• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Science Delusion

Logicman said:
Two things on that -

First, the finding of scores of scholars, including various liberal scholars, is that the entire New Testament manuscripts were written in the first century.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

Second, that it was not assembled until, say, the 3rd century, means that they were independent manuscripts until then. Independent, historical manuscripts. Independent confirmations.

I thought you liked that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I see a list , and claims. What I don't see is 'how that list was compiled, who is on that list, and how did they make their determination'. I saw a raw list without any details on how the numbers got determined. That makes it totally worthless as a source of information.
 
Logicman said:
What would you know? You're no expert on Christianity. Did you think Christians are supposed to be perfect? Are you?

First, the part of your post I was responding to was about "contradictory evidence", not proof. What's more, you cannot have scientific proof for an ancient historical event such as a resurrection. Or even the assassination of Julius Caesar. If you think you can spell out the specific criteria. Got that, dox?? So your demand for proof is a self-serving exercise in futility and demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding on what can be proven and what can't.

Second, there is a wealth of EVIDENCE for the resurrection. Hundreds of books relate that in the way of eyewitness accounts, the real life apostles, support for the original Gospel authors, Gospel writings, epistles, etc., etc.

Now why don't you get off your duff and provide the contradictory evidence it never happened??

If it is such a big fairy tale it should be an easy demolition job for a keen intellect such as yours. Right? A piece of cake? Sure, dox. You couldn't bust the resurrection if you spent 1,500 years on it. But I'll let you try.

To recap, first you claim we don't want contradictory evidence and then when we call you out on it you run like a rabbit, making up wild demands that you can't even provide for historical events. See how deep and vacuous your folly is?

Where's the beef?
Click to expand...
Well, there are 6 different accounts of the Ressurection I can think of off the top of my head:
  • Gospel of Matthew
  • Gospel of Mark
  • Gospel of Luke
  • Gospel of John
  • Gospel of Peter
  • and The Acts of Pilate (aka Gospel of Nicodemus

None of them agree with each other and contradict each other on some points.
 
RAMOSS said:
I see a list , and claims. What I don't see is 'how that list was compiled, who is on that list, and how did they make their determination'. I saw a raw list without any details on how the numbers got determined. That makes it totally worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...

Well then you didn't look hard enough for the list of contributors and the dating. Click on the Document / book. As for their rationale, the amount of material that would have to be imported into that site would be enormous, and require extensive author certifications and approvals for the material.

It's never enough for you is it, Ramoss?
 
Logicman said:
Well then you didn't look hard enough for the list of contributors and the dating. Click on the Document / book. As for their rationale, the amount of material that would have to be imported into that site would be enormous, and require extensive author certifications and approvals for the material.

It's never enough for you is it, Ramoss?
Click to expand...
Ok. I see the list now. I have a different Briticism. It is known as 'cherry picking data. That is a very small subsection of scholars, and this 'Th.d' concentrated on those that fit a more conservative estimate and not mainstream.

Nor, does it discuss the reasons, it just give a list and a date range, with no further explanation. That still makes it worthless.
 
pinqy said:
Well, there are 6 different accounts of the Ressurection I can think of off the top of my head:
  • Gospel of Matthew
  • Gospel of Mark
  • Gospel of Luke
  • Gospel of John
  • Gospel of Peter
  • and The Acts of Pilate (aka Gospel of Nicodemus

None of them agree with each other and contradict each other on some points.
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

Mark is the Gospel account of Peter. You probably are talking about Peter's epistles.

Then show me your very best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) alleged "contradiction" and cite the pertinent scriptures and your argument.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ok. I see the list now. I have a different Briticism. It is known as 'cherry picking data. That is a very small subsection of scholars, and this 'Th.d' concentrated on those that fit a more conservative estimate and not mainstream.

Nor, does it discuss the reasons, it just give a list and a date range, with no further explanation. That still makes it worthless.
Click to expand...

Everything is worthless to you if it tends to substantiate Christian evidences.

So don't bother me with your worthless demands.
 
Logicman said:
Well then you didn't look hard enough for the list of contributors and the dating. Click on the Document / book. As for their rationale, the amount of material that would have to be imported into that site would be enormous, and require extensive author certifications and approvals for the material.

It's never enough for you is it, Ramoss?
Click to expand...

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head, LM...
 
Logicman said:
Everything is worthless to you if it tends to substantiate Christian evidences.

So don't bother me with your worthless demands.
Click to expand...

It would help if the evidence that is being used to try to promote the 'Christian evidences' weren't so horrible, biased, and just plan bad.
 
RAMOSS said:
It would help if the evidence that is being used to try to promote the 'Christian evidences' weren't so horrible, biased, and just plan bad.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's your kicking everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - presented to you and kicking it all to the curb that's just plain horrible and bad.
 
Logicman said:
<facepalm>

Mark is the Gospel account of Peter. You probably are talking about Peter's epistles.
Click to expand...
No, i’m Talking about the Gospel of Peter. Interestingly, it’s the only gospel that actually claims authorship.
But the early Church decided to arbitrarily set the number of gospels at 4, and did not include at least a dozen other claimed gospels.

Then show me your very best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) alleged "contradiction" and cite the pertinent scriptures and your argument.
Click to expand...
Well, first do you agree that a possible resolution does not solve a contradiction? That regardless of any possible explanations, unless you can show that that explanation is actually true, then the contradiction remains?
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense. It's your kicking everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - presented to you and kicking it all to the curb that's just plain horrible and bad.
Click to expand...

Did you actually look at it, and analyze it? For example, look at 'who' does the earlier dates, and who does the later dates??? Honestly?? Give good information rather than lists and bluster.
 
pinqy said:
No, i’m Talking about the Gospel of Peter. Interestingly, it’s the only gospel that actually claims authorship.
But the early Church decided to arbitrarily set the number of gospels at 4, and did not include at least a dozen other claimed gospels.
Click to expand...

The "Gospel of Peter" is a 2nd century pseudepigrapha, not written by Peter, which is why it and other books you allude to aren't in the New Testament.
pinqy said:
Well, first do you agree that a possible resolution does not solve a contradiction? That regardless of any possible explanations, unless you can show that that explanation is actually true, then the contradiction remains?
Click to expand...

Any explanation that provides a possible or logical resolution to your argument guts your contradiction claim.
 
Angel said:
This reply paper does not resemble any research paper I've ever read. It reads more like a legal brief.
So Sheldrake and Wiseman disagreed on criteria and on the analysis of the observational data.

Sheldrake wrote a book and Wiseman et al went to the news media to debunk Sheldrake:



This sideshow of two "observational studies" with different criteria and disagreement on results passes muster with you as research demonstrating "that Sheldrake’s claims were taken seriously, examined, evaluated, and tested. They failed. Nothing was found to support his claims. But despite the failure and his continuing inability to support his claims, he refuses to change his opinion. That is not free and open inquiry"?

I'm afraid that, like Sheldrake and Wiseman, Angel and pinqy disagree on criteria and results.

Namaste.
Click to expand...

Sheldrake wrote a book to sell the book and make his living whining that mean old science is just too dogmatic to accept his pseudoscience as real science. Well maybe if he had actual testable evidence that could hold up to independent testing and not make excuses every time it has failed. Anyone can write a book pretending it is scientific. Not everyone can submit their theories to rigorous testing, have them fail repeatedly, and then claim fault lies not with the theory but with science itself. It takes a special con man to continue to fleece the gullible public with books full pseudoscience and keep whining how mean old science is not giving him a fair shake. Poor widdle Rupie, he's crying all the way to the bank. The man has no shame.
 
zyzygy said:
The bolded is the antithesis of science.
Click to expand...

I agree, the bolded is the antithesis of science.

Do you question or doubt the group think idea that has been dogmatically presented here as if it were a scientific fact... "thoughts are physical"?

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
I agree, the bolded is the antithesis of science.

Do you question or doubt the group think idea that has been dogmatically presented here as if it were a scientific fact... "thoughts are physical"?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

The idea that there is the supernatural is by its very nature only a dogma, as it is not supported by evidence. When you provide evidence of thoughts that do not depend on a physical brain for their existence, then you might have something.
 
devildavid said:
The idea that there is the supernatural is by its very nature only a dogma, as it is not supported by evidence. When you provide evidence of thoughts that do not depend on a physical brain for their existence, then you might have something.
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea of the supernatural does exist. However, I have never presented my idea concerning the supernatural and expected you to take my word for it.

I think, it should be quite simple for you to present scientific evidence from a scientific source that states "thoughts are physical", instead of using your simplistic sentence, then you might have something!

Just another dodge.:waiting:

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
Yes, the idea of the supernatural does exist. However, I have never presented my idea concerning the supernatural and expected you to take my word for it.

I think, it should be quite simple for you to present scientific evidence from a scientific source that states "thoughts are physical", instead of using your simplistic sentence, then you might have something!

Just another dodge.:waiting:

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Trivial evidence like thoughts and moods being altered by physical states of the mind? I can't think of any science literature that has ever provided evidence of that, ever.
 
William Rea said:
Trivial evidence like thoughts and moods being altered by physical states of the mind? I can't think of any science literature that has ever provided evidence of that, ever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, that is why devildavid and others who think "thoughts are physical" and keep dogmatically repeating that simplistic sentence and expect me to just take their word for it... because they are unable to provide any science literature that has ever provided evidence of that, ever.

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

Definition of dogma plural dogmas also dogmata

1.
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets

* pedagogical dogma

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Did You Know?

Religious dogma and scientific dogma are sometimes at odds, as in arguments between those who believe in the biblical story of creation and those who believe in evolution.

Since all dogma resists change, arguments of any kind are harder to resolve when both sides are dogmatic in their beliefs.

Dogma and dogmatic are generally used disapprovingly; it's always other people who believe unquestioningly in dogma and who take a dogmatic approach to important issues.

Definition of dogma for English Language Learners

: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization

Definition of dogma for Students

1 : something firmly believed

She repeated medical dogma against eating sugar.

2 : a belief or set of beliefs taught by a church

* pedagogical dogma https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogical

: of or relating to teachers or education

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Your point is?

We both understand the meaning of the word!!
 
Angel said:
Wrong, you say, mistaking contradiction as an argument. Then, besides number 1, an explanation taken directly from Sheldrake's presentation, defend any of the other nine as explanations rather than the dogmatic assertions they are.

Apparently you still haven't been able to wrap your mind around the distinction between science as inquiry (as practiced) and the dogmatic scientific world view which you and others here unwittingly hold to like a life preserver and which, according to Sheldrake, over the last thirty years has begun to get in the way of science as free and open inquiry.
Click to expand...

No I and other scientifically litterate and thinking people do not have the same idea as to what science is as the prat in the video.

You do have the same idea as to what science is as the prat in the video.

You and he are wrong. He is fraudulent as he actually understands that he is wrong and is milking a nice gravy train.

You are unable to wrap your head around the idea that you do not understand the world or other people's view points.
 
Tim the plumber said:

No I and other scientifically litterate and thinking people do not have the same idea as to what science is as the prat in the video.

You do have the same idea as to what science is as the prat in the video.

You and he are wrong. He is fraudulent as he actually understands that he is wrong and is milking a nice gravy train.

You are unable to wrap your head around the idea that you do not understand the world or other people's view points.
Click to expand...
I'll speak your language. Maybe you'll understand that: You're wrong; you don't know what you're talking about; calling Sheldrake a name may be satisfying to you in some perverse way, but it is otherwise without substance and declasse. Find another interlocutor and waste his time.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That is an assertion, but that's all it is. It cannot be proven.


I've known some scientists that developed paradigms through which they viewed things that may have been a little dogmatic in nature. They were the exception, not the rule, and it generally didn't cloud all of their thinking as far as I could see.

Most religion I have encountered is simply not open to contradictory evidence, thought or information. Some of the more liberal churches, yes, but those are looked down upon more often than not by most religious folks.

That's my experience. ymmv, of course.
Click to expand...
Religious experience is not a matter of proof. I'm rather surprised that you seem to think it is. Religion is not science, although to some science is religion.
 
pinqy said:
Since no one claimed it was a research paper, nor was I asked to present one, that’s a bit of a non sequitur.

So Sheldrake and Wiseman disagreed on criteria and on the analysis of the observational data.
Click to expand...



Sheldrake wrote a book. Ms Smart volunteered her dog for the experiment with Sheldrake, Australian television covered the story with their own experiments, seeming to confirm Sheldrakes claims. There is much media interest and coverage. Then Wiseman and Smith contacted Sheldrake, not the media, and did their own experiments. They presented their results to the Parapsycological Association. More media attention followed.

How on earth do you twist that to Wiseman reading the book and running off to the media to debunk the claim???



I’m sorry, why are you characterizing it as a “sideshow,” and why quotation marks for observational studies? The studies were almost identical to Sheldrakes. There were different criteria partly because Wiseman didn’t know what Sheldrake’s were.

And be honest, which is the better approach: determine beforehand what would constitute successes or failure, and then adjusting those criteria for a second round if those criteria appear to be off in the first run, or conducting an experiment and then going through the data to see if you can find a pattern that fits what you want the results to be?
Click to expand...

Lest we lose the thread and plunge deeper into the maze of mutual misunderstanding, the following exchange set us off in this direction:

pinqy said:
Angel said:
pinqy said:
Sheldrake’s claims were taken seriously, examined, evaluated, and tested. They failed. Nothing was found to support his claims. But despite the failure and his continuing inability to support his claims, he refuses to change his opinion. That is not free and open inquiry.
Click to expand...
Please direct me to the information on which you base these assertions. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Here is one on knowing when someone is staring
And on psychic dogs

Both show that Sheldrake’s claims were given serious consideration, but the experiments failed.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the Wiseman's "study" and Wiseman's "reply" do not fill the bill.
 
Last edited:
In the Matter of Monomania​

<alt>doxygen said:
Do you accept and freely admit that your religion is to a large extent based on dogma? I'm talking about Christianity.
Click to expand...
zyzygy said:
OK, lets ask one further question, are the gospels accurate reliable historical accounts of what happened? There is much evidence to suggest that they are not. Let me give you a simple but very dramatic example, if you look at the gospel of Matthew Ch27 v51-53 it reads as follows:

[folderol omitted]

So much for the accuracy of the gospels.
Click to expand...
pinqy said:
Well, there are 6 different accounts of the Ressurection I can think of off the top of my head:
  • Gospel of Matthew
  • Gospel of Mark
  • Gospel of Luke
  • Gospel of John
  • Gospel of Peter
  • and The Acts of Pilate (aka Gospel of Nicodemus

None of them agree with each other and contradict each other on some points.
Click to expand...
RAMOSS said:
It would help if the evidence that is being used to try to promote the 'Christian evidences' weren't so horrible, biased, and just plan bad.
Click to expand...
pinqy said:
No, i’m Talking about the Gospel of Peter. Interestingly, it’s the only gospel that actually claims authorship.
But the early Church decided to arbitrarily set the number of gospels at 4, and did not include at least a dozen other claimed gospels.
...
Click to expand...

It's like a shark feeding frenzy for heaven's sake!

Hint: "The Science Delusion"

Namaste.


;)​
 
CharisRose said:
Perhaps, that is why devildavid and others who think "thoughts are physical" and keep dogmatically repeating that simplistic sentence and expect me to just take their word for it... because they are unable to provide any science literature that has ever provided evidence of that, ever.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...
Why do you think that thoughts are not physical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom