Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation? Anyone able to answer?Believe that Jesus is risen, and you're a Christian; don't believe it, and you're not. It's right in the Christian Bible.
What you call tweaking, IS challenging. Just like they keep tweaking religions. Does science today look like what it did in Newton's day? There's been a lot of "tweaking".Perhaps this will help. Consider the theist who strongly accepts the Bible, but wants to challenge some particular interpretation. They aren't challenging the Bible, they're trying to clarify and improve it's message. That's what you're talking about, scientists who strongly support science, and are trying to improve it. That's NOT challenging science itself. Challenging science itself would look like this thread]. Challenging science itself might for example challenge the assumption that science is taking us to an ever better future. I suspect the problem here may be that your faith is so deep that you simply can't imagine challenging reason and/or science.
I already explained how science does not make claims of 100% certainty. That's the most important difference that you keep ignoring.I keep ignoring it because it's an irrelevant point. Where is the evidence that reason and science are 1% correct about the very largest questions?
I agree, if someone says they are 100% certain God does not exist, then they are wrong. But that is not all atheists, it's a minority. And it's not how reason and science work.In the real world, science works by putting us in the position where we can erase everything built over the last 1,000 years in just a few minutes. These are the people you are looking to as the "reasoning experts".Lausten is totally correct here. Tanny, your worry about nuclear catastrophe (which is what your entire spiel against science comes down to) is clouding your ability to think and discuss. FWIW, scientists are constantly challenging their work - and even the scientific method itself - to make sure its not just an anomaly, and also to find out it there is something more useful than it for understanding nature. It seems like you think there is a conspiracy to uphold a self-destructive system for chauvinistic purposes.
Tanny, your worry about nuclear catastrophe (which is what your entire spiel against science comes down to) is clouding your ability to think and discuss.Beltane, I'd like to chat with you as I suspect you, like me, enjoy exploring the boundaries of the group consensus. However, you do have a consistent habit of attempting to debunk positions you have not actually read and understood. Should you choose to actually read my position regarding the threat posed by science, you will soon see that you've substantially misrepresented my position. Here's the thread, read it, or stop commenting upon it. Applying Skeptical Scrutiny To Our Relationship With Knowledge] Fair warning, should choose to lazily slam down on the reply button to claim you've already read that thread, I will respond by systematically ripping your reading comprehension skills to shreds. But I'd rather not go there, so please just read the thread, and then I'm happy that you might then proceed to debunk what I've actually said. Read this carefully. I welcome challenges, I really do, I thrive on them. But I'm not going to let you waste my time with lazy sloppy challenges.
FWIW, scientists are constantly challenging their work - and even the scientific method itself - to make sure its not just an anomaly, and also to find out it there is something more useful than it for understanding nature.Again, that is NOT challenging science. It is instead improving science, so that it will do a better job of delivering new knowledge. Challenging science would involve things like questioning whether developing new knowledge at ever faster rates is really such a good plan. I agree, we will see many scientists, probably most, or even all of them attempting to improve science. But that is not challenging science. That is the opposite of challenging science. As example, it would not be challenging religion to suggest that the Bible be translated in to more modern language so that it will be accessible to more readers. That would be improving the Bible, NOT challenging the Bible. That would be supporting religion, not challenging religion. You guys have supporting and challenging entirely confused. But again, I do sincerely offer an age based exception from my rowdy ruthlessness to anyone who requests it. I assure you that I didn't get any of this either when I was the age illustrated by the photo in Beltane's avatar. At that time I had clue about such things, none at all. Thus, if I'm being a bully by using my experience to kick your inexperienced ass, that's lame, and you should call me on it. Or not, as you prefer.
As to the nuclear issue…
I’ve added this issue to the conversation on “what it means to be a Christian” because the existence of nuclear weapons on hair trigger launch on warning status illustrates very clearly that we humans, including scientists and other nerds like us, are not the master reasoners we like to perceive ourselves to be.
Thus, we should be highly suspect when we who have huge bombs aimed down our own throats use reason to make statements about the very largest of questions, such as what the most fundamental nature of all reality might be, or not be.
Yes, reason is very useful for very many things, that is certainly true.
But it does not automatically follow that therefore reason is useful for EVERYTHING. Thus, critical thinkers should be attempting to carefully sort out where reason is useful, and what it’s limits might be. Thus, critical thinkers should not be people of faith, even when it comes to our love of reason. Critical thinking means everything is on the table, including critical thinking.
Okay, you are saying nothing. You never had anything to say. Even when I agree with you, you can't stand it. I have given you way too much attention. If you ever say anything that matters or even makes sense, we'll talk.More of the usual thread clogging dodging and weaving. This is the classic tactic of any true believing ideologue trying to escape an effective challenge to their cherished dogmas. Obfuscate, ignore, change the subject, clog the thread with irrelevant blather, change the subject from the post to the poster, change the focus from reason to emotion, complain to the mods, on and on and on it goes. All completely normal. I do grant that you may sincerely not get any of this. And to be fair to you, that is not at all unusual. Most people are trapped inside the theist vs. atheist paradigm and can't imagine anything beyond it, including many of the most prominent commentators on the subject.
I'm not rejecting atheism because I'm religious, because I'm not religious. I'm rejecting atheism because it's not a product of reason, but is instead just another faith based ideology.Then you've wasted all our time because you don't really know what atheism is? Big surprise! :)
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation? Anyone able to answer?Believe that Jesus is risen, and you're a Christian; don't believe it, and you're not. It's right in the Christian Bible.Very good answer, Nihilo. Unfortunately the rest of us have gotten bogged down talking to this troll.
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation? Anyone able to answer?Believe that Jesus is risen, and you're a Christian; don't believe it, and you're not. It's right in the Christian Bible.Very good answer, Nihilo. Unfortunately the rest of us have gotten bogged down talking to this troll. So thats it? Nithing else? Are you a christian Advicates??
FWIW, scientists are constantly challenging their work - and even the scientific method itself - to make sure its not just an anomaly, and also to find out it there is something more useful than it for understanding nature.Again, that is NOT challenging science. It is instead improving science, so that it will do a better job of delivering new knowledge. Challenging science would involve things like questioning whether developing new knowledge at ever faster rates is really such a good plan. That is happening. Scientists are aware of the risks that come with scientific knowledge. Carl Sagan said as much:
“The sword of science is double-edged. Its awesome power forces on all of us, including politicians, a new responsibility – more attention to the long-term consequences of technology, a global and transgenerational perspective, an incentive to avoid easy appeals to nationalism and chauvinism. Mistakes are becoming too expensive."More recently physicist Michio Kaku admits the danger science poses in this interview]
That is happening. Scientists are aware of the risks that come with scientific knowledge.Being aware of the risks and challenging science are not at all the same thing. As example, a religious person will typically be aware that they can't prove their beliefs, and yet they keep right on believing. That's what scientists are doing. They're aware they are involving us in huge risks, and yet they keep right on doing science, and keep right on selling the "more is better" relationship with knowledge without pause. Which means they aren't actually aware of the risks at all. If they were actually aware of the risks, there would be an entire branch of science dedicated to studying what knowledge we ought to pursue, and what knowledge we should not seek. Scientists would be having big public debates about which research to squash. But what we see instead is just what you're doing, rationalizing the status quo. You are at least rationalizing the status quo calmly, but I've made this case on a forum full of working scientists who went hysterical and banned me from the forum for challenging the holy "more is better" dogma. Imagine that the Catholic Church had invented some mechanism which could end modern civilization in an hour. Members here would be going freaking hysterical about that. But when your cherished science clergy does the very same thing, you fall in to a deep peaceful complacent sleep. I would agree that this culture wide blindness is understandable, but at the same time it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We are literally just like a man who walks around all day every day with a loaded gun in his mouth. One false move, one mistake, one bad day, and it's game over. But when we try to talk to the man about the gun in his mouth, he has a thousand reasons why everything is actually fine, no big deal, nothing much to worry about really, everything under control, let's talk about something else etc. There's no other word for it but insanity. And the great irony is that this insanity is being led by the leading critical thinkers of our civilization. Well, if nothing else, human beings certainly qualify as being interesting.
From a person that prays for the Rapture.That is happening. Scientists are aware of the risks that come with scientific knowledge.Being aware of the risks and challenging science are not at all the same thing. As example, a religious person will typically be aware that they can't prove their beliefs, and yet they keep right on believing. That's what scientists are doing. They're aware they are involving us in huge risks, and yet they keep right on doing science, and keep right on selling the "more is better" relationship with knowledge without pause. Which means they aren't actually aware of the risks at all. If they were actually aware of the risks, there would be an entire branch of science dedicated to studying what knowledge we ought to pursue, and what knowledge we should not seek. Scientists would be having big public debates about which research to squash. But what we see instead is just what you're doing, rationalizing the status quo. You are at least rationalizing the status quo calmly, but I've made this case on a forum full of working scientists who went hysterical and banned me from the forum for challenging the holy "more is better" dogma. Imagine that the Catholic Church had invented some mechanism which could end modern civilization in an hour. Members here would be going freaking hysterical about that. But when your cherished science clergy does the very same thing, you fall in to a deep peaceful complacent sleep. I would agree that this culture wide blindness is understandable, but at the same time it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We are literally just like a man who walks around all day every day with a loaded gun in his mouth. One false move, one mistake, one bad day, and it's game over. But when we try to talk to the man about the gun in his mouth, he has a thousand reasons why everything is actually fine, no big deal, nothing much to worry about really, everything under control, let's talk about something else etc. There's no other word for it but insanity. And the great irony is that this insanity is being led by the leading critical thinkers of our civilization. Well, if nothing else, human beings certainly qualify as being interesting.
I think you are the only one who is asleep. I marched with a million people in 1985 against nuclear weapons. The current generation is keeping up the fight. Knowledge flows along a spectrum. The scientific method is a great tool for discovering truth. Engineers use it to do things. Politics should be informed by that data to make decisions.That is happening. Scientists are aware of the risks that come with scientific knowledge.Being aware of the risks and challenging science are not at all the same thing. That's what scientists are doing. They're aware they are involving us in huge risks, and yet they keep right on doing science, and keep right on selling the "more is better" relationship with knowledge without pause. Which means they aren't actually aware of the risks at all. Imagine that the Catholic Church had invented some mechanism which could end modern civilization in an hour. Members here would be going freaking hysterical about that. But when your cherished science clergy does the very same thing, you fall in to a deep peaceful complacent sleep.
I think you are the only one who is asleep.Um, I'm the only person on the forum expressing any concern about nuclear weapons, and the knowledge explosion more generally. Why do you insist on saying things that I can rip to shreds as fast as I can type. Do you enjoy the public embarrassment, or what?
I think you are the only one who is asleep.Um, I'm the only person on the forum expressing any concern about nuclear weapons, and the knowledge explosion more generally. Why do you insist on saying things that I can rip to shreds as fast as I can type. Do you enjoy the public embarrassment, or what? Not long after that march, Senator McCain started working with the Soviets to reduce their nuclear arsenal. The Soviet Union became Russia, and weapons were lying about in newly independent states. It was a very dangerous situation that hardly made a blip on the historical radar because it was handled so well. You have a very self aggrandizing image or yourself. I don't feel any need to acknowledge your specific warning about nuclear arms because I already know about it. You aren't adding anything to the conversation. Your whole theme is to reduce the amount of knowledge in the world or control it or something. Why don't you run for office if you think it's so important? There are like 5 people reading your posts here.
You have a very self aggrandizing image or yourself.Now we're getting somewhere. It's true that I write very confidently on a very limited number of subjects. And some male egos simply can NOT handle that display of confidence. You don't even understand half of what I'm saying, you're just mesmerized with me. I'm proud to call you my groupie. :-)
I don't feel any need to acknowledge your specific warning about nuclear arms because I already know about it.Right, that's why it was you who started that long thoughtful thread about the dangers posed by the knowledge explosion, and not me. You're just chock full of empty claims you are.
Your whole theme is to reduce the amount of knowledge in the world or control it or something.My whole theme is, you know, some stuff about some stuff and whatever I said it was what I said, and uh, whatever it was I said it must of, like, well, you know, been wrong, and if I'd actually understood any of it I'm sure that would have turned to be true, cause you know, that stuff I said was just something about something or another, not exactly sure what, but anyway, obviously whatever it was it must be wrong, or something, probably that.
I'm proud to call you my groupie. :-)So it doesn't matter that it is negative attention, you just want attention. I see.
I came here looking for intelligent conversation. There is little to be had here, so I’m off to explore elsewhere. Adios amigo, thanks for doing the best you are able to do.
I came here looking for intelligent conversation. There is little to be had here, so I'm off to explore elsewhere. Adios amigo, thanks for doing the best you are able to do.Thank you Jesus. Thank you Lord.
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation? Anyone able to answer?Believe that Jesus is risen, and you're a Christian; don't believe it, and you're not. It's right in the Christian Bible.Very good answer, Nihilo. Unfortunately the rest of us have gotten bogged down talking to this troll. So thats it? Nithing else? Are you a christian Advicates?? No, I am a Secular Humanist. And coincidentally an atheist. I was just acknowledging that he gave a good answer to the original question.
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation? Anyone able to answer?Believe that Jesus is risen, and you're a Christian; don't believe it, and you're not. It's right in the Christian Bible.Very good answer, Nihilo. Unfortunately the rest of us have gotten bogged down talking to this troll. So thats it? Nithing else? Are you a christian Advicates?? No, I am a Secular Humanist. And coincidentally an atheist. I was just acknowledging that he gave a good answer to the original question. Cant be a good answer. The various christian denomibations dont see the other as true christians. Anyone ?