Poll

What is beyond the grave?

Nothing.
17 (56.7%)
Heaven or hell
7 (23.3%)
just heaven
0 (0%)
just hell
1 (3.3%)
Reincarnation
1 (3.3%)
scaring the 'most haunted' crew
0 (0%)
other afterlife spiritual plane
4 (13.3%)

Total Members Voted: 27

The Great Beyond

  • 115 Replies
  • 13737 Views
*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2008, 02:15:24 PM »
I would really like to know why people think the Bible cannot be substantiated. Aside from the spiritual aspect (which I can understand is hard to believe - been there), what of the scientific and historical value?

I think, if the Bible were to provide distinct scientific truths, not understood at the time, it would have some substantiation. The problem is, there isn't. The best example is probably the age of the world, where the bible pegs around 6,000 years. Interpretations vary, though all are ridiculously ludicrous in view of geological time.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2008, 02:49:03 PM »
The most direct scientific advice the bible gives is to bury your dead quickly and be careful what you eat.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2008, 02:53:00 PM »
I would really like to know why people think the Bible cannot be substantiated. Aside from the spiritual aspect (which I can understand is hard to believe - been there), what of the scientific and historical value?

I think, if the Bible were to provide distinct scientific truths, not understood at the time, it would have some substantiation. The problem is, there isn't. The best example is probably the age of the world, where the bible pegs around 6,000 years. Interpretations vary, though all are ridiculously ludicrous in view of geological time.

See, from AlphaOmega's point of view, the Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old.  His point of view is that anything the Bible got wrong can somehow be justified as being metaphorical, while when it got lucky and got something right, it proves it to be infallible.

Is that close to how you would have responded, Alpha?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2008, 03:39:46 PM »
The most direct scientific advice the bible gives is to bury your dead quickly and be careful what you eat.
Very advanced concepts that saved thousands of lives.....

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2008, 04:06:17 PM »
I would really like to know why people think the Bible cannot be substantiated. Aside from the spiritual aspect (which I can understand is hard to believe - been there), what of the scientific and historical value?

If I write a book about a spiritual leader who believes in an afterlife of a forest of flowers in the time of Tony Blair, who is killed, I can prove that there WAS a Tony Blair, the world the spritualist inhabited existed and (if her really did exist) that the Spiritualist lived. That doesn't prove he was right.

Especially if I happened to write this book in 2262 based on stories passed down from 1998

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2008, 08:11:57 PM »
The most direct scientific advice the bible gives is to bury your dead quickly and be careful what you eat.
Very advanced concepts that saved thousands of lives.....

True, but doesn't mean much in the scheme of scientific truths that could have been revealed.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2008, 07:26:01 AM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

I can't remember the dudes name, but who discovered ocean currents? They call him something like the 'father of modern oceanography'. He discovered underwater ocean currents after reading (in Job) the passage that discusses the "paths of the sea". He figured, "hey, if God says they are there, they must be there".

And there they were.

That's just one example of how the bible predates modern science.

Another would be circumcision. Ask any Jew the significance of that practice and they'll tell you of the custom. Along the same lines, the bible is very specific of when it must occur - 6 days after birth.

Wonder why?

6 days after birth is when the K Vitamin is the highest in newborn babies. It is the safest time to perform a procedure like that.

Again, the bible predates what modern science (and medicine) tells us what is best.

*(edited for terrible spelling...)*
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 07:40:15 AM by TheA1pha0mega »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65146
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2008, 07:28:41 AM »
Pfftt they just got in some lucky guesses






Please don't smite me God
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2008, 07:36:04 AM »
6 days after birth is when the K Vitamin is the highest in newborn babies. It is the safest time to perform a procedure like that.

Or when they are older.

As for an after-life, I believe there is none. Anything mystical and magical about things that occur in the world have had very logical, and very specific explanations for them; they are apart of the laws of the universe. I can't imagine consciousness being anything other than the result of a functioning brain. Thus, when the brain shuts down, so does your consciousness.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2008, 09:08:36 AM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

I can't remember the dudes name, but who discovered ocean currents? They call him something like the 'father of modern oceanography'. He discovered underwater ocean currents after reading (in Job) the passage that discusses the "paths of the sea". He figured, "hey, if God says they are there, they must be there".

And there they were.

That's just one example of how the bible predates modern science.

Another would be circumcision. Ask any Jew the significance of that practice and they'll tell you of the custom. Along the same lines, the bible is very specific of when it must occur - 6 days after birth.

Wonder why?

6 days after birth is when the K Vitamin is the highest in newborn babies. It is the safest time to perform a procedure like that.

Again, the bible predates what modern science (and medicine) tells us what is best.

*(edited for terrible spelling...)*

Well, if you don't want to debate the age of the earth thats fine...but I'll take that as a concession that the bible claims the earth an age modern science laughs at. Concerning the medical recommendations and sea currents, I think if you look in more ancient writings, such as the presocratics, you will find a massive amount of predictions of healthcare and examples of pre-scientific knowledge that far outway anything in the bible.  The whole claim that the bible holds revealed truth of things at the time unknown is a massive post hoc fallacy. You can fish for anything if you're looking hard enough.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2008, 09:59:24 AM »
You can fish for anything if you're looking hard enough.

Except for fish. I can never find fish when I'm fishing.

Actually, I don't debate the age of the earth because it is a moot point and can be debated easily from both points of view.

Do you have anything specific in the Bible that has been disproven by modern science? Don't bring up Jesus Christ rising from the dead, I can't "prove" it to you and you won't believe it anyway. Unless you want all the eyewitness accounts...  8) (which are, by the way, backed up in historic texts)


*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2008, 11:35:59 AM »
-Age of the earth and creation in general.

-the great Flood. There is evidence of a large flood, but the ark simply couldn't have held all Earth's creatures. If you argue that the other varieties and species evolved post-flood then you argue faster macro-evolution than the most adamant Darwinist believes in.

-The way to check a girl is a virgin is if the hymen is unbroken. I feel sorry for those virgin girls stoned outside her father's house because it was broken through other means, like exercise or hard labour.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2008, 12:16:33 PM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Great argument.  ::)

The age of the earth as it is given in the Bible is certainly applicable to the debate at hand.  You can't just throw out "But it was right about this and this, so that proves my point!!!"  No, it doesn't.

The ancient Egyptians and Mayans were also far advanced scientifically for their time.  Does that make their mythologies infallible as well?  ???
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 12:19:28 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2008, 01:27:02 PM »

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Great argument.  ::)

Officially known as the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' logical fallacy.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2008, 03:11:47 PM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Great argument.  ::)

Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2008, 03:18:56 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65146
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2008, 03:20:03 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.

Give God a break; it's his first attempt
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2008, 03:23:36 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.

Give God a break; it's his first attempt
Not if you believe what Tom is saying. He seems to think there are an infinite number of universes.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2008, 03:24:33 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.

Give God a break; it's his first attempt

Not necessarily.

And jeebs, simply put...why? Why create such illogical tests of faith? Surely the presence of evil/ natural disasters/ invisibility/ vagueness/ and superstition are enough stumbling blocks already?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65146
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2008, 03:25:43 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.

Give God a break; it's his first attempt

Not necessarily.


It is, I asked him
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2008, 03:26:56 PM »
Oh...ok...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2008, 03:27:23 PM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Great argument.  ::)

Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

So you're saying (as it pertains to our argument) that the Bible is scientifically accurate because the Bible... I don't know, is scientifically accurate  ???, and despite the fact that some scientific points in the Bible go against the consensus of modern science?

Well, I guess it's a good argument to use with another fundamentalist, but I don't see how you could use it to prove to a non-fundamentalist that the Bible is infallible.  ::)

"Carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things."  Wow.  I've heard that statement before, but oddly enough, never by anybody but a fundamentalist.   ;D

I guess you can at least concede the point that the Bible wasn't scientifically accurate about everything, if you define "scientific accuracy" as fitting the models of modern science rather than fitting the models of your religion?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2008, 03:29:03 PM »
the bible is right because it says it's right because it says it's right because it says it's right because it says it's right because it says it's right because it says it's right...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2008, 03:29:07 PM »
Quote
Not if you believe what Tom is saying. He seems to think there are an infinite number of universes.

According to the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there are indeed an infinite number of universes.

In a poll L David Raub reports that the majority of leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists believe the Many-Worlds Interpretation to be true. Amongst MWI believers are Stephen Hawking, Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann, and Richard Feynman.

http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 03:37:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2008, 03:33:06 PM »
Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

Sure sounds like a crappy way to run a universe.

Give God a break; it's his first attempt

Not necessarily.

And jeebs, simply put...why? Why create such illogical tests of faith? Surely the presence of evil/ natural disasters/ invisibility/ vagueness/ and superstition are enough stumbling blocks already?

Not really. The pressence of all these things is part of the fact that there is no proof and that God exists. Their absence could be considered proof that there is a god, and he is good.

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2008, 03:39:34 PM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Great argument.  ::)

Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

So you're saying (as it pertains to our argument) that the Bible is scientifically accurate because the Bible... I don't know, is scientifically accurate  ???, and despite the fact that some scientific points in the Bible go against the consensus of modern science?

Well, I guess it's a good argument to use with another fundamentalist, but I don't see how you could use it to prove to a non-fundamentalist that the Bible is infallible.  ::)

"Carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things."  Wow.  I've heard that statement before, but oddly enough, never by anybody but a fundamentalist.   ;D

I guess you can at least concede the point that the Bible wasn't scientifically accurate about everything, if you define "scientific accuracy" as fitting the models of modern science rather than fitting the models of your religion?
First, please name something in the bible that " goes against the consensus of modern science."
Second, modern science could be wrong.  This has been the case many times throughout history. Many old ideas are now outdated and have been proven false. 500 years from now the ideas of todays "modern science" could look stupid.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2008, 03:44:19 PM »
I have actually never had much desire to debate the age of the earth. It really doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is 6,000 or 60,000,000 years old. Either way it's still earth, metaphorical or not. Although I will say that carbon dating is a pretty lousy way to get good age data.

Then I guess I should amend my point, since you seem to maybe believe that the earth is actually 6000 years old.  You mentioned how scientifically accurate the Bible is, but apparently that only applies when the Bible actually agrees with modern science -- ?  Greargument.  ::)

Actually, the earth could be 6,000 years old. The argument is that God could have created the earth to appear to be older than it really is. This is why carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things. They could have been created at a different state of decay than other things. Also, God doesn't give out proof of his existence. He wants faith. That's why there will never be conclusive proof.

So you're saying (as it pertains to our argument) that the Bible is scientifically accurate because the Bible... I don't know, is scientifically accurate  ???, and despite the fact that some scientific points in the Bible go against the consensus of modern science?

Well, I guess it's a good argument to use with another fundamentalist, but I don't see how you could use it to prove to a non-fundamentalist that the Bible is infallible.  ::)

"Carbon dating isn't actually helpful in determining the age of things."  Wow.  I've heard that statement before, but oddly enough, never by anybody but a fundamentalist.   ;D

I guess you can at least concede the point that the Bible wasn't scientifically accurate about everything, if you define "scientific accuracy" as fitting the models of modern science rather than fitting the models of your religion?
First, please name something in the bible that " goes against the consensus of modern science."
Second, modern science could be wrong.  This has been the case many times throughout history. Many old ideas are now outdated and have been proven false. 500 years from now the ideas of todays "modern science" could look stupid.


1) We were talking about it.  The age of the earth.
2) Absolutely.  But if you're going to argue that the Bible can be shown to be scientifically accurate, then, well, it should agree with the science of the time.  Otherwise it's an empty point.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2008, 03:49:49 PM »
I already talked about the age of the earth.

Even if something doesn't agree with the science of the time, does that make it any less true? Take Flat Earth Theory, for example.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2008, 04:48:03 PM »
I already talked about the age of the earth.

Even if something doesn't agree with the science of the time, does that make it any less true? Take Flat Earth Theory, for example.

What about flat earth theory?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: The Great Beyond
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2008, 05:10:06 PM »
I believe that FE theory doesn't agree with science. It has been proven that the earth is round.