[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2013, 04:33 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 04:02 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 11:03 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm not here to be an apologist for Mormonism

I'm not asking you to be. I'm just interested in why you still believe it - not from a "you shouldn't believe this" point of view but more... how does your brain work... Thanks for the answers, I'll leave off the questions now.

Make a thread, poopyhead. I'd do it, but, no matter what the thread's about, peeps see "by houseofcantor" and go, dang Gwynnies. And ignore it. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 05:26 PM by cufflink.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
In ancient times, when I was an undergraduate astrophysics major, the required text for one of my classes, titled simply Classical Mechanics, was the most challenging book I had ever encountered up to that point. It was full of intimidating partial differential equations and section heads like "Lagrange and Poisson brackets as canonical invariants" and "The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for Hamilton's characteristic function." I've kept the book around as a memento and reminder of the sorts of things I once tried to understand.

The author was a Harvard professor named Herbert Goldstein. At the end of his preface, Goldstein had added these Hebrew letters, unexplained: תושלב״ע. It's an acronym (Hebrew is fond of acronyms) standing for the phrase "complete and completed, praise (be) to God, creator of the world." Wikipedia explains it as "Used by an author to indicate the end of a book or other major work and thank God for assistance in its completion."

I bring this up in this context because it was the first direct indication I had that bright people--sometimes frighteningly bright people--could believe things in the religious realm that seemed to me to be patently absurd. It still flabbergasts me, but it's a fact of life I've come to accept, if not understand. The best I can do is invoke the idea of compartmentalization: some people seem to bring different standards of reasoning, evidence, and proof to bear in different realms of inquiry.

Isaac Newton is on the short list for "World's Greatest Scientist," and he's also been called one of the three greatest mathematicians (along with Archimedes and Gauss) that the human species has produced. Yet his occult interests, which included alchemy, Bible codes, interpreting the Book of Revelation, and predicting the end of the world on Biblical principles, make one scratch one's head.

Clearly, some people can be brilliant thinkers in one area while leaving us puzzled about their thought processes in others. I can't explain it, but that's the way it is.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
24-06-2013, 09:11 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 01:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no evidence that there is an 'outside'.

For many people there certainly is evidence, and there have certainly been events that are not accountable within our current understanding of the universe. To just insist that that doesn't count because science will one day know exactly what causes all events not only arrogates omniscience to the human mind by insisting that what we cannot comprehend cannot be, but it also begs the question. Again, it's a question of presuppositions and subjectivity. I'm not interested in getting into this debate, though. I'm not here to argue about theism vs. atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2013 08:50 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 09:11 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 01:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no evidence that there is an 'outside'.

For many people there certainly is evidence, and there have certainly been events that are not accountable within our current understanding of the universe. To just insist that that doesn't count because science will one day know exactly what causes all events not only arrogates omniscience to the human mind by insisting that what we cannot comprehend cannot be, but it also begs the question. Again, it's a question of presuppositions and subjectivity. I'm not interested in getting into this debate, though. I'm not here to argue about theism vs. atheism.

No, it is simply a question of evidence.

Those who believe they have evidence do not understand what constitutes evidence.
They are all Ralphs.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 09:40 PM
Tongue RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
*sits back with a bowl of popcorn and a Pepsi and quietly enjoys the comedy*

Laughat

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 04:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Make a thread, poopyhead. I'd do it, but, no matter what the thread's about, peeps see "by houseofcantor" and go, dang Gwynnies. And ignore it. Big Grin

You're a poopyhead Angry Anyway I thought I was nobly saving RE from ridicule by derailing this one... Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 10:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 04:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Make a thread, poopyhead. I'd do it, but, no matter what the thread's about, peeps see "by houseofcantor" and go, dang Gwynnies. And ignore it. Big Grin

You're a poopyhead Angry Anyway I thought I was nobly saving RE from ridicule by derailing this one... Hobo

Why? RE deserves ridicule. Heaps and heaps of it. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(25-06-2013 08:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why? RE deserves ridicule. Heaps and heaps of it. Drinking Beverage

Oh not deliberately. But Poopyhead took issue with my derailing this already trainwrecked thread to have what I though was a reasonably relevant convo with Maklelan about his religion... and then let me off on grounds that RE wouldn't mind the smokescreen anyway... and *then* decided I was a poopyhead again Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(25-06-2013 09:14 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 08:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why? RE deserves ridicule. Heaps and heaps of it. Drinking Beverage

Oh not deliberately. But Poopyhead took issue with my derailing this already trainwrecked thread to have what I though was a reasonably relevant convo with Maklelan about his religion... and then let me off on grounds that RE wouldn't mind the smokescreen anyway... and *then* decided I was a poopyhead again Angry

Well, you get to join me and TheBeardedDude in the Poopyhead Club. Thumbsup

Wear it like a badge of honour.Bowing

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-06-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(25-06-2013 09:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 09:14 AM)morondog Wrote:  Oh not deliberately. But Poopyhead took issue with my derailing this already trainwrecked thread to have what I though was a reasonably relevant convo with Maklelan about his religion... and then let me off on grounds that RE wouldn't mind the smokescreen anyway... and *then* decided I was a poopyhead again Angry

Well, you get to join me and TheBeardedDude in the Poopyhead Club. Thumbsup

Wear it like a badge of honour.Bowing

That, or don't be a poopyhead. Guy was willing to have a discussion, until Chas applied his irrational skepticism. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: