I also remember Lunalle stating that he didn't want to quibble over definitions, semantics or linguistics, it all seems a little hypocritical to me. Jac wanted to define terms such as atheism and was told by Lunalle the he wasn't interested in defining words or playing semantic games or linguistics.Lunalle wrote:The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition.
Religion vs. Science?
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Aussie Land
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Last edited by Danieltwotwenty on Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
- neo-x
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Contact:
Re: Religion vs. Science?
I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.
I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?
There was no dishonesty in paul's post. I already told you that you can not hold everyone to a single definition of anything...are you not listening?
Christian faith is NOT MONOLITHIC, period. Take your time, digest this and then proceed.
I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?
It was fine till the "...to the first definition" after that it is plain rude and condescending.Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.
There was no dishonesty in paul's post. I already told you that you can not hold everyone to a single definition of anything...are you not listening?
Christian faith is NOT MONOLITHIC, period. Take your time, digest this and then proceed.
You will have to show me the problem first.My problem is here.
neo-x wrote:
My faith...
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
- neo-x
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Contact:
Re: Religion vs. Science?
I don't have unrealistic expectations.Danieltwotwenty wrote:
I believe that Jesus is God because of the things he had to say, everything he said is exactly what I would expect from a loving Father and all powerful creator. It was so counter culture that they killed him, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, love your neighbour in the way you love yourself, turn the other cheek etc....
Everything he had to say rings true in my heart and that is why I believe in him and want to live like him.
I guess my expectations of God are higher than yours. What Jesus said (according to most English translations of the Bible) is not what I'd expect a God to say. If you look at what the apostles say, it is very different from what I'd expect an apostle of God (with personal interaction) would say. It is what I expect radically progressive people, living in that time and society to say.
Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.neo-x wrote:
... which progress has stopped because of love your enemies as yourself?
Before I can fairly answer that question, we have to come to an agreement on what progress is, what love is, what enemies are, and what my love for myself is. I'll try to give an example though. If you love an abusive controlling spouse, your life will not make much progress, because the abusive controlling spouse will hinder your progress. Does that make sense?
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Aussie Land
Re: Religion vs. Science?
The funny thing is he has just as much faith in his worldview as what we do, making him just as "dangerous" as us.neo-x wrote:I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.
I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
- neo-x
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Contact:
Re: Religion vs. Science?
I doubt he'll agree, the same way we don't think our faith is dangerous he thinks he's right...and I have yet to see how science has destroyed faith?Danieltwotwenty wrote:The funny thing is he has just as much faith in his worldview as what we do, making him just as "dangerous" as us.neo-x wrote:I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.
I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?
Science has destroyed false ideas but a geocentric model of the solar system is not faith to begin with, it's a false position taken up by church.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Aussie Land
Re: Religion vs. Science?
I doubt he would agree either, but that in no way invalidates the truth or validates his opinion.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Religion vs. Science?
You are quite incorrect.Lunalle wrote:Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.
We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)
Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.
Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith
WE choose how WE define our faith, no one does that for us.
My faith is not blind and has never been blind and is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
That is just how it is for me.
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Religion vs. Science?
FlawedIntellect wrote:You're joking, right?Lunalle wrote:Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.
We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)
Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.
Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith
The second definition is just the first definition reworded and applied more specifically to religion.
Definition two invokes definition one.
Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?
People don't get to dictate to others what they thing faith means based on an order of definition in a dictionary.
The individual decides how they define their own faith, no one does that for them.
Dictionary definition as there to show us the multiple ( if applicable) ways a word CAN be viewed/used, they are NOT their to dictate to us WHICH one we use.
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Religion vs. Science?
I'd like to address the charges brought against me here.
1) I have just as much faith in my worldview as you, making me equally dangerous.
I have faith that my morality is helpful. I build my world view on my morality. I'm willing to change my world view if you show that the morals it is based on, is not helpful.
2) My target is faith, and I'll do all I can to drive my point home.
My point is that it is best to have a certain amount of faith. Too little faith has demonstrably bad results, and too much faith has demonstrably bad results as well.
3) I doubt he would agree either, but that in no way invalidates the truth or validates his opinion.
Absolutely correct!
4) We choose how we define faith, no one does that for us.
This is a matter of literate honesty, and clear communication. I demand both of them. If you hold some personal definition of faith, and don't communicate it, then no one else is going to know what you're talking about. If you want to use the word "faith" outside of the agreed upon definitions in the dictionary, go right ahead, but explain it in detail first, so we're all on the same page.
5) Faith is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
Personal experience is not a scientifically justifiable reason for a claim. It doesn't work for me either, and I hope it doesn't work for anyone else.
6) Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?
Nope, they're similar, but independent.
7) I am not here to learn apologetics.
Well, I know quite a bit about apologetics. However I don't know everything. I am here for two reasons 1) To learn more about apologetics. 2) To encourage apologists to develop better habits.
Now, back to the point:
Cheers!
1) I have just as much faith in my worldview as you, making me equally dangerous.
I have faith that my morality is helpful. I build my world view on my morality. I'm willing to change my world view if you show that the morals it is based on, is not helpful.
2) My target is faith, and I'll do all I can to drive my point home.
My point is that it is best to have a certain amount of faith. Too little faith has demonstrably bad results, and too much faith has demonstrably bad results as well.
3) I doubt he would agree either, but that in no way invalidates the truth or validates his opinion.
Absolutely correct!
4) We choose how we define faith, no one does that for us.
This is a matter of literate honesty, and clear communication. I demand both of them. If you hold some personal definition of faith, and don't communicate it, then no one else is going to know what you're talking about. If you want to use the word "faith" outside of the agreed upon definitions in the dictionary, go right ahead, but explain it in detail first, so we're all on the same page.
5) Faith is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
Personal experience is not a scientifically justifiable reason for a claim. It doesn't work for me either, and I hope it doesn't work for anyone else.
6) Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?
Nope, they're similar, but independent.
7) I am not here to learn apologetics.
Well, I know quite a bit about apologetics. However I don't know everything. I am here for two reasons 1) To learn more about apologetics. 2) To encourage apologists to develop better habits.
Now, back to the point:
So, here we are again, not agreeing on a concept. Yet again, I push for literate honesty, and I claim that loving them does equate to staying with them (according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7), and its fine for you not to do either.neo-x wrote:Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.
Cheers!
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
- neo-x
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Contact:
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Don't claim, prove!Now, back to the point:
So, here we are again, not agreeing on a concept. Yet again, I push for literate honesty, and I claim that loving them does equate to staying with them (according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7), and its fine for you not to do either.neo-x wrote:Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Okay, sure.neo-x wrote:Don't claim, prove!
1 Corinthians 13:7 starts with "Love bears all things..." So you have no justification to claim you are both loving (bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does), and leaving (not bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does).
Now, I expect we are going to disagree on the word "bear" ... am I right?
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Sure, but not everything can be quantifiable and ALL science is based on OUR perception of reality and understanding of it at any given time.5) Faith is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
Personal experience is not a scientifically justifiable reason for a claim. It doesn't work for me either, and I hope it doesn't work for anyone else.
Lets not forget that personal experience is what leads scientists to go out and PROVE things.
You seem to be imply that unless one has a SCIENTIFIC basis for a claim, it isn't a justifiable one, are you implying this?
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.Lunalle wrote:Okay, sure.neo-x wrote:Don't claim, prove!
1 Corinthians 13:7 starts with "Love bears all things..." So you have no justification to claim you are both loving (bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does), and leaving (not bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does).
Now, I expect we are going to disagree on the word "bear" ... am I right?
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Well, I thought I was clear, but let me rephrase.
I do not credit my experience as a reliable method of determining objective truth, and I hope no one else does either.
I do not credit my experience as a reliable method of determining objective truth, and I hope no one else does either.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Religion vs. Science?
Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.PaulSacramento wrote:Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!
Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist!