Originally Posted by Ryan V

As far as the version of the scriptures is concerned, oldest manuscripts is not always best. The KJV is the best version as explained here

I am a Christian. I read and use the KJV. I would even say I love KJV. However, even I would admit that KJV is not THE best version. That video is made by some hokey guy who does not know anything about Greek and translating the Bible. I know, coz I'm taking Greek and have done translation exercises. It's not as cut and dry as most people set it out to be. And that Alexandrian "cult" that it talks about is a monastic brotherhood that was shunned and condemned by the "Church" because they agreed with Origen's teaching. Origen was one of the early church fathers who influenced so many of the future Catholic thinkers (the Cappadocian Fathers, if you really want to research it) but was branded as a heretic. The man had a lot of haters. The problem was that the haters he had were in authority and abused their authority to sully his name. And quite honestly, I am ashamed to call myself a Christian because of the inane babblings that most "Christians" spew out from their mouths. Unfortunately most Christians are prone to do this. And so, as a Christian, I apologize to other Christians and non-Christians, for the nonsensical behaviour and inane logic that some in our group have said and done. And by no means do I suggest that I don't participate in the same type of behaviour. The BEST version out there is the original one. So unless you study Greek, any other translation is a matter of preference.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

4) Because religious crazies tend to act all righteous and preach good values when in their methods of debate, they become douchebags.

ummm.. yah... i'm a Christian... and i couldn't have said it any better. *sigh*

Originally Posted by temara.brown

LOL

Yes some people are ridiculous in that way. PS. Ryan V really need to fact check that statement!

It seems like some posters are having trouble distinguishing 'the existence of a theistic figure' from religious additions (creationism v. evolution, moral issues, etc.)

The only connection I see is if the creationist argument is true - as it requires the existence of a theistic figure to function - however, I don't see how the truth of the evolutionist argument 'helps' any side of the argument. It would just be proving / disproving a social phenomenon that came out of religion, not the basis of religion itself...

Anyway, just pointing out a bit of a logical fallacy, there.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

It seems like some posters are having trouble distinguishing 'the existence of a theistic figure' from religious additions (creationism v. evolution, moral issues, etc.)

The only connection I see is if the creationist argument is true - as it requires the existence of a theistic figure to function - however, I don't see how the truth of the evolutionist argument 'helps' any side of the argument. It would just be proving / disproving a social phenomenon that came out of religion, not the basis of religion itself...

Anyway, just pointing out a bit of a logical fallacy, there.

The problem with various forms of creationism, excluding young earth creationism, is that it it simply isn't disprovable. It become very hard to argue with the fact that since we don't know a higher being's intentions we don't know that his method of selection is natural selection. I strongly disagree they should be taught in science class but they're not something a little scientific knowledge can extinguish.

In the end, religious organizations that rely on a God of the Gaps argument will fail, but ones which base their views on things beyond the possible limits of science will likely prove impossible to destroy or eliminate entirely even if the majority of people wanted to build an atheistic society.

Originally Posted by arathbon

The problem with various forms of creationism, excluding young earth creationism, is that it it simply isn't disprovable. It become very hard to argue with the fact that since we don't know a higher being's intentions we don't know that his method of selection is natural selection. I strongly disagree they should be taught in science class but they're not something a little scientific knowledge can extinguish.

Of course - I wasn't trying to judge the validity of creationism or evolution. Personally, I'm happy evolution is being taught in schools, simply because I like my axioms to be confined to "math"

I think the creationist v evolutionist argument, while related (through theism) to the theistic v atheistic argument, is not particularly relevant to the validity of either side.

Anyone know what their Friday event actually put forward, or was it just more nonsense?



/ontopic

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Of course - I wasn't trying to judge the validity of creationism or evolution. Personally, I'm happy evolution is being taught in schools, simply because I like my axioms to be confined to "math"

Now this part intrigues me because you're talking my language...

Axioms are axioms, they're belief without proof...given that evolution and creationism are largely based on 'qualitative' reasoning and not number-crunching, how is it that your axioms are confined to math, with evolution? (It seems to me, neither one is 'mathematical' although depending on your response, I could give you 'mathematical' interpretations of a higher power, or at least mathematical analogies)

You know what annoys me? When people say they want this thread to die, or that "nothing's going to change"...what are you so afraid of?

Why not let the thread run its course without people who keep posting that this thread should just be left alone? It's not hurting anyone.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Now this part intrigues me because you're talking my language...

Axioms are axioms, they're belief without proof...given that evolution and creationism are largely based on 'qualitative' reasoning and not number-crunching, how is it that your axioms are confined to math, with evolution? (It seems to me, neither one is 'mathematical' although depending on your response, I could give you 'mathematical' interpretations of a higher power, or at least mathematical analogies)

I probably used the term too loosely - I should have confined the 'axiomatic' bit to what each argument presupposes. Evolution seems less axiomatic in conception because it doesn't assume anything that can't be deduced or 'proved'. So, belief in evolution may be axiomatic (as there may be no proof for the viewpoint), but I don't see how evolution is axiomatic to the same degree.


Again, I probably should have specified more, and am still using the 'axiomatic 'loosely

It's probably just a value judgment on my part (despite trying to indicate the contrary), seeing something like '1+1=2' as less axiomatic as God, or, in a slightly similar vein, creationism as more axiomatic as evolution. (Damn, GEB is getting to me)