48
   

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

 
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 09:57 am
@onevoice,
onevoice wrote:

"Knowledge renders faith obsolete. Faith based on knowledge is an oxymoron."

No, knowledge really doesn't. Maybe evidence based knowledge does, yet even evidence can be a subjective thing. Now, before anyone gets their panties in a knot please let me explain why I believe that.


Yes, it does. I do not have faith that elephants exist. I've been to zoos and seen them. I've witnessed the effects of electrons in action and learned the logic behind the necessary inference that explains their behavior. Can you produce anything of equivalent robustness for that invisible deity that you claim?

Quote:
If I am walking down the street and I come across a broken lens cap for someone's car on the side of the road. Then a few feet later I find a hubcap. Then I see a broken mirror, The natural assumption might be, Huh, looks like there might have been a wreck here. Yep. There might have been, but I would be foolish to assert that because it could have just as easily been parts falling off of people's cars as they drove by that accumulated over time, and I am sure that is the response I would get if I did.

The point being this. Just because someone considers something evidence doesn't mean it will be considered or looked at the same way to the next guy.


As long as the next guy is credulous and doesn't have critical reasoning skills, yes. How does a broken mirror equate with the sand on the beach or a tree or the stars in the sky? False analogy fallacy.
onevoice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 10:28 am
@FBM,
OK. Here is a relevant one then. God physically healed me. I do not expect you or anyone else to believe me, as you did not witness it. And I cannot show you physical proof over the internet, and wouldn't due to the nature of the healing. You don't have to believe. No one does. I can't help but believe as I witnessed it. So no. You or anyone else on this forum will not shake my faith. Smile
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 10:33 am
@FBM,
I'd mention Newton's explanation of Daniel ch. 9
Among other things.
I'm off to work the fair crowd.
Bye for now.
onevoice
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 11:02 am
@FBM,
And please, let me make one thing abundantly clear here. I offered that information, not as proof or evidence to anyone of God's existence. I am merely stating that is the physical evidence that God exists for me personally. It's not something I care to, or even will debate. Also because it has no relevance to what this thread is actually about. But regarding the actual topic, Yes the world would be much better off without religion. Unfortunately, christians are not the only ones who are religious about what they believe.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 11:58 am
@neologist,
Those two have a lot of love for one another...

Ps: It's spelled "billets dOux" ("sweet messages").
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 12:10 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Yes, strictly speaking there is a difference, but to paraphrase William James, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. Pragmatism over lexical exactitude. Credulity is the state of primed openness to accept that for which there is insufficient evidence. Accepting it requires contact with the concept in a favorable context, but credulity is the ultimate culprit. Lack of critical reasoning skills.

The distinction makes a real difference. You are speaking of religious faith, where incredible stories typically abound. But not all theist beliefs are based on miracles and virgin births. The philosophical concept of "god", or of "faith", goes beyond mere credulity or incredulity. What makes of "faith" such a hard nut is that it structures our world view beyond mere facts. It provides an interpretation of said facts. A meaning to the world.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 12:18 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're flailing a straw man seeing as how you're referring to another meaning of the word "faith," i.e. "honesty, sincerity." FBM is referring to "faith," i.e. "strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence."
Oh, I see.
We're not talking about faith.
We're talking about faith.

There you go. You're starting to get it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 12:21 pm
@onevoice,
onevoice wrote:

Good point Frank!


Thank you, onevoice.

You are going to catch lots of heat from some people because of that...but I suspect you can handle that easily enough.

Most of the people addicted to throwing heat can easily be handled.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 01:01 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Wow!
Two in a row who understand the value of circumstantial evidence.
Who wouldda thunk?

Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to prison based on circumstantial evidence and the credulity of jurors.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 01:11 pm
The criteria for "evidence" is quite different for matters concerning the physical world as compared to matters of religion.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 01:18 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I'd mention Newton's explanation of Daniel ch. 9


What about it?
0 Replies
 
onevoice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 01:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well Frank, if I do I do, I guess. It doesn't bother me a bit! You did make a good point and I have no regrets in taking the time to point that out.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 05:44 pm
@onevoice,
onevoice wrote:

OK. Here is a relevant one then. God physically healed me. I do not expect you or anyone else to believe me, as you did not witness it. And I cannot show you physical proof over the internet, and wouldn't due to the nature of the healing. You don't have to believe. No one does. I can't help but believe as I witnessed it. So no. You or anyone else on this forum will not shake my faith. Smile


To be honest, I don't think it's any of my business what goes on between your ears unless you invite me to have a look. You've stated that you know there is a god, and I've asked for credible, falsifiable evidence. You haven't presented any. Maybe you didn't claim to have proof, but you strongly suggested that the body of scientific evidence supports the god hypothesis. It is this that I dispute.

But as you say in your next post, this is only a side issue to the topic of the thread. If it's not one that you want to pursue further, that's cool with me, too.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 05:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I'd mention Newton's explanation of Daniel ch. 9
Among other things.
I'm off to work the fair crowd.
Bye for now.


Please do mention it when you have time. The details, I mean.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 08:36 pm
@FBM,
neologist wrote:
I'd mention Newton's explanation of Daniel ch. 9
Among other things.
I'm off to work the fair crowd.
Bye for now.
FBM wrote:
Please do mention it when you have time. The details, I mean.
Sorry for the long wind. The longest of posts I can remember. And I may need to edit.
SEVENTY WEEKS
A prophetic time period referred to at Daniel 9:24-27 during which Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Messiah would appear and then be cut off; following that period the city as well as the holy place would be made desolate.
Quote:
24 “There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress. 26 “And after the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “And the people of a leader who is coming will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. 27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.” (Daniel 9:24-27)
Quote:
" Many volumes have been written on these four verses and their interpretation. We shall glance first at the central element in the prophecy - the prediction of a Messiah who was to come, and to be cut off after sixty-nine weeks, or according to another rendering of the text, after sixty-two weeks. No true believer doubts that the Messiah here mentioned is Jesus Christ, and that consequently these verses contain a prophecy which has been fulfilled. But he should be able to show a good reason for the faith that is within him. Mark the importance of this decision: if it can be proved that the fulfillment of the prophecy occured at the time predicted by Daniel, it matters not whether the prediction was made 500 years or 160 years or even 100 days before the event. This is meeting the unbelieving critic on his own selected ground, for in any case the event was foretold long before the Christian era. This will stamp the book of Daniel as Divine in accordance with the seal set upon it by Christ Himself as recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Moreover, the issue is more important still, for another reason: it may be regarded as the keystone of the edifice of the Christian religion. If centuries previously a Redeemer of the human race was predicted to come upon the earth, and if He came at the period foretold and offered up his life at the precise date foretold, then are His identification and His Divine mission allowed by a certainty whch belongs to no other incident in the long history of the world, and our faith can rest upon this rock of ages.
. . .
By the common consent of all scholars of the Bible, believers and unbelievers alike, the seventy weeks, or 490 days are accepted as days of years. Hence, Hence the period under scrutiny is a period of 490 years. . ."
Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel And The Apocalypse - Sir William Whitla - London. John Murray -1922- pps. 119-120
So, one may ask when the 490 years began and when did they end?
Quote:
As to the beginning of the 70 weeks, Nehemiah was granted permission by King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, to rebuild the wall and the city of Jerusalem. (Nehemiah 2:1, 5, 7, 8) In his calculations as to the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah apparently used a
calendar year that began with the month Tishri (September-October), as does the Jews’ present civil calendar, and ended with the month Elul (August-September) as the 12th month. Whether this was his own reckoning or the manner of reckoning employed for certain purposes in Persia is not known.

To establish the time for the 20th year of Artaxerxes, we go back to the end of the reign of his father and predecessor Xerxes, who died in the latter part of 475 B.C.E. Artaxerxes’ accession year thus began in 475 B.C.E., and his first regnal year would be counted from 474 B.C.E., as other historical evidence indicates. The 20th year of Artaxerxes’ rule would accordingly be 455 B.C.E.— Thus, 455 B.C.E. is clearly the year from which the 70 weeks would begin to count.Insight On The Scriptures- Watchtower Bible And Tract Society- New York pps 900-901
The first seven weeks plus sixty two weeks, or 483 years would end in the year 29 C.E. This is undoubtedly why the Jews reasoned about John the Baptist:
Quote:
Now the people were in expectation and all of them were reasoning in their hearts about John, “May he perhaps be the Christ?” (Luke 3:15)
This was only a few months before Jesus' baptism. Note Newton's reckoning varies, ending the 69th week in the year 32, possibly because of his assignment of 360 days to a year and a later date for the ascension of Artaxerxes. The Jews, however, had their expectation in the correct year of Jesus' baptism.

And the 70th week? Jesus' ministry of three and one half years ended on the Passover of 33 C.E., the midweek on which Jesus caused sacrifice and gift offering to cease, with his own perfect sacrifice. He kept the (Law) Covenant in force for the many for the rest of the week, ending with the baptism of Cornelius late in the year of 36 C.E.

Newton's work is significant because of his application of the concept of 'days of years', a useful tool in calculating other important dates.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 11:05 pm
@Olivier5,
Love notes?
Could not remember how to spell.
I was a poor student of language - except Anglais
0 Replies
 
nikitabruneu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 11:38 pm
@argome321,
You may quite right but you can avoid it. I agree with you that, we actually don't need religion but when our ancestors created all this things, they had no any options left. That was bound to happen.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 01:55 pm
@neologist,
You'd mention Newton's manipulation of numbers, what amounts to numerology, for what purposes, exactly?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2015 07:18 am
@FBM,
You confuse faith with credulity
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2015 07:30 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

neologist wrote:
I'd mention Newton's explanation of Daniel ch. 9
Among other things.
I'm off to work the fair crowd.
Bye for now.
FBM wrote:
Please do mention it when you have time. The details, I mean.
Sorry for the long wind. The longest of posts I can remember. And I may need to edit.
SEVENTY WEEKS
A prophetic time period referred to at Daniel 9:24-27 during which Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Messiah would appear and then be cut off; following that period the city as well as the holy place would be made desolate.
Quote:
24 “There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress. 26 “And after the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “And the people of a leader who is coming will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. 27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.” (Daniel 9:24-27)
Quote:
" Many volumes have been written on these four verses and their interpretation. We shall glance first at the central element in the prophecy - the prediction of a Messiah who was to come, and to be cut off after sixty-nine weeks, or according to another rendering of the text, after sixty-two weeks. No true believer doubts that the Messiah here mentioned is Jesus Christ, and that consequently these verses contain a prophecy which has been fulfilled. But he should be able to show a good reason for the faith that is within him. Mark the importance of this decision: if it can be proved that the fulfillment of the prophecy occured at the time predicted by Daniel, it matters not whether the prediction was made 500 years or 160 years or even 100 days before the event. This is meeting the unbelieving critic on his own selected ground, for in any case the event was foretold long before the Christian era. This will stamp the book of Daniel as Divine in accordance with the seal set upon it by Christ Himself as recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Moreover, the issue is more important still, for another reason: it may be regarded as the keystone of the edifice of the Christian religion. If centuries previously a Redeemer of the human race was predicted to come upon the earth, and if He came at the period foretold and offered up his life at the precise date foretold, then are His identification and His Divine mission allowed by a certainty whch belongs to no other incident in the long history of the world, and our faith can rest upon this rock of ages.
. . .
By the common consent of all scholars of the Bible, believers and unbelievers alike, the seventy weeks, or 490 days are accepted as days of years. Hence, Hence the period under scrutiny is a period of 490 years. . ."
Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel And The Apocalypse - Sir William Whitla - London. John Murray -1922- pps. 119-120
So, one may ask when the 490 years began and when did they end?
Quote:
As to the beginning of the 70 weeks, Nehemiah was granted permission by King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, to rebuild the wall and the city of Jerusalem. (Nehemiah 2:1, 5, 7, 8) In his calculations as to the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah apparently used a
calendar year that began with the month Tishri (September-October), as does the Jews’ present civil calendar, and ended with the month Elul (August-September) as the 12th month. Whether this was his own reckoning or the manner of reckoning employed for certain purposes in Persia is not known.

To establish the time for the 20th year of Artaxerxes, we go back to the end of the reign of his father and predecessor Xerxes, who died in the latter part of 475 B.C.E. Artaxerxes’ accession year thus began in 475 B.C.E., and his first regnal year would be counted from 474 B.C.E., as other historical evidence indicates. The 20th year of Artaxerxes’ rule would accordingly be 455 B.C.E.— Thus, 455 B.C.E. is clearly the year from which the 70 weeks would begin to count.Insight On The Scriptures- Watchtower Bible And Tract Society- New York pps 900-901
The first seven weeks plus sixty two weeks, or 483 years would end in the year 29 C.E. This is undoubtedly why the Jews reasoned about John the Baptist:
Quote:
Now the people were in expectation and all of them were reasoning in their hearts about John, “May he perhaps be the Christ?” (Luke 3:15)
This was only a few months before Jesus' baptism. Note Newton's reckoning varies, ending the 69th week in the year 32, possibly because of his assignment of 360 days to a year and a later date for the ascension of Artaxerxes. The Jews, however, had their expectation in the correct year of Jesus' baptism.

And the 70th week? Jesus' ministry of three and one half years ended on the Passover of 33 C.E., the midweek on which Jesus caused sacrifice and gift offering to cease, with his own perfect sacrifice. He kept the (Law) Covenant in force for the many for the rest of the week, ending with the baptism of Cornelius late in the year of 36 C.E.

Newton's work is significant because of his application of the concept of 'days of years', a useful tool in calculating other important dates.


Significant of what? We need a "therefore" statement here. And a recognition of the ad hoc nature of his reckoning. He was a believer who wanted the numbers to work out, so he jiggled this and that until he found something he liked. So what?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/27/2021 at 12:56:24