Smart
Downloads and DVDs are available at www.ignitermedia.com. Since the beginning of time, man has thought he was smart enough to know everything about this world. Whether it was the shape of the earth or how computers would affect our lives, man always develops a theory. We just seem to be consistently wrong.
@SeriphArcher I don’t see that there is any problem inherent in the contradiction. Relativism is entirely illogical. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you – including relativism
@SeriphArcher Sorry I can’t remember the source document, and thus the names, circumstances of the deaths. All I remember is that it was a blog related to the Galileo issue.
@SeriphArcher There were many scientific objections to Galileo’s heliocentricity, which had been a credible theory as far back as the time of the Stoics. Although many of these were based upon the idea of geocentricity, as was the opposition from the Church itself, some of those objections have been sustained as valid today. I’m not saying that the Church, which I think favoured geocentricity was right, merely pointing out the irony in the fact that Galileo was wrong all along.
@SeriphArcher From anything I’ve read Galileo was called to Rome not because he presented credible scientific arguments, of which the Vatican was already aware; but rather because the advocate of geocentricity in his book was called simplicio (simpleton), and the suspected ridicule put Galileo out of favour with the Pope, who had hitherto actually been one of his supporters.
But, like I said, I’m not supporter of the “Church” and as this debate is becoming academic this will be my last reply.
@SeriphArcher I’d agree that there are many differences, but atheism is one of the hallmarks of any of the Marxist/Communist regimes imposed anywhere around the world in the last century, incidentally the bloodiest in Earth’s history.
If you’re referring to the Church in Acts, the system of wealth-sharing there imposed was voluntary, and based on Christian charity. It bore little resemblance to the philosophy of Marx.
@SeriphArcher I know, normally an argument from authority. But if we’re talking about defining a particular vein of philosophical thought it seemed appropriate.
There is fact a posteriori and fact a priori, the facts a priori are undeniable as the nature of the statement is grounded in base.
Yes the challenge is different, as it is impossible to prove something does not exist unless you can argue it in a closed system. I can prove that my room does not have a bear in it, but it is extremely difficult for me to prove an invisible unicorn is not sipping iced tea in the back yard with the spirit of elvis and jesus.
I’m not saying that it is not worthy of discussion, I am saying that no matter what you do with the topic the nature of the discussion is speculative and relative no matter how hard you try to break it down. Worth is such an undefinable concept, it is almost impossible to not be logically ignostic on it.
I’d also reject that any relevant evidence points to some watchmaker in the sky. But again thats subjective.
Well, postmodernism is kind of about rejecting the pinning down of worldviews, so I would say thats pretty much in line with its system of thought.
I’d argue again that the constructed reality we live in has value to understanding our place in the world. I reject forcible and restrictive narratives that religions propose, unless the person joins willingly and not by accidental birth.
Whenever I use the term narrative I’m always talking in postmodern terms, atheism has a narrative itself though, and I agree they are not the same. Hence why I admitted several times many atheists are metaphysical naturalists but many are post-modernists.
I can agree to that if its the best way you understand it, there are obviously some more complex parts to it.
No its not. Relativism posits “There is no absolute truth” as a fact, not a belief or a “truth”. Thats the issue. Your argument even denies your own definitions earlier. Relativists just argue that no “truth” as a system is correct, Christianity may accidentally get one tenet of its truth factual, but systemically it is nearly impossible for any truth to be absolute.
This argument has been killed in debates and texts dozens of times.
Well, to bad Sarte isn’t a postmodernist, and Focault is more of a political philosopher than anything else. Also I could just list like 15 atheistic postmodernists. So yeah, that argument doesn’t really fly.
No, I’m not talking about the Church in Acts, I’m talking about Christian Socialism which existed in Jerusalem after Acts was penned. Ended in a mass suicide, caused the church to bar suicide because of it? Sound familiar. I can send you an academic paper on it if you’d like.
I’d agree any Marxist system must be atheist, but Communist systems by their definition do not have to be. I mean I’d argue Luxemborgism and Christian Communism both are religiously accepting communist systems.
@QuisSeperabit60
The actual papal summon was to explain to him the difference between description and teaching, the See felt that he was advocating something the church disagreed with instead of simply describing. I’ve never read he was summoned over that use alone, but that, that simply added flame to the fire.
Why don’t you like academic debate?
@QuisSeperabit60
I’m unable to respond without knowing who died at whose hands.
I really liked “Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb”. Do a search for it without the quotes. I think you’ll like it too. You’ll never watch Star Trek and see it the same way again. … Do a YouTube search for “Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb” without the quotes.
Do you need to marry here is the solution gettop5.info
this video is great. both what it shows and what is says.
Best agent for naughty marriages mworld5.info
An athiest argument I hear often tries to give God human atributes and blames God for what people in history have done to other people in a power struggle of to gain political advantage. If they actually read their Bible they would come to know God. But they are scared and love the darkness and their sinful lives.
Honest sexy latin brides “busizz4me.info”
MAN THATS SO SOLID PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!
liked it…1 historical mistake however. Globes are older than Christ however – the idea people of Columbus’s day thought the world was flat (500 yrs ago) became a commanly repeated mistake after Irving Washington wrote a story about Columbus in 19th century America…..great video though.
@melymbrosia Yea, you are right: The Church made mistakes. They have long admitted that. Your problem is that Einstein, Darwin, and the whole lot also made ignorant scientific statements…based on the science of their day. I think you’ll find the Vatican has always been on the cutting edge (in historical context.) Copernicus was a Catholic Priest. Mendel (father of genetics) also a Priest. Lemetraie (founder of “Big Bang”) also a Catholic Priest. Theology is where they have never been wrong.
“Maybe we aren’t as smart as we think”. I wish every single religious person in existence would read that quote.