+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 79

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Christianity Explained

    http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/d...plained001.jpg
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    thats creepy but oddly accurate

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Christianity Explained

    What part of the UK are you from, mate?
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    currently im living in slough

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
    currently im living in slough
    LOL, do you work in "The Office"... :)
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    lol no, i hate that guy anyways

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Do you?

    I think he uses humour to make a point well!




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_sfSDCV9Jo
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    lol i dont but i think his voice is squeaky, btw thx for the link i love these kind of things

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
    thats creepy but oddly accurate
    The text used in the original link (the text which appears below the picture of Christ) is not surprising, in light of 1 Corinthians 1.18-23. (I know that referencing Scripture in this forum is sometimes regarded as being in poor taste, but remember, this is a religion forum).

    As this Corinthian passage shows, the Apostle Paul was quite aware that non-Christians would routinely view the Christian message with derision and mockery. They would consider it, in Paul's words, "absurd and utterly unphilosophical nonsense." In Acts 26, Paul's Christian discourse was interrupted by the governor Festus who proclaimed, "Paul, you are mad! Your great learning has driven you insane!"

    But as Paul noted, "the natural, non-spiritual man does not welcome the teachings of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him."

    A Christian will see nothing foolish in the Biblical assertion that Jesus was "cosmic" and "Jewish," though the idea of His being a "zombie" is a curious exegetical creation. But as Paul indicated, Christians and non-Christians will view Bibical concepts through different lens.

    When I hear mathematicians assure me that two different quantities can be both infinite and unequal, with one infinite quantity being larger than another infinite quantity, I am tempted to consider that absurd as well, though someone more highly trained in mathematics might find the idea perfectly acceptable.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    The text used in the original link (the text which appears below the picture of Christ) is not surprising, in light of 1 Corinthians 1.18-23. (I know that referencing Scripture in this forum is sometimes regarded as being in poor taste, but remember, this is a religion forum).

    As this Corinthian passage shows, the Apostle Paul was quite aware that non-Christians would routinely view the Christian message with derision and mockery. They would consider it, in Paul's words, "absurd and utterly unphilosophical nonsense." In Acts 26, Paul's Christian discourse was interrupted by the governor Festus who proclaimed, "Paul, you are mad! Your great learning has driven you insane!"

    But as Paul noted, "the natural, non-spiritual man does not welcome the teachings of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him."

    A Christian will see nothing foolish in the Biblical assertion that Jesus was "cosmic" and "Jewish," though the idea of His being a "zombie" is a curious exegetical creation. But as Paul indicated, Christians and non-Christians will view Bibical concepts through different lens.

    When I hear mathematicians assure me that two different quantities can be both infinite and unequal, with one infinite quantity being larger than another infinite quantity, I am tempted to consider that absurd as well, though someone more highly trained in mathematics might find the idea perfectly acceptable.
    i agree that the concept of christ sounds rather insane obviously because im not a christian, its pretty much it for anyone who isnt a christian but id have to argue against your poor use of analogy, of course an infinity with a different cardinality sounds weird(just look at Kronechers abuse of poor Cantor), however the reason the mathematician can assert that there are different degrees of infinity(them aleph nulls) is because he can find an absolute proof that is irrefutable and objective(in this case something like the argument of diagonal decent or including irrationals and trancendentals will do fine)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Christianity Explained

    There are people who apply rational thought and logic to their everyday lives, their home, their family, their career, everything.

    And yet....

    When it comes to religion, rational thought and logic are replaced by irrational thought and illogical thought.

    The most circular arguement is that "Well, I may not be able to prove god exists, but you cannot prove that he doesn't". :rolleyes:

    How many times have we heard that one, in one form or another?

    Incredible claims require incredible evidence, and they do not have it.

    I could equally say that there is a planet made of smeg in the universe, and the god that rules this planet is made entirely of navel fluff.

    You cannot prove that such a thing doesn't exist.

    The most amazing thing about religion in 2007?

    Is that people still beLIEve it.
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
    i agree that the concept of christ sounds rather insane obviously because im not a christian, its pretty much it for anyone who isnt a christian but id have to argue against your poor use of analogy, of course an infinity with a different cardinality sounds weird(just look at Kronechers abuse of poor Cantor), however the reason the mathematician can assert that there are different degrees of infinity(them aleph nulls) is because he can find an absolute proof that is irrefutable and objective(in this case something like the argument of diagonal decent or including irrationals and trancendentals will do fine)

    Did you get yer PM, the one about yer username???

    :)
    Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by Yeah Well Fine Then
    Did you get yer PM, the one about yer username???

    :)
    yep just replied, lol up until now i had no idea i had an inbox

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
    i agree that the concept of christ sounds rather insane obviously because im not a christian, its pretty much it for anyone who isnt a christian but id have to argue against your poor use of analogy, of course an infinity with a different cardinality sounds weird(just look at Kronechers abuse of poor Cantor), however the reason the mathematician can assert that there are different degrees of infinity(them aleph nulls) is because he can find an absolute proof that is irrefutable and objective(in this case something like the argument of diagonal decent or including irrationals and trancendentals will do fine)
    As I understand, mathematicians have an advantage over physical scientists, because, unlike physical scientists, mathematicians are not constrained by the need to test their constructs against the natural, observable world.

    The mathemetician starts with abstract premises, then builds in deductive, logical steps until a mathematical conclusion is reached. Alll that is needed to prove the conclusion is to show that the mathematical conclusion is logically consistent with the underlying premises, as demonstrated through deductive reasoning.

    There is no need at this point for the mathematician to test the mathematic conclusion with the "scientific method," to demonstrate a correspondence between the mathematical conclusion and the objective, observable world.

    The math theorist does not need scientific proof (as defined for the physical scientist) to establish the existence of an abstract mathematical concept (such as two "infinite" numbers having unequal cardinality).

    This would suggest that a mathematician can prove an abstract math concept beyond all doubt, even though the scientific method has not been employed in the proof.

    But for this to be true, the abstract, deductive method of mathamatical proof must itself be infallibly reliable. Mathematical proof is irrefutable and absolute only insofar as the deductive method which underlies the proof is being used infallibly by the mathematician.

    How do we know that the mathematician, in a given conclusion, is using deductive mathematical reasoning in an infallibly correct way? We would need to independently scrutinize the deductive reasoning in question at every step, to verify the absence of logical errors in the premises themselves.

    And in doing so we would have to assume that we ourselves are using an infallibly correct screening method in order to infallibly verify the correctness of the original mathematician's premises and conclusions.

    But if we don't conduct such an independent screening, we are simply exercising blind faith in the infallibility of other imperfect human mathematicians.
    Last edited by rp3miler; 09-02-2007 at 09:41 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    841

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    As I understand, mathematicians have an advantage over physical scientists, because, unlike physical scientists, mathematicians are not constrained by the need to test their constructs against the natural, observable world.

    The mathemetician starts with abstract premises, then builds in deductive, logical steps until a mathematical conclusion is reached. Alll that is needed to prove the conclusion is to show that the mathematical conclusion is logically consistent with the underlying premises, as demonstrated through deductive reasoning.

    There is no need at this point for the mathematician to test the mathematic conclusion with the "scientific method," to demonstrate a correspondence between the mathematical conclusion and the objective, observable world.
    Spot on, the idea is that you make an argument so strong that it applies to any conceivable number

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    The math theorist does not need scientific proof (as defined for the physical scientist) to establish the existence of an abstract mathematical concept (such as two "infinite" numbers having unequal cardinality).
    nope which is the beauty of it, you can check that your theory is true but thats just stupid for any sensibly constructed argument

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    This would suggest that a mathematician can prove an abstract math concept beyond all doubt, even though the scientific method has not been employed in the proof.
    pretty much, Math proof>scientific proof

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    But for this to be true, the abstract, deductive method of mathamatical proof must itself be infallibly reliable. Mathematical proof is irrefutable and absolute only insofar as the deductive method which underlies the proof is being used infallibly by the mathematician.
    yes which is why mathematicians hate threading on conjectures for reasons which im sure you know and why you have to use the right methods or else ull end with absurdity


    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    How do we know that the mathematician, in a given conclusion, is using deductive mathematical reasoning in an infallibly correct way? We would need to independently scrutinize the deductive reasoning in question at every step, to verify the absence of logical errors in the premises themselves.
    Pretty much

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    And in doing so we would have to assume that we ourselves are using an infallibly correct screening method in order to infallibly verify the correctness of the original mathematician's premises and conclusions.
    ooh there is a problem there, the infallibly correct method has to come from smaller steps derived logically from axioms(which are self evident so no problems there) if you reach a problem just break it down

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    But if we don't conduct such an independent screening, we are simply exercising blind faith in the infallibility of other imperfect human mathematicians.
    You can see that this breaks down when you go backwards in your principles, take it step by step using the axioms and eventually you will reach the problem(also assuming that every other mathematician in the world will make the same mistake as you is absurd)

    its true though that its easy to reach something absurd if u make a mistake

    let a = b

    Multiply both sides by a

    aČ = ab

    Add (aČ - 2ab) to both sides

    aČ + aČ - 2ab = ab + aČ - 2ab

    Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right

    2(aČ - ab) = aČ - ab

    Divide both sides by (aČ - ab)
    2 = 1

    (problem here being that (aČ - ab)=0)


    it really annoys me when ppl try to get their beleifs as if they were on the same grounds as others that actually have a basis,just like all of philosophy you can pretty much say everything is done by "blind faith"

    1: when you take a step you cannot know that your foot wont go through the floor and into the center of the earth, you are beleiving by "blind faith" that it wont

    2:when you drop something you are beleiving by "blind faith" that the thing will fall to the ground and not just poke you in the eye

    3: when you take a whizz you are trusting by "blind faith" that the liquid wont fall in your mouth


    its pointless and cannot be used to prove a point

  16. #16
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Christianity Explained

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    This would suggest that a mathematician can prove an abstract math concept beyond all doubt, even though the scientific method has not been employed in the proof.

    But for this to be true, the abstract, deductive method of mathamatical proof must itself be infallibly reliable. Mathematical proof is irrefutable and absolute only insofar as the deductive method which underlies the proof is being used infallibly by the mathematician.

    How do we know that the mathematician, in a given conclusion, is using deductive mathematical reasoning in an infallibly correct way? We would need to independently scrutinize the deductive reasoning in question at every step, to verify the absence of logical errors in the premises themselves.
    "We would need to independently scrutinize the deductive reasoning in question at every step"

    This sounds like a good description of the "scientific method".


    Quote Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
    it really annoys me when ppl try to get their beleifs as if they were on the same grounds as others that actually have a basis,just like all of philosophy you can pretty much say everything is done by "blind faith"
    What is blind faith?

    As far as I see, it would be a person covering their eyes and believing something. IE not allowing any input to change their mind.

    Taking a step is not blind faith, becuase if you did take a step and fall through the floor (it could happen if the floor was weak) then you would no longer trust the floor. If you walked over the floor again, you would likely walk slowly and prepare to fall through again. You no longer have faith in the floor. You cannot just keep walking across the floor and pretend you didn't fall through.

    When you drop something, that is not blind faith, because if it did fall up and hit you in the eye you would, again, be more cautious about dropping it the next time. You will no longer drop things haphazardly. You will not continue to drop objects in the same area and pretend this didn't happen.

    Taking a whizz and is not on blind faith either. As anyone who has pee'd into the wind will know, the stream can move. Unless you get some weird pleasure from it going in you're mouth, you still are not using blind faith as when the stream starts to flow in your mouth you will likely stop the flow. Based on new input, you will not continue to believe that the flow will hit the ground, yet continue to pee into your mouth.



    In stark contrast, the religious do use blind faith. No matter how much evidence or discussion is brought to them, they will continue to go on believing that they have to eat fish of Fridays, and go to Church on Sundays and kill the muslems and the jews. A person practicing blind faith does not care to notice any new information about the circumstance. Horrible things could be happening as a direct result of thier actions, but they will continue to be blind to the reprocussions and continue their actions as if all was well.

    A person practing blind faith would fall through the floor and continue walking, drop 1000 pebbles, have each of them hit them in the eye yet continue dropping, and would continue to whistle content in the fact that their bladder is emptying but ignoring the urine filling their mouth.

    That is blind faith.

Similar Threads

  1. Paul and Christianity
    By Cnance in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 11-22-2012, 12:24 PM
  2. Christianity
    By djbombsquad in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 08:58 AM
  3. You Give Christianity a BAD NAME.
    By wiseroption in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 03-27-2007, 12:56 AM
  4. Before Christianity
    By Qi123 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 04:34 AM
  5. Where Christianity came from
    By lisan23 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 12-31-2006, 12:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •