reason alone.
any person who tries to prove the Christian God to an atheist is trying to prove a matter of faith to a person who doesn't believe in faith. It is a lost cause.
But using reason I believe you can show that a transcendent being must necessarily exist and who this being is comes to us through revelation which is only knowable by faith.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:35 pm to catholictigerfan
because it looks like no-one is really going to expand a discussion on the philosophical necessity of God I will finish this discussion and may leave the thread.
Only thing I will respond to is further clarification on perpetual virginity.
Also I'm sorry I tried to pull this thing off topic, but we never have a chance to discuss philosophical stuff like this so I couldn't resist.
Only thing I will respond to is further clarification on perpetual virginity.
Also I'm sorry I tried to pull this thing off topic, but we never have a chance to discuss philosophical stuff like this so I couldn't resist.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:50 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
because it looks like no-one is really going to expand a discussion on the philosophical necessity of God
I will respond. It is impossible to prove there is no God. IMPOSSIBLE.
From the skeptic point-of-view, it makes more sense to believe in God because there is no penalty for being wrong while the payoff for being correct is huge. For one to say there is no God and they can prove it is a slap in the face to science, or a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. But Bill Nye and his super-rationalist colleagues can be SURE about their ideas since they know that science is exact and can describe with certainty the world around us (Yeah right!!!)
A real debate would have pitted Nye against a rigorous skeptic like the following. For a philosophical or technical view, see Karl Popper or Wittgenstein. Or see Bayesian School.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:53 pm to rcocke2
quote:This is a nonsense argument because if God truly knows all, then he most certainly will know if you're saying you "believe" just to make sure you can get into heaven if it's there. That's not true "belief".
From the skeptic point-of-view, it makes more sense to believe in God because there is no penalty for being wrong while the payoff for being correct is huge
It is not true that one can't argue solidly against the God of the Bible. One cannot scientifically prove that no creator at all existed. But THAT is an entirely different discussion.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:07 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
It is because science isn't about god.
With due respect, impossible. Science is about EVERYTHING. In fact, Quantum Mechanics has qualified/quantified the effect of subjective 'belief'/observation...as such relates to the very (empirical) essence of Reality.
It's all coming together.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:10 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Thanks.
catholictigerfan
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:12 pm to SettleDown
quote:
This is a nonsense argument
Apparently to you. Might want to look in to it. It is actually a highly sophisticated argument.
I use the cost vs benefit analogy for the atheists. And I think I'm in good company, unless of course you think Blaise Pascal, the French natural philosopher, made a non-sense argument as well.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:16 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
In fact, Quantum Mechanics has qualified/quantified the effect of subjective 'belief'/observation...as such relates to the very (empirical) essence of Reality.
I think you might be overstating this a wee bit.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:17 pm to rcocke2
quote:Nope. There is nothing sophisticated about believing "just in case" because any real God wouldn't be fooled. If you REALLY believe, then you don't need the "just in case" part because you REALLY believe.
Apparently to you. Might want to look in to it. It is actually a highly sophisticated argument.
Otherwise hell, I'd run around saying I believed because why not? If that's all it takes to get "in" even though inside I know I don't actually believe, then great. If you believe "just in case" then you quite obviously don't actually BELIEVE.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:18 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
In fact, Quantum Mechanics has qualified/quantified the effect of subjective 'belief'/observation
What? So quantum theory has 'quantified' the effect of subjective 'beliefs' or 'observations'? All probability theory, nothing exact about it. This has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, more to do with 'Induction', a topic that has baffled men since the Greeks.
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News