Not sure what you mean by the dichotomy ot rational and irational by subscribing it to scientific and religious positions as a default. Not all religioms are the same, not all religions are inherently irrational, heck not all scientific gie³da arê inherently rational only.
Spoiler:
That's a pretty bizarre typo. Are you translating from a different language?
Allow me to clarify. It's not scientific and religious positions that I'm associating with rationality and irrationality. Rather, it's the scientific method itself that I'm calling rational, and faith itself that I'm calling irrational.
Still,let me ask you an important question. Which of these would describe best your view on reality? Materialism, Naturalism or Scientism? This would really clear up your arguments.
To the extent that I understand those terms, I'd say I'm closest to being a naturalist, with materialist being a close second.
Originally posted by NewGuy01Spoiler:
That's a pretty bizarre typo. Are you translating from a different language?
Spoiler:
No, I am quite fluent in English, but my phone tends to play games with me and switches autocorrect into Polish whenever it feels like it.
That's why you get this extreme *gielda* rather than field. Sometimes it just slips in Polish letters like *ą* instead of *a*, or *ń* instead of *n*.
On top of that I have dyslexia so it's a mess, really. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Allow me to clarify. It's not scientific and religious positions that I'm associating with rationality and irrationality. Rather, it's the scientific method itself that I'm calling rational, and faith itself that I'm calling irrational.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
To the extent that I understand those terms, I'd say I'm closest to being a naturalist, with materialist being a close second.
Thanks. That helps me to compare your views as philosophical apprach to reality with my religious/philosophical approach.
If I may, I have a few comments on both naturalism and materialism.
A problem with naturalism is that it essentially claims that there is nothing beyond nature. However, it seems that it just *believes* that. There is no way to prove or disprove that within the framework naturalism assumes.
My issue with materialism is that it is known (mainly due to quantum physics) that matter as such does not exist. Therefore I am not sure why one would be a materialist. But this is your number two choice so please do not feel pressed to aswer that.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Some of the events and some of the characters are historically verifiable. Some of them, like Jesus, have been highly mythologized and not all historians agree he even existed.
Yeah.
But when you have a topic so debatable as this one where both sides have ample evidence on their sides, all resumes to logic and what yiu believe more than whats true.
Am not saying the bible is 100% factible but i wouldnt call it a fraud neither. There's got to be some truth behind it.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Joseph existed. David Existed as well as Solomon.Plus there are actual proof of certain events in the Bible such as the Plagues of Egypt and the Crucifixion of Jesus.
So claiming it is 100% SI FI is certainly rebuked.
I haven't seen any historical proof for Solomon. Anyways, Hitler and Kim Jong Il existed: do the myths and tales about them being Gods now also carry legitimacy?
And sure, the Plagueis of Egypt and the Flood have historical proof, but if you think that means Moses and Noah are real then you should consider other sources that feature those events real: Anubis is now real and so is Gilgamesh.
Never said it's 100% Sci-Fi, just that it's mostly a bunch of myths and folklore.
Originally posted by MythLord
I haven't seen any historical proof for Solomon. Anyways, Hitler and Kim Jong Il existed: do the myths and tales about them being Gods now also carry legitimacy?And sure, the Plagueis of Egypt and the Flood have historical proof, but if you think that means Moses and Noah are real then you should consider other sources that feature those events real: Anubis is now real and so is Gilgamesh.
Never said it's 100% Sci-Fi, just that it's mostly a bunch of myths and folklore.
There is. And no one said Solomon, David, or Moses were Gods, so your comparison is rebuked.
The common thing all those "stories and tales" share is that there is a God! So even if you claim that 25% of the Bible is real then you are still claiming God's existence as real.
So again you realize that there is no real way to rebuke God's existence.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
There is. And no one said Solomon, David, or Moses were Gods, so your comparison is rebuked.The common thing all those "stories and tales" share is that there is a God! So even if you claim that 25% of the Bible is real then you are still claiming God's existence as real.
So again you realize that there is no real way to rebuke God's existence.
Alright: what is the historical proof for Solomon? And while nobody said they were Gods, the myths and folklore around them are pretty outrageous in their own right and definitely de-legitimize the names of the Bible.
Just because some names used in the Bible can be tracked in Ancient History, doesn't mean it's proof of God.
Originally posted by MythLord
Alright: what is the historical proof for Solomon? And while nobody said they were Gods, the myths and folklore around them are pretty outrageous in their own right and definitely de-legitimize the names of the Bible.Just because some names used in the Bible can be tracked in Ancient History, doesn't mean it's proof of God.
You can search in the internet.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/evidence-king-solomons-mines-revealed-00810
Here are some links.
Well it is, since this characters believed in God and even claim direct contact with him.
Jesus is a real character whose crucifixion is due to his relation with the ALL FATHER.
Originally posted by MythLordThat's not necessarily true. The most far-fetched human character in all of the Bible is Jesus Christ, and yet there's a decent case to be made that he was a historical figure. Generally speaking, the further back you go in the Biblical timeline, the more likely the people spoken of are pure mythical archetypes rather than having any basis in a real historical character. There's much more evidence for a historical Jesus than there is say a historical Moses. That of course says nothing about whether the miraculous stories surrounding him are rooted in real events.
And while nobody said they were Gods, the myths and folklore around them are pretty outrageous in their own right and definitely de-legitimize the names of the Bible.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You can search in the internet.https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/evidence-king-solomons-mines-revealed-00810Here are some links.
Well it is, since this characters believed in God and even claim direct contact with him.
Jesus is a real character whose crucifixion is due to his relation with the ALL FATHER.
None of that is enough proof for Solomon the exist. And just because one thing about him might exists doesn't mean him believing in God or claiming he's talking to God is actually legitimate. There's as much valid evidence for God in Solomon's tale as there is for Pazuzu or whatever the hell his name is in Scientology.
Originally posted by MythLord
None of that is enough proof for Solomon the exist. And just because one thing about him might exists doesn't mean him believing in God or claiming he's talking to God is actually legitimate. There's as much valid evidence for God in Solomon's tale as there is for Pazuzu or whatever the hell his name is in Scientology.
I guess you are right.
It all concludes in faith.
Originally posted by MythLord
But faith, while a good thing to have, should never be given out so blindly.
May I ask you a personal question, now that i remember.
In another thread you said this:
made me quit being a Christian.
So that means you were once a Christian who turned to the other side of the table?
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
May I ask you a personal question, now that i remember.In another thread you said this:
So that means you were once a Christian who turned to the other side of the table?
I was a Christian, now I'm just a theist, of sorts. I think there's some higher thing(can't find any other proper term for it) beyond us that we can't comprehend, I just don't think any of the world's religions are 100% truthful in their representation of it.