Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[Shogun]

yea..


ASTRONOMY sure is BATSHIT CRAZY when compared to a bunch of thumpers with nothing to offer besides, "boohoo, i can't teach the bible in science class"







whatever say, dingdong.


like I said, start posting EXPERIMENTS with yout theology or shut the hell up. You are not the new scientific underground. You don't offer anything ebyond the injection of your FAITH into a subject that relies on EVIDENCE.

 

[frazzledgear]

oh you can say what you want (for the most part) but so, too, are we allowed to call you batshit crazy when you mount another stupid rant. INCLUDING scientists who understand the reason your batshit craziness is not science.


Like i said, put up or shut the fuck up. Post one single example of your theology producing a reproducible experiment from which we can deduce something about the physical nature of our world. Go ahead. Show your cards.



acting like a groupie to Mt. Ararat on the offhand chance that someone will find the fucking Ark just isn't science. sorry. Insisting that noah's fucking flood created the grand canyon just isn't science. sorry.

So let me get this straight. It is people like YOU who demand that the scientific work of such scientists be tossed out WITHOUT trying to scientifically challenge it. You were FROTHING and insisting that no scientist should take the work seriously of any scientist whose works challenges YOUR world view. But NOW want it reproduced to see if it is even reproducible or gets the same results? Hmm. Interesting twist on your position if you are now saying that scientists SHOULD try to reproduce it and test it for validity. Because this is actually what I've been saying all along -if its valid, its not going away. If there is no validity -this is the fastest way to make it go away.

But just in case you missed it -I am NOT talking about the creationists who have bastardized the theory as a broadbased refutation of evolution. THEIR claims have no place in a classroom and have nothing to do with science -they are sneaking in their religious beliefs under the guise of a theory with a name they claimed as their own. THEY are not the scientists who proposed this theory for a single, specific question in their field and actually agree that some parts of evolution are correct. No scientist has proposed the theory as some kind of refutation of evolution in its entirety. Scientists who have proposed the theory for a single question in their field -have provided their work. So that work can either be scientifically proven to have validity or not. If scientifically proven not to have any validity, then it will die a natural death. And the first time it is tossed for one specific question where it was proposed, means it is less likely to be the correct answer for any of the handful of specific questions it has been proposed. There is no better way to discredit this theory than by the work of other scientists.

I'd say the work of the physicists I named earlier who certainly provided their equations and formulas is HIGHLY reproducible. Let's start there -and let me know when any scientist is able to prove their work was flawed after all or led them to a different conclusion. But remember, people like YOU are the ones who insisted scientists should NOT try to reproduce their work at all and should just ignore it instead.

 

[Shogun]

I'm calling your hand. You can bitch about the lack of inclusion all damn day and totally ignore that the ROOT of the evolution theory (darwinism) is no more relied upon than the bible by modern scientists all you want. At the end of the day, your rant means jack shit because the very core of SCIENCE is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.


praytel (HA!), do you have an experiment to offer or just more smoke to blow? It's the very FACT that you don't offer shit beyond injecting dogma into science that makes you balk at such a challenge. I make the distinction by letting you convey how goddamn stupid your own nutter theories are. But, until you have something to offer SCIENCE besides the latest bullshit nutjob fanaticism you won't have a place in the science classroom.

and no.. theoretical physics is not at all convincing any more than fucking quantum physics; NEITHER is taught in HS classrooms.


now, did you want to offer some SCIENCE or just bitch some more? do I need to dig up some Francis Bacon lit for you to review? You might discover why his name is relevant to the scientific community.

 

[Shogun]

oh, THIS guy?


Michał Kazimierz Heller, (March 12, 1936 in Tarnów) is a professor of philosophy at the The Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff. He also serves as a lecturer in the philosophy of science and logic at the Theological Institute in Tarnów. A Roman Catholic priest belonging to the diocese of Tarnów, Dr. Heller was ordained in 1959. He graduated from the Catholic University of Lublin, where he earned a master's degree in philosophy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in cosmology in 1966.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Heller


whose ONLY relevance stems from an award... from a RELIGIOUS organization?


The Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities is a prize given out annually by the Templeton Foundation. Established in 1972, it is awarded to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, best exemplifies "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize





I think you'd be better served with reruns of Coast to Coast am.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

 

[frazzledgear]

oh, THIS guy?


Michał Kazimierz Heller, (March 12, 1936 in Tarnów) is a professor of philosophy at the The Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff. He also serves as a lecturer in the philosophy of science and logic at the Theological Institute in Tarnów. A Roman Catholic priest belonging to the diocese of Tarnów, Dr. Heller was ordained in 1959. He graduated from the Catholic University of Lublin, where he earned a master's degree in philosophy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in cosmology in 1966.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Heller


whose ONLY relevance stems from an award... from a RELIGIOUS organization?



http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

You have a real problem if you are saying Heller's work need not be taken seriously. He has a masters in theology, masters in philosophy, a PhD in cosmology, and a docent degree (an academic achievement above doctorate) in cosmology/ physics, did research at the Institute of Astrophysics at Oxford and did research at the Physics and Astronomy Dept. at Leicester University in Britain. He did research at the Vatican Observatory, did research with astrophysicist William Coyne, was a visiting professor at the Institute of Astrophysics in Belgium, a professor of both physics and philosophy in Poland, published more than 200 scientific papers on relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology, another nearly 200 papers on some aspect of philosophy or theology. He has authored more than 30 books that range from philosophy to cosmology to physics to the history of science to the evolution of the universe.

The man is an international figure and well-known scientist with far more education and expertise than the average scientist in any field!

Heller's current work focuses on noncommutative geometry and groupoid theory in mathematics which attempts to remove the problem of an initial cosmological singularity at the origin of the universe. I think it might be a bit over your pay grade to claim there is no validity to this man's work, don't you?

The guy is no off-the-wall flake or fly-by-night who lacks the education and expertise for his work. So the notion that YOU already know the guy's work has no validity because -GASP -he was given a monetary prize by a religious foundation -is truly laughable. But he definitely provided all his work that was entirely based on quantum mechanics, cosmology, physics and pure mathematics, including his own version of the Heisenberg equation -and not one religious thing -to support his conclusions his work shows circumstantial evidence of God.

Once again -you are simply insisting his research and extensive work can't possibly have any validity based on..........the fact it challenges your view of the world.

Heller's extensive work is either reproducible or it is not. His conclusions based on that work either have validity or it does not. But only someone with the expertise can possibly prove it either way. But because the guy is eminently qualified in his field and internationally known for the quality of his past work, means his work should be taken seriously.

Your personal sneer doesn't prove a darn thing about his work -except you hate having your view of the world challenged. Says a lot about you, but nothing about the quality or validity of Heller's work.

 

[frazzledgear]

Yes a court - a dispassionate trier or fact that showed ID isn;t science but theology.

Interesting post though, full of the ID propaganda that has been exposed as just that.

I'll say it again - ID is not science, it's religion.

I'm not a supporter OR opponent of intelligent design. I am not invested in ANY scientific theory. Science isn't a religion where I must have "faith" in one theory while rejecting another. But the fact several of you seem to think defending scientists' right to approach the world from different perspectives and show their work that supports their conclusions, and have it challenged and scientifically tested by others - tells me much about the mindset of some of you.

I am a supporter of scientific FREEDOM. Which means scientists should have the freedom and RIGHT to use different perspectives when viewing the world and the information they collect and observe - and not be forced to adhere to the current perspective of the day. It is scientists who did approach science with a different perspective than others held at that time who gave us some of our greatest advances and increased knowledge in science.

And every single time -including today - scientists who did share the same perspective that existed at the time, were utterly convinced their perspective alone was some kind of scientific "truth" and that holding any other possible perspective made another scientist's work not "real" science somehow. Which has always turned out to be pretty stupid thinking and provably wrong.

 

[frazzledgear]

Really? Prove life started the way science says it started. Prove man evolved from an ape like creature and also that mice and men must have evolved from a single species at one time.

Prove the big bang happened. Prove the Universe is expanding. Shall I go on?

One of the biggest questions evolution cannot ever prove is true and the one that requires the biggest leap of nothing but pure and illogical FAITH is the claim that concious, self-aware life is the natural outcome if unconcious, unaware and non-living materials brew together for a while. If that is the correct answer about how life started - an even bigger question is what changed since that happened then? If that is a natural outcome of brewing non-living materials under special conditions, then it had to be a pretty unique one which we still haven't figured out. Because it has never been witnessed to EVER happen at any time in nature under any conditions. How can something be natural -when the word "natural" means this is how nature actually works - yet it has NEVER been seen to occur in nature even once?

We sure don't expect to end up with a living organism TODAY if we brew some non-living materials together for awhile -brewed under ANY conditions or for any length of time. So it requires a leap of illogic and a leap of faith to believe that this was how nature worked once upon a time -it just isn't true anymore and is now NOT how nature actually works.

If nature changes how it works in such dramatic ways like that -then there are no laws of nature and we can never possibly figure out how nature works. And we know that just isn't true.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Frazz...
Just the onet hing to add to your last post.
God is the reason life was created.
Some want scientific proof but refuse to believe that we ended up on a planet that is bountiful with life and the means to support life and thinks it just randomly happened...

Science does help explain a lot of things but some of the theories are just as wild as the belief that there could actually be a God that created the universe.

Big Bang Theory strengthened the Evolution theory to fill in gaps and try to explain things that never existed.

Again these 2 theories are made up to take us away from God. The world we live in is really a fallicy and these 2 theories really help confuse the people to how things really work.

I can not say it enough times. The world is not right and we are really in danger. You do not have to believe in God to know this. You just have to open your eyes and minds. Think outside the box, its okay to climb out.

Shogun wants his proof of the danager, look at all the communism presidents we have, terrorism, taxes to take your money away, you have to register everything, car, you have insurance, you have to have a driver liscense or ID, you have a SSN which is the Mark of the Beast, you have to pay to eat and drink, you get tazed in public for askin someone a question about a secret society....All these things besides the tazer is used to track you so you can not hide. So if they do not like you they can find you.

Shogun, figured out who I am yet? What if I was someone high in the statue of people that you praise that has found out what is really going on and the plans and trying to drop subtle hints to everyone that and make it clear that there is no safety. Uknow_me I am not who you think I am but you will know me and when the world starts going to sheeeeet, You will see me not affected by the outcome but I will have an alternative for you and everyone.

Till then take heed, get youself stiaght with God, get healthy, take your vitamins and mega minerals, you will need it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Yes a court - a dispassionate trier or fact that showed ID isn;t science but theology.

QUOTE]

Had to laugh over that dumb answer Diuretic. Sure -the very same court and dispassionate trier of fact -that also said Darwin's work was not "real" science. What a hoot. Apparently the courtroom is the proper place to decide what is and is not science ONLY when that court is enforcing your personal perception of the world. It wasn't the proper forum to decide if Darwin's work was "real" science and it isn't the proper forum to determine such a thing for the SPECIFIC work of any scientist.

HOWEVER, in this particular case -what creationists were trying to sneak into the classroom really was their own personal bastardization of the theory, not the work of any scientist. Their pretense that scientists have offered it up as THE refutation of the entire theory of evolution is a lie. No scientist has done any such thing. So I have no problem at all with the outcome of that courtroom decision. It truly did prevent creationists from bringing religion into the classroom thinly posing as some sort of "science". But again -your decision to pretend these creationists are the very same people as the scientists who have offered up this theory for a specific question in their field -is your own personal deception. They aren't creationists at all -nearly every one of them is in full agreement with some and even much of evolution. A creationist disagrees with evolution entirely.

It is interesting seeing people rant and rave about how it is impossible for there to be any other valid perception of the world but their own. They are rarely right about that. But because people also insisted on the very same thing in the past, it explains how people ended up believing the earth was the center of the universe for nearly 1,500 years after a scientist first theorized it was not.

 

[Shogun]

You have a real problem if you are saying Heller's work need not be taken seriously. He has a masters in theology, masters in philosophy, a PhD in cosmology, and a docent degree (an academic achievement above doctorate) in cosmology/ physics, did research at the Institute of Astrophysics at Oxford and did research at the Physics and Astronomy Dept. at Leicester University in Britain. He did research at the Vatican Observatory, did research with astrophysicist William Coyne, was a visiting professor at the Institute of Astrophysics in Belgium, a professor of both physics and philosophy in Poland, published more than 200 scientific papers on relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology, another nearly 200 papers on some aspect of philosophy or theology. He has authored more than 30 books that range from philosophy to cosmology to physics to the history of science to the evolution of the universe.

The man is an international figure and well-known scientist with far more education and expertise than the average scientist in any field!

Heller's current work focuses on noncommutative geometry and groupoid theory in mathematics which attempts to remove the problem of an initial cosmological singularity at the origin of the universe. I think it might be a bit over your pay grade to claim there is no validity to this man's work, don't you?

The guy is no off-the-wall flake or fly-by-night who lacks the education and expertise for his work. So the notion that YOU already know the guy's work has no validity because -GASP -he was given a monetary prize by a religious foundation -is truly laughable. But he definitely provided all his work that was entirely based on quantum mechanics, cosmology, physics and pure mathematics, including his own version of the Heisenberg equation -and not one religious thing -to support his conclusions his work shows circumstantial evidence of God.

Once again -you are simply insisting his research and extensive work can't possibly have any validity based on..........the fact it challenges your view of the world.

Heller's extensive work is either reproducible or it is not. His conclusions based on that work either have validity or it does not. But only someone with the expertise can possibly prove it either way. But because the guy is eminently qualified in his field and internationally known for the quality of his past work, means his work should be taken seriously.

Your personal sneer doesn't prove a darn thing about his work -except you hate having your view of the world challenged. Says a lot about you, but nothing about the quality or validity of Heller's work.

uh, well known IN THE FUCKING VATICAN.




like I said... spare me the bullshit. put up or shutup. You want the FREEDOM? you HAVE the freedom... to go do you thing at bob jones U or any other christian education facility since YOU don't think that the rest of science is giving your opinion due attention. Start calling down some of that healing might and power of jesus and we'll have to pay attention. Show me a terrarium full of aron brand snake rods. For the love of god, part some fucking waters or create keller's own water to wine grapeless vinyards. OR get over the fact that the rest of the scientific community won't accept what amounts to a dogmatic Catch-all answer: When in doubt? god did it.

bullshit. Like I said, discover why Francis Bacon is a name you should be familiar with.

 

[Shogun]

Frazz...
Just the onet hing to add to your last post.
God is the reason life was created.
Some want scientific proof but refuse to believe that we ended up on a planet that is bountiful with life and the means to support life and thinks it just randomly happened...

Science does help explain a lot of things but some of the theories are just as wild as the belief that there could actually be a God that created the universe.

Big Bang Theory strengthened the Evolution theory to fill in gaps and try to explain things that never existed.

Again these 2 theories are made up to take us away from God. The world we live in is really a fallicy and these 2 theories really help confuse the people to how things really work.

I can not say it enough times. The world is not right and we are really in danger. You do not have to believe in God to know this. You just have to open your eyes and minds. Think outside the box, its okay to climb out.

Shogun wants his proof of the danager, look at all the communism presidents we have, terrorism, taxes to take your money away, you have to register everything, car, you have insurance, you have to have a driver liscense or ID, you have a SSN which is the Mark of the Beast, you have to pay to eat and drink, you get tazed in public for askin someone a question about a secret society....All these things besides the tazer is used to track you so you can not hide. So if they do not like you they can find you.

Shogun, figured out who I am yet? What if I was someone high in the statue of people that you praise that has found out what is really going on and the plans and trying to drop subtle hints to everyone that and make it clear that there is no safety. Uknow_me I am not who you think I am but you will know me and when the world starts going to sheeeeet, You will see me not affected by the outcome but I will have an alternative for you and everyone.

Till then take heed, get youself stiaght with God, get healthy, take your vitamins and mega minerals, you will need it.

what the fuck are you even talking about? Dude, TAKE your meds. for real.


also, I hope my readers remember why I find this quote so funny:



"look at all the communism presidents we have, terrorism, taxes to take your money away, you have to register everything, car, you have insurance, you have to have a driver liscense or ID, you have a SSN which is the Mark of the Beast, you have to pay to eat and drink, you get tazed in public for askin someone a question about a secret society"






[ben stein impression]

Anyone.... anyone....




ps... i've already compared your IP those people that I invited to this board. No match, thankfully.

 

[Diuretic]

The whackos are out in force.

Fraz - ID isn't science and that's a fact. Dance around and wave your Magic Maracas all you like, ID is theology, not science. And that is a fact.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

he said Magic Maracas!




Culturally, EVERY population of people feel that their dogma is THE way. There is a historic pattern between the relative influence of religion and science on the body of knowledge through recorded memory. I don't recall a single occurrence, from tribal shamans to todays top 5 faiths to whatever THAT will congeal into, where theology offered more insight into our physical world than the emerging comprehension of SCIENTIFIC results. IF there is a god that created everything and it HAPPENS to be of the judeo-christian flavour, there must be greater SCIENTIFIC evidence thereof than what amounts to deistic philosophy, structured traditions and untangible faith.


If Heller wants to make his mathmatical theory as impressive as Einstien's then have him use god to blow something up or heal an amputee. Otherwise, it's just dust on a chalkboard.

 

[frazzledgear]

Frazz...
Just the onet hing to add to your last post.
God is the reason life was created.
Some want scientific proof but refuse to believe that we ended up on a planet that is bountiful with life and the means to support life and thinks it just randomly happened...

Science does help explain a lot of things but some of the theories are just as wild as the belief that there could actually be a God that created the universe.

Big Bang Theory strengthened the Evolution theory to fill in gaps and try to explain things that never existed..

This is the real problem I have with creationists Uknow. The Bible was never written so people could learn science. It isn't a science book, wasn't intended to be a science book and can never be a science book. It does not explain ONE BIT how our world and universe works. And since it wasn't written to try and explain any of that -that's ok. The purpose for which it was written is EXACTLY the purpose it best serves and no other.

Can scientists discover scientific truth yet have no religious beliefs Uknow? Of course they can. Can scientists who do have religious beliefs also discover scientific truths? Of course they can.

But regardless of what is discovered to be scientific truth -it has NO bearing on my personal religious beliefs whatsoever. My faith wasn't created on the back of science in the first place and the book I rely upon for my faith -was never intended to be a science book. So there is no scientific discovery that can negatively impact my faith. I don't look to science to explain or find God and I don't look to my faith or the Bible to tell me how the world and universe works. God intended man to make those discoveries -or the Bible really would have been a science book.

The difference between me, an atheist and a creationist is this. I haven't ruled in or ruled out the POSSIBILITY the two may cross paths at times. But they don't have to cross paths -not ever -for me. The atheist says we cannot EVER allow those paths to cross even if it happens to be scientifically justified. And the creationist says no scientific truth can be discovered unless they ALWAYS cross paths. Of the three ways to view science -both the atheist and the creationist are placing artificial limits on science. But for the wrong reasons. The purpose of science is not to back up the lack of religious beliefs of the atheist -and it is not to end up fitting in with the creationist's belief that the Book of Genesis is a science book. The purpose of science is to try and find as many answers as possible about how our world and universe works.

As for the Theory of the Big Bang -maybe you forgot or didn't know this, but when that theory was first presented, it was heavily criticized by other scientists right off the bat because some scientists saw that as a theory implying a supernatural event at the hands of God.

As long as you either expect to find the answers to science inside the Bible or expect scientists to first FORCE their work to fit in with the Book of Genesis when it was not written for the purpose of answering scientific questions at all -you will constantly be disappointed.

 

[Ravi]

The bible isn't a science book?

Imagine my surprise.

 

[frazzledgear]

HA!

he said Magic Maracas!




Culturally, EVERY population of people feel that their dogma is THE way. There is a historic pattern between the relative influence of religion and science on the body of knowledge through recorded memory. I don't recall a single occurrence, from tribal shamans to todays top 5 faiths to whatever THAT will congeal into, where theology offered more insight into our physical world than the emerging comprehension of SCIENTIFIC results. IF there is a god that created everything and it HAPPENS to be of the judeo-christian flavour, there must be greater SCIENTIFIC evidence thereof than what amounts to deistic philosophy, structured traditions and untangible faith.


If Heller wants to make his mathmatical theory as impressive as Einstien's then have him use god to blow something up or heal an amputee. Otherwise, it's just dust on a chalkboard.

I wasn't talking about any dogma. What I said is that science has always been researched in accordance with the paradigm of the day. A paradigm is simply the perspective one relies on when viewing the world. Paradigms don't change until we are faced with a question that under the current paradigm, we just can't answer. Once that perspective has been changed, we also go back and look at questions we thought had been answered to see if any new information can be gained by means of that new perspective.

So are there ANY questions in science that cannot be answered while approaching it JUST from a materialism paradigm? Is it possible that another perspective has ANY truth to it or that another perspective can add to the expanse of knowledge? To insist a question can ONLY be answered by a materialism paradigm and no other, or that no other perspective can possibly contribute any further knowledge over that gained with a materialism paradigm is patently false.

"Perspective" is based on PERCEPTION. We know that how humans perceive something varies widely and that at any given time, more than one perception can be correct. One perception can APPEAR to be fully correct to anyone who also shares that same perspective. Only when we change that perspective, can we realize that we gained greater knowledge by doing so.

I watch a sunset from my backyard and saw the sun drop below the horizon until it disappeared. But in reality the sun doesn't really "set". The earth simply rotates until the sun is no longer in my view -so the sun didn't go anywhere. The earth did. If I watch the sun from outer space, then my perspective reveals something I could not appreciate while viewing it from the backyard. And while both perspectives APPEAR true at the same time, one perspective gave me some valid information and some that was misleading. And the other gave me far greater valid information. But for the next question, my perspective from outer space may be the one that gives less or misleading information and the one from my backyard may give me far better information. Or neither perspective may help and I need yet another perspective.

There is no such thing as only one perspective being the ONLY correct perspective and all other perspectives are false. And that means there is no such thing as there only being one correct paradigm and all other paradigms are false. Because a paradigm is just the perspective used to approach a question or problem, that means the more perspectives used, the greater the likelihood of a more complete answer. The fewer perspectives used, the more likely it is an incomplete answer. Being trapped by one paradigm has never resulted in good science.

For someone to argue that a materialism paradigm or perspective will give THE only and most complete answer EVERYTIME and no other will -is nuts. There is no such thing as a single perspective about anything that tells us EVERYTHING. Never has been, never will be. That is why scientists who approach different scientific questions from a variety of different perspectives should be encouraged. If that change in perspective produces nothing worthwhile, so be it. But science has always leaped ahead because a scientist changed his perspective and discovered something new and previously not known or appreciated by using the perspective adopted by everyone else at that time.

And I noticed you changed your own position yet again. No longer enough an eminently qualified scientist produced work that you personally didn't like what it had to say yet have no qualifications with which to criticize it. And no longer enough this extremely well qualified scientist also published his work which can be reproduced and either validated or disproven by other scientists. NOW he has to be a new Einstein or it isn't "real" science? LOL

 

[Shogun]

well, I gave your rant about 2/3 of a chance before I decided to say fuckit and tell you where you are wrong. Specifically,



So are there ANY questions in science that cannot be answered while approaching it JUST from a materialism paradigm? Is it possible that another perspective has ANY truth to it or that another perspective can add to the expanse of knowledge? To insist a question can ONLY be answered by a materialism paradigm and no other, or that no other perspective can possibly contribute any further knowledge over that gained with a materialism paradigm is patently false.

​

to answer your question, NO. Not in regards to SCIENCE. This is why I keep telling you to refer to Bacon. Your "materialism paradigm" is a euphemism for PHYSICAL. Which, sadly that I must point out, is a prerequisite for PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

Now, I understand the core of your arguement; that we limit our scope of potential answers by automatically disregarding a school of thought. Ok, fair enough. But, this is why I ask for evidence beyond a "devil made me do it" explanation. Im sure we both agree that roman and greek religious explanations for physical occurrences are not only ridiculous but comical, yes? Their FAITH didn't make it true that a chariot pulled the sun across the sky, yes? Would you entertain the idea that zeus caused the bing bang, or is the whatever of Hellers math? Would you expect an Athena worshiper to bring a little more to the table than historic writings?

Regardless, anonymous internet person, I hope you are having a great start of your weekend.

 

[Eleutherios]

No disrespect intended sir, but isn't arguing on the point of god an attempt in futality?

Whether or not the bible, or any other religious documents, are "the word of God" is vastly irrelevant mainly because it is against human nature to understand God. I can't tell you if Jesus Christ walked on water or not, but if he did, I especially can't tell you what God meant by that. God by his very nature can be defined as the super-natural, and if he does exist, trying to understand him would be similar to a rock trying to understand Joyce.

The most we can do is fear God (not in the sense of 'AHhh its the boogeyman' of course, but you know what I mean), and hope that we live our lives in a way he sees fit.

That came out less eloquently than I had hoped, and I do apologize for that, but the general point remains the same.

 

[roomy]

No disrespect intended sir, but isn't arguing on the point of god an attempt in futality?

Whether or not the bible, or any other religious documents, are "the word of God" is vastly irrelevant mainly because it is against human nature to understand God. I can't tell you if Jesus Christ walked on water or not, but if he did, I especially can't tell you what God meant by that. God by his very nature can be defined as the super-natural, and if he does exist, trying to understand him would be similar to a rock trying to understand Joyce.

The most we can do is fear God (not in the sense of 'AHhh its the boogeyman' of course, but you know what I mean), and hope that we live our lives in a way he sees fit.

That came out less eloquently than I had hoped, and I do apologize for that, but the general point remains the same.

'Futality' had me flumoxed, you must be a mastermind? new words and all, to me anyway.Or are you trying to be all urban and stuff...innit?

 

[Eleutherios]

Wow....mistaking a SINGLE word in roughly 15 posts makes me a gangsta boss yo? shit dawg, i never knew.