Jump to content

Evidence in the bible (hijack/split from how to turn a believer)


Pymander
 Share

Recommended Posts

'Pymander' blind faith, in the bible, can only shield you from understanding; ask and it can provide (understanding), demand and it will mystify.


BTW that goes for both sides of the argument.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the Bible in particular? It is probably the best scripture, but I certainly haven't read the Talmud, like Einstein, and it may be better, I don't now. The Bhagavad Gita preaches the same morality. The Isha Upanishad (translated by Sri Aurobindo) is extremely profound, especially when elucidated by his commentary. But the Hindu religion is a very ancient vestige of the early Egyptian, perhaps likewise evolved with the people like the Bible as the Judeo-Christian Tradition. Jews and Christians however no longer share the same eschatology. The removal of reincarnation (resurrection) from the doctrine leaves Christianity at pains to demonstrate consistency. It is fairly plainly described in Job chapter 1 KJV, and discussed in John chapter 3 KJV between Nicodemus and Jesus. The prophecy concerning the Gospels, to be preached to every nation is significant, and fulfilled. The Dutch version I have is a virtual transliteration of the King James English. The history of English, concerning John Dee and Queen Elisabeth establishing the British navy, and without heir, King James ascending the throne, taking lessons from Nicolo Machioveli's "The Prince", and his meticulous publication, in peasant language, for all to read, from original texts, producing the most exact Bible to the present, all appear to me to be hand of God toward fulfilment of prophecy. At the same stroke, English became the universal language. And the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Roman empire was filled by the Church which held sway until the reformation throughout Europe. But coincidence to Einstein is God's way of staying anonymous. It is also an explanation used by liars and fools.

Edited by Pymander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the Bible in particular?

 

The whole point of my post is, not "the bible in particular" but the blind faith it's ilk inspires.

Blind faith in any system (book) will cause a lack of understanding.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dim Reaper - if you must avoid blind faith, determine for yourself whether there is a God or not. I can't think of a more important question, nor a more neglected question, that anyone can ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dim Reaper - if you must avoid blind faith, determine for yourself whether there is a God or not. I can't think of a more important question, nor a more neglected question, that anyone can ask.

Unfortunately, none of us can determine whether there is a God or not no matter how hard we try or how much we want it. Therefore, I cannot think of a less important question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dim Reaper - if you must avoid blind faith, determine for yourself whether there is a God or not. I can't think of a more important question, nor a more neglected question, that anyone can ask.

 

I can see you're about to break through your shell, given this non-sense, keep pecking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, none of us can determine whether there is a God or not no matter how hard we try or how much we want it. Therefore, I cannot think of a less important question.

 

I feel, since there are so many more questions that actually involve reality, that this is the proper mindset. It's the neutral position between active belief and active disbelief, and is where it seems most reasonable to "turn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the sciences are based on hypotheses which model each respective field of research or knowledge. To my mind, chemistry is quite possibly the only rock-solid field. They seem to range from subatomic physics to geology and astronomy in one sense, or to psychology in another, with palaeontology a blend of both. We cannot determine that the senses (earth element to Hermetic philosophers) are or are not some kind of psychic phenomenon, or stated differently, whether the universe has an existence independent of the observer (the key element of Relativity Theory), as claimed by Einstein. From the Hermetic point of view, separate existence and companionship are facilitated by God having created souls in His own image, being irreducible consciousness, and thus giving consciousness to those souls, so that our being is the division of that consciousness into seven levels, the elements symbolised by earth, water, fire and air being the perception of the universe, or elements of nature. From the atheist viewpoint, we now have mass-energy as the source of our evolution and being, and we are very finite in time, rather than eternal, returning to the cosmic dust from evolving galaxies, stars and planets.

 

Here is the problem. These two perspectives, the Hermetic (Emerald Tablet & The Divine Pymander of Hermes) and Materialism (what atheists call science) are indistinguishable, which by scientific principle (to some), would imply that they are equivalent hypotheses for our existence. General Relativity employed the equivalence principle to determine the effects of gravity on space and time for any specific observer in a different non-inertial frame. Einstein stated that acceleration or inertial force and gravity are indistinguishable and therefore each has the same effects. I believe as Einstein probably did, and as Edgar Cayce stated (through his psychic readings), that all force is one force. Edgar Cayce's readings claimed it to be "what we call electricity", so ... electric fields, which propagate at the speed of light c.

 

Our argument, then, boils down to whether we believe that the principle of equivalence is universally valid or not. The Hermetic perspective, of course, implies mysticism in the sense of design. Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest is details." The Materialistic perspective alone asks a lot of "natural" laws to effect the evolution, possibly from light as the original creation (electro-magneto-inertial energy in all likelihood, with an anti-photon balancing every photon as matter & antimatter do, currently called the neutrino as well as dark energy), of intelligent and creative life, in my opinion. Hermetic Philosophy underlies the Bible and other world-wide scriptures and traditions of unknown antiquity.

 

My concept of God has thus been defined in scientific summation, and as far as I can see, is not inconsistent with our objective reality. Without God, of course, there are no miracles, fates, souls, prophecies, psychics nor any other supernatural phenomena. We can not prove, only verify or disprove our hypotheses with evidence. We are free to chose which hypotheses we wish to believe. Choose for yourself. Who knows if we are writing to our fates that we must march in columns of four to the strains of a band after taking oaths to kill on command. If God exists, He certainly allows free will on the matter of believing it. That may be, if so, the gravity of ignoring this question. The belief may also be a privilege that needs to be earned and acquired through seeking.

Edited by Pymander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pymander, there are some very decent people here who actually take time to read and answer your posts in a meaningful way and even take time to engage you in a civil fashion explaining basic coherence to your ignorant mind - I am not one of those people as I'm convinced you do not deserve it.

I genuinely BELIEVE that your posts are damaging to mind and soul and should bare a "keep out of reach of children" tag. I would urge the moderators to add such a signature tag to your profile so students and children who are participating in this forum can be sheltered from your moronic, ignorant, damaging preach. Considering your up-till-now activity here, I say you cannot be a child nor a troll and you seem coherent enough for me to assume that you are not mentally challenged. If this is correct, and I'm convinced it is - I despise the combination of your stupidity, stubbornness and ignorance which are all clearly your choice.

I also despise your blatant, ignorant straight-forwardness with which you treat yourself as an authority while preaching your damaging shit to people who do not deserve to be treated with such input. On top of everything I wrote so far, you also have no shame for yourself. I think that finding that part of yourself which will enable you to regain the shame for your own self should be at the top of your to do list.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koti - Acknowledging how frequently I forget to walk it myself, let me remind you more effective is the high road

 

never-argue-with-stupid-people-mark-twai

I know this quote by Mark Twain iNow, I very much agree with it and I also am guilty of not walking it myself many times. Nevertheless I am not arguing in this case - I'm stating hoping that it will make a difference. After all, everything else has failed. Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

koti: Pymander, how can someone a learned as you believe such foolishness as Hermetic philosophy.

 

Pymander: Because, Sir, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and John Dee have studied it, and you have not.

Edited by Pymander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we consider the title of this thread, this non-dialogue with a "believer" illustrates the impossibility of turning one. For many, there is no common ground because of the total lack of rational thought on one side. Someone who claims that chemistry is the only rock-solid science, takes Cayce and Berlitz seriously, has an extraordinary superiority complex and knows that they have a seat in paradise, clearly has no nous at all, which is extraordinarily ironic.

 

Yet again I find myself in a discussion which is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. I'm done with this thread, it's bad for the sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we consider the title of this thread, this non-dialogue with a "believer" illustrates the impossibility of turning one. For many, there is no common ground because of the total lack of rational thought on one side. Someone who claims that chemistry is the only rock-solid science, takes Cayce and Berlitz seriously, has an extraordinary superiority complex and knows that they have a seat in paradise, clearly has no nous at all, which is extraordinarily ironic.

 

Yet again I find myself in a discussion which is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. I'm done with this thread, it's bad for the sanity.

I too am done with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Split from

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105363-how-to-turn-a-believer/

 

It is disappointing that multiple moderator notes in the other thread were blatantly ignored. The only reason the split posts are not in the trash is because the tangent was in part invited by the OP. It's still inappropriate.

 

As is proselytizing, Pymander. A mention of religion is not an invitation to preach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we consider the title of this thread, this non-dialogue with a "believer" illustrates the impossibility of turning one.

What you don't see, however, is all of the people on the sidelines watching the exchange... Proverbial fence sitters seeing the paucity on one side and patience on the other... changing their own beliefs as a result. Giving up is not the right approach, regardless how frustrating folks like Pymander can be to a rational thinker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jfoldbar....

 

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

i think there is a difference between sun light...and some other light God is talking about. In fact God refers to Jesus as being the light.... and will be the light when he comes again and there's a new earth and heavens... we will no longer have a sun. So personally...i don't see that as s contradiction in the bible. The bible is very complex....i guess it should be... if it came from God. Thanks. Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrKrettin, if I may, upon what evidence then do you base your opinion that Atlantis is just a myth?

The fact that it has never been observed, in spite of many attempts.

However, since you are the one making the extraordinary claim- that it exists- it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence or to stfu.

 

I completely agree, things like:

 

Forgiveness.

 

Tolerance.

 

Don't judge people, try to understand them.

 

Don't fear a future you can't change.

 

Love your enemy.

 

Etc...

 

Are all things that, in a perfect world, should be common sense; but, given recent politics most people don't understand what you call common sense.

 

 

Like Pymander, you have this the wrong way round, and my answer is the same.

It's the theists who will plainly believe any old nonsense they are told by the priests.

Examples include

" you should worship a man who turned water into wine- but you shouldn't drink alcohol"

"it's vitally important to cut bits of your children's genitals" and

" You should base the way you live your life on that of a man who married a 6 year old".

 

No atheist is going to believe nonsense like that.

What I asked for is the exact opposite of what you have supplied.

I asked you to provide evidence that religion offers wisdom that is not available to the secular.

You have pointed out that, if they choose to think about it, this "wisdom" is available to anyone.

Religion, on the other hand, discourages them from thinking- even to the extent where they believe stuff that's clearly wrong.

You might also want to consider the effect that religion has had on politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jfoldbar....

 

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

i think there is a difference between sun light...and some other light God is talking about. In fact God refers to Jesus as being the light.... and will be the light when he comes again and there's a new earth and heavens... we will no longer have a sun. So personally...i don't see that as s contradiction in the bible. The bible is very complex....i guess it should be... if it came from God. Thanks. Scott

The day is the time it takes the world to go round the sun.

There can't have been a day before there was a sun.

Yet the made-up irrational account says the sun only came to being on the 4th day.

You really don't have to get very far into the Bible before it contradicts itself.

 

However, as I have pouted out, there is none so blind as he who will bot see, so I expect you will be blind to this inconsistency.

 

Also, re "The bible is very complex....i guess it should be... if it came from God. "

well, for a start we know where it came from

These guys wrote/ rewrote it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

 

And, for an encore, if it was written by God, why didn't He make it clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.