User Tag List

First 9101112132161 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 743

  1. #101
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    Modern Nomad:

    hey is that what the "Creationists" say when you ridicule them? but the thing is, im not ridiculing you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    interesting? isn't it? life is a circle in more ways than one.
    Actually, I think I should be commended for my ability to predict the future. ^_^

    Its not easy being me. ya know.

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    actually, i am being perfectly rational in the scientific process here.

    there are no losses. only exposure of weaknesses.
    Define the question
    Gather information and resources (observe)
    Form hypothesis
    Perform experiment and collect data
    Analyze data
    Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
    Publish results
    Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Niburu and Sumerian hypotheses aren't theories because they haven't been validated by the above process.

  3. #103
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    please answer a better reason why Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did.

    Occam's Razor.
    Ok. Occam's Razor.
    All other things being equal, which of the following two explanations introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

    a) Zecharia Sitchin's interpretations of the Sumerian texts are inaccurate.
    b) The ancient Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did and created star charts because they were visited by extraterrestrials who needed them for space travel.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  4. #104
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Define the question
    Gather information and resources (observe)
    Form hypothesis
    Perform experiment and collect data
    Analyze data
    Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
    Publish results
    Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
    Well...


    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  5. #105
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Ok. Occam's Razor.
    All other things being equal, which of the following two explanations introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

    a) Zecharia Sitchin's interpretations of the Sumerian texts are inaccurate.
    b) The ancient Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did and created star charts because they were visited by extraterrestrials who needed them for space travel.
    a) is a possibility. Sumerian is an altaic-ural language, so altaic/ural language experts would be best equipped to translate their texts. I am not sure if Sitchin used Altaic/Ural translators.

    b) sounds ridiculous, but Zecharia is not the only interpretor of Sumerian cosmology. But in general, it does seem like it is generally an agreed upon interpretation.

  6. #106
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Well...


    ah... haha so u know too what REAL academis is like.

  7. #107
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    a) is a possibility. Sumerian is an altaic language, so altaic language experts would be best equipped to translate their texts. I am not sure if Sitchin used Altaic translators.

    b) sounds ridiculous, but Zecharia is not the only interpretor of Sumerian cosmology. But in general, it does seem like it is generally an agreed upon interpretation.
    From Wikipedia:
    "Part of his theory lies in an astronomical interpretation of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, in which he replaces the names of gods with hypothetical planets. However, since the principal evidence for Sitchin's claims lies in his own personally derived etymologies and not on any scholarly agreed interpretations (including scholars among the Sumerians themselves), his theories remain at most pseudoscience to the vast majority, if not the totality, of academics."

    It's not an agreed upon translation. And even if it was, there's still a leap from saying the Sumerians studied the sky to saying that must mean they had contact with aliens.

    I'm not saying there's doesn't exist a possibility Zecharia got it 100% correct, but you've been waving Occam's Razor in this thread, and unless there is something that a) doesn't cover which b) does, Occam's Razor favours a).
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  8. #108
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    ah... haha so u know too what REAL academis is like.
    Absolutely! Which is why I'm a skeptic when it comes to science. And an even bigger skeptic when it comes to pseudoscience, which doesn't even pretend to try to be falsifiable.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  9. #109
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    From Wikipedia:
    "Part of his theory lies in an astronomical interpretation of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, in which he replaces the names of gods with hypothetical planets. However, since the principal evidence for Sitchin's claims lies in his own personally derived etymologies and not on any scholarly agreed interpretations (including scholars among the Sumerians themselves), his theories remain at most pseudoscience to the vast majority, if not the totality, of academics."

    It's not an agreed upon translation. And even if it was, there's still a leap from saying the Sumerians studied the sky to saying that must mean they had contact with aliens.

    I'm not saying there's doesn't exist a possibility Zecharia got it 100% correct, but you've been waving Occam's Razor in this thread, and unless there is something that a) doesn't cover which b) does, Occam's Razor favours a).
    Yes. Which is why there are a bunch of Korean linguists being recruited to study the Sumerian texts at the University of Chicago, currently.


  10. #110
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    I reject religion because of The Big Picture. The Big Picture, to me, is starting chronologically at the beginning of the Universe and working your way to this point in time, scientifically of course. (If there are any errors in the science please forgive me lol)

    Singularity --> Big Bang due to high vaccum pressure --> Stars and Galaxies form over billions of years --> About 9 billion years into the Universe the Sun of our Solar System forms --> Very shortly after, the Earth forms (.05 billion years after) --> the bombardment of earth by asteroids, meteors, etc --> 0.14 to 1.84 billion years into Earth's existence, Abiogenesis brings primitive cells into existence (on its own, no help from God needed) --> For a few billion years these primitive cells become more complex and compete for survival --> transitional forms of cells arise, the transition being single-celled to multi-celled (no help from God needed) --> Multi-celled organisms arise and begin to spread and evolve --> Precambrian --> (okay this is taking a while and I think i'm making my point, i'll skip a bit) --> Homo Sapiens become a distict species in the Homo Genus (we arrived this way on our own, no help from God), also a few subspecies of Homo Sapiens come about but go extinct (they came after us but died out) --> Homo Sapiens spread from Africa to the rest of the world --> We adapt differently to the environments of the world (had our species been isolated we would have branched off from each other, Asians, Caucasians, etc) --> Each culture has its own religious explanation for our origins --> (blah blah the idea is made)

    Why, after all of this, does God decide, "hey, those homo sapiens over there are sinful and need to be moral according to my rules"? Why does God put himself in human form in some remote desert part of Earth to die for our sins that weren't committed (Adam and Eve never existed and never 'sinned' against God)? Why after all this time, with all these organisms over billions of years, does God decide that its about time for him to show himself? Why didn't he show himself to the other Highly-Conscious beings that existed in the Homo Genus? What about people that never hear the word of Jesus, are they forgiven for their imaginary sin, you would think that if he was a decent and intelligent God he would show himself to everyone at once to prove his existence? What happens to other organisms in general, when they die do they just cease to exist, saved from hell but exempt from heaven?

    Why does God make a heaven and hell for us when the place that we go to is predetermined? God is Omnipotent, All-knowing, and Outside of Time itself, he would already know where we would go to by definition, we have no choice, people like me are doomed to eternal hellfire, do you understand? If we had a choice in what to believe, then the God wouldn't be God, because he wouldn't Know our every thought and what we would decide so that would make him Not All-knowing, A God that doesn't know everything isn't God. If God exists outside of Time, then our existence means nothing to him, the entire history of the Universe could be over in the snap of the finger to God, its like he would have a Tivo remote, he could rewind, pause, fast forward, skip to the end, everything predetermined by the show he was watching that he created, the Universe could exist for .00001 of a second to him, why would he care for a species that arose on earth for a fraction of existence in the history of the Universe. All of that makes no sense though, because the concept of Time is being applied to God! A God outside of Time cannot exist in this way, it is literally un-thinkable, our brains are wired to understand the concept of time, where there is no time it is non-existence to us, our consciousness makes up time, if the atoms in my body were scattered somewhere else in the Universe they would be indifferent to time's existence, they would interact with time but time wouldn't Mean anything to them. If God existed in his own sense of Time outside our Universe (whatever "outside our universe" may mean..) wouldn't he have to be physically comprised of something to exist? If God was Physically comprised of something, in a sense of time, would he be Outside our Universe? Wouldn't those things be applied to Our Universe?

    I have yet to have any theist give me a plausible account for the existence of God. I have no reason to believe in God via personal experience. I have no reason to believe in God via the logic that is instilled in my consiousness, if I had a different thought process (different sense of logic) then maybe I would.

    Edit: This is pretty much addressing Christianity exclusively.
    Most of the content of the OP attempts to interpret Christian doctrine in view of the assumptions of a physicalist worldview. It's not surprising that this endeavor met with some snags. These snags are then used as evidence to support the author's initial declaration. If I may take some interpretive liberty, I'll rephrase the argument: "Given that the scientific worldview makes contradictory claims to those made by the theistic worldview, and I'm aware of a large body of evidence that supports the scientific worldview, whereas there seems to be a dirth of evidence supporting the theistic worldview, I therefore reject the theistic worldview."

    If I interpreted you (Didums) rightly, then what you said is fair. Indeed, if I thought you were in the habit of believing foundational propositions without evidence, then I'd be more concerned about your mental well-being than if you professed to be a Christian who believed without evidence despite being aware of good, contrary evidence.

    Furthermore, you rightly imply that a just God would not punish persons with hell for their lack of faith if it weren't clear he existed: justice demands that maximal punishment require maximal clarity. You didn't dedicate much of the OP to this point, but it gives the argument above more bite; in view of plausible alternative worldviews, would it be fair of God to punish you with everlasting suffering for not believing in him? (If God should to do this, then I'd hope he chokes to death on a burrito that's so hot he couldn't eat it.)

    In the OP, you also challenge the coherence of predestination and moral responsibility. Your argument here seems to go thusly: the ability to do otherwise is necessary for 'choice'/moral responsibility, but if God predetermines everything, then it's impossible for anyone to choose to do otherwise--and thus be morally responsible for what he did; therefore, either God or 'choice'/moral responsibility doesn't exist.

    However, it's possible for 'choice' and moral responsibility to be compatible with determinism; indeed, moral responsibility requires that our actions be determined; for if you don't determine your action, then it's not your action; and if it's not your action, then you're not morally responsible for it. Furthermore, just because you don't have the ability to do otherwise doesn't mean you don't make choices; you choose to do what you want to do, and you are always free to make choices based on what you want. Of course, God, being omniscient, knows what you want; thus, he knows what you will choose to believe.

    Now, in the OP, you didn't say you wanted a theist to give a plausible account for the existence of God, only that you'd don't know of any that's given one, but, should you want to seek out whether any such account exists, then I'd be willing to help find if there is such an account.

Similar Threads

  1. Let's see how good you guys are
    By Anamalech in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:50 AM
  2. I don't know how much more I can take.
    By Haphazard in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM
  3. I really don't know how I feel about this...
    By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
  4. Let's see how this goes...
    By whiteraven in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO