news.nationalgeographic.com — What may be the oldest known Hebrew text, found on a hilltop above the valley where David is said to have battled Goliath, could lend historical support to some Bible stories, archaeologists say.
Nov 3, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountNov 4, 2008
Jews and Muslims have bulls**t mythology too. Go hug your bible.
wunkstaNov 4, 2008
science deals with explaining things with facts and evidence thats available. its different from "truth" in that we can never really know or attempt to explain everything, only specific verifiable situations based on the evidence. math does deal in truths though, but its different than truth in philosophy. interesting stuff"You see it does take faith to believe in something, and actually everything you do in your life. "its unnecessary to have "faith" in something that is physical and is consistent. its not required to have "faith" to not believe that you will fall into the sky if you dont look at it. its not required to have faith to acknowledge the existence of tangible objects or intangible emotions that can be verified through communication and scientific analysis. if you are saying theres a being that no one can detect that has an influence on the physical universe through mystical means, yes that DOES require faith because its not verifiable. sorry, thats how it is."Please stop bringing in fairies and monsters like the rest of the atheists who argue on here, it's just silly. "shiva is not a "monster", its a divine being in the hindu religion, a being thats believed in devoutly as your abrahamic "God". thanks for playing though. one mans "fairy tale" is anothers religious belief. there is no difference except subjective view points."Aren't you doing the same thing here? It is proper debate. I'll argue my point and get criticism, so will you. "debating is one thing, im not trying to convince you of anything other than the difference between science and truth and the nuances of faith though. i havent touched on the validity of your religion, so dont get me wrong.
undershirtNov 4, 2008
You're exactly right. Science can't say anything about God because it's completely imaginary at the moment.
yage2006Nov 4, 2008
Evidence in some old text that nobody knew who writ ages ago .Right. I love what the religious minded consider proof.
wunkstaNov 4, 2008
lol this isnt the best format for a formal debate i think haha"How do you explain actions and situations with available evidence? You must believe in the natural world for you to be able to prove it in science. Belief in the natural world is faith in our existence."i disagree, i dont have faith i exist. i know i exist. i dont have faith in physical objects because i dont say that they "absolutely exist as they are" only that they for the most part, are there as they appear to me. i accept it and find no reason to doubt it, and move on. i could be living in a fantasy world but theres no reason to believe it, a la occams razor.@"Aren't you making this discussion more complicated by saying science doesn't deal in truth?"it doesnt, go into any university and ask any professor who deals in science. @" "I think, therefore I am.' Well how do you prove we are here? Touch, taste, smell, hearing, all part of science. That's proving something, that's truth, that's science. "that statement is the basis of understanding. we, individually, have to exist. we know that much. now we can accept our surroundings or we can suggest, like descartes did, that they are an illusion. but really, it takes faith to believe they are not like they are. we have to have reason to doubt, we dont have reason to and we accept them for the way they are. and again, science deals with objective facts and evidence. we can explain how we smell etc through these things but it doesnt explain the "truth" of smelling. @"You can't use Descartes as an argument against God, because he believed in God."i wasnt, maybe there was a misunderstanding. my point was that he was arguing that everything he saw was an illusion, that the physical world didnt exist as it was. like what you were saying, we have to have "faith" that the world is the way it is, when in fact its the opposite. we accept physical reality for the way it is based on our perception because we have no reason to doubt its realness. @"So do you think science is more powerful and more of a 'savior' to the human race than reason and logic? "yes, this argument has devolved. i never postulated anything of the sort nor inferred it. science is a tool to explain physical reality, philosophy and religions deals with "truths" and the ways to live.@"Do you think God will disappear if you can argue your way out of it or is that just something you want to believe, or have faith in there not being a God? "you are postulating that god exists without a basis. i see no reason to play your game.@"Atheists do have faith, they have faith in nothing. 'Nothing' is actually something because 'nothing' exists in our mind and we created it. "word games. atheists lack a faith in a divine or spiritual nature. this doesnt mean that atheists dont "believe" anything or believe "nothing".@"well just read more Descartes. "you should, he presents a clear reason as to why we need to accept our physical reality and how thats opposite of faith."But don't you obey the human law to avoid punishment on earth? Isn't law on earth the same as an eternal law that is above you 'floating around in the heavens.' What does that tell you about our system of justice? "our system doesnt claim perfection or divine nature nor that we need "complete devotion and faith" in order to be spared. @"So my question to you is, why do you even care if there is a God or not?"i dont really@"Why do you care to argue the non-existence of God? i dont go out of my why to argue against it, i just feel compelled to point out things in conversations that are related to it. you say "god exists because of this..." i have to respond with my opinion. @"Why do you even care in general? (this is the part where you insert science explaining emotion through neural connections, and describing natural selection and evolution as contributing to our development of reason and logic as homo sapiens - if so, how do you explain the development of reason? How can the development of reason be explained if you don't have a pre-existing truth?) You care about the non-existence of God, so you must believe God is not there. Like we discussed earlier, believing in God or not believing in God all comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. And onto free will..."nice rant.
samgabNov 5, 2008
I don't think it gives any crtedence at all...
wunkstaNov 5, 2008
@ICSUnot really, you just say theres no evidence for it and thus no reason to believe
wunkstaNov 5, 2008
@why do you even call yourself athiest to begin with?, is there a purple-monkey, blue-elephant denier group?.im sure there would be if that believer group was a large segment of the population and created laws and controlled society in favor of their beliefs.
cpoveyNov 6, 2008
CS Lewis, for one.