• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

"God's Not Dead"

#122
biobass said:
a truism often discussed is that the data is always correct, however the interpretation is often wrong.
Click to expand...
Well said. It's the interpretation and rush to conclusions that have been proven incorrect.

There are still many who consider it proof that non-living materials can spontaneously assemble and become life. Considering what many people accept as fact, even in the 21st century "information age," this isn't at all surprising.
 
Last edited:
#123
FilterFunk said:
Well said. It's the interpretation and rush to conclusions that have been proven incorrect.

There are still many who consider it proof that non-living materials can spontaneously assemble and become life. Considering what many people accept as fact, even in the 21st century "information age," this isn't at all surprising.
Click to expand...
Consider what proof? Are you talking about abiogenesis? Nothing's been proven but it's been determined that it's possible. The alternative is magical thinking....which is even less substantiated. "I don't know but maybe it happened like this" is the best explanation so far. Science doesn't know how life started on this planet, nor does it claim to know. Other.....institutions make assertions based on some old books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jugglingfreak and Bob Lee (QSC)
#125
FilterFunk said:
A big part of the problem is that most people - believers and non-believers alike - haven't kept up with the latest discoveries. For instance, many still believe that the New Testament is a cobbled-together collection of ancient myths that is historically unreliable. However, the most recent cosmological, microbiological, biochemical, archaeological, and historical discoveries have raised more questions then they've answered. Regarding archaeology and history, new information has actually confirmed many people, places and events in the Bible (especially the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well) that were considered wrong, and even ridiculed as pure myth to an extent. The irony is that science itself is bridging the gap - the perceived gap - between faith and reason. The notion that "you do religion/mythology over there, and leave us to our science and reason" is rapidly becoming antiquated and obsolete.

"God's Not Dead" is competing with heavy-handed books with titles like "The God Delusion" and "God Is Not Great (How Religion Poisons Everything)." There's not going to be much fair and balanced debate going on from either side.

Let's face it....everybody's got a agenda.
Click to expand...
David Koresh was a man that existed in a real place.

These facts do not make his religious claims valid.
 
#127
"Well said. It's the interpretation and rush to conclusions that have been proven incorrect.

There are still many who consider it proof that non-living materials can spontaneously assemble and become life. Considering what many people accept as fact, even in the 21st century "information age," this isn't at all surprising."

Hmm. I'm not going to pursue this any further for fear of going against TB rules, other than to say that the interpretation often being wrong bit also applies, perhaps more so, to non-experimental data, especially mythological and revealed "truths."

I was truly interested to see why or how the Miller-Urey experiment has been discredited in any way. Other than some rather off-the-wall over-extending the conclusions by some avowed Creationists, I haven't seen anything myself. I'm always open to consider other arguments, that's one of the things that distinguishes scientific thought from belief systems.

Wohler synthesized urea in 1828, overturning a prevalent belief that organic compounds couldn't be made from inorganic precursors. Miller, Urey and others have shown that amino acids can arise from mixtures of simpler molecules with the addition of energy. I think that is pretty impressive science.

Cheers,
Dennis
 
Last edited:
#128
hrodbert696 said:
I'm not sure if you're reading carelessly or just trolling. The professor didn't ask who belonged to some particular branch of Christianity. He didn't take a detailed survey of who believed which particular doctrines or make them answer a theology questionnaire. When they were studying a piece of religious writing, he asked, "Anyone actually believe in this stuff?", only one student (my wife-to-be) raised their hand, and that student was singled out for gratuitous ridicule for the remainder of the semester. If that isn't treating someone as the token believer, in a group of people where none of the others were willing to identify themselves as such, I'm not sure what would.
Click to expand...


It's treating someone as the token believer in "that stuff"... and "that stuff" isn't Christianity in general as you seem to be implying.

It would be like going over Medieval Passion Plays and asking "who believes this" - picking on the people who say yes (while egregiously wrong) is singling them out for their Christianity, it's singling them out for their belief in "Passion Plays". It's incorrect to conflate the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lee (QSC)
#129
To make a point without getting too deep into it...for every Richard Dawkins, there is a John Polkinghorne, and for every Stephen Jay Gould, there is a Francis Collins.

Many people think the balance of science and reason tips heavily toward non-believers, and that is simply not true. Also, while miracles cannot be authenticated, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed in many instances by many reliable and reputable sources, even in many cases where accounts in the Bible were considered inaccurate or just plain myth not just by laypeople, but by academics.

It's a debate that can't necessarily be won, so to speak, but there is plenty of information that many, if not most, people are not aware of.
 
Last edited:
#130
Gorn said:
Consider what proof? Are you talking about abiogenesis? Nothing's been proven but it's been determined that it's possible. The alternative is magical thinking....which is even less substantiated. "I don't know but maybe it happened like this" is the best explanation so far. Science doesn't know how life started on this planet, nor does it claim to know. Other.....institutions make assertions based on some old books.
Click to expand...

my unsubstantiated rumor is more factual than your unsubstantiated rumor.
 
#133
DwaynieAD said:
science doesn't know, religion doesn't know, but you're gonna argue science is right. that makes you no different than the one arguing religion is right. you're arguing on blind faith.
Click to expand...
No Sir. Faith plays no role in my life or my beliefs. Science doesn't know the origin of life on the planet, nor does it claim to know. Religion does claim to know. Religion asserts very specific claims regarding the origin of life on this planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blue4 and bass12
#134
FilterFunk said:
Many people think the balance of science and reason tips heavily toward non-believers, and that is simply not true. Also, while miracles cannot be authenticated, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed in many instances by many reliable and reputable sources, even in many cases where accounts in the Bible were considered inaccurate or just plain myth not just by laypeople, but by academics.
Click to expand...
Have any of the supernatural claims been validated though?

If I write an accurate history book but include unicorns as well, does that make unicorns real?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bass12
#136
DerHoggz said:
Have any of the supernatural claims been validated though?

If I write an accurate history book but include unicorns as well, does that make unicorns real?
Click to expand...
In my post (which you quoted), I stated that "miracles cannot be authenticated". The supernatural is obviously a matter of faith. The point is that even the historical claims were, and still are, thought to be inaccurate or pure myth by many, but have been confirmed. What anyone believes beyond that is up to them.
 
#139
slobake said:
You are right about that. I know Christians in the industry who say the same thing. They are trying to make a difference. In the past a lot of the Christian movies have been made by amateurs with a minuscule budgets, Bad acting, cliche scripts etc. A lot of those movies "preach to the choir." If their intention is to spread the gospel they are not very effective.
I enjoyed parts of this movie but then I am a christian. The whole thing about the student winning the argument with the professor didn't interest me that much. Yes we all like to be right and I think some of us christians found some sort of satisfaction in that but really what was the point of that?
I found the student's relationship with his girlfriend more interesting. I also liked the subplot of the journalist with cancer. I am the type of person who would rather let my actions speak than my words. I believe that "love conquers all things."
Has anyone seen "Blue Like Jazz?" That is a more interesting movie set in a college environment.
Some people are not going to enjoy anything that promotes or evens seems to promote christianity and I understand that. Others may enjoy well thought out movies that bring up a lot of questions and try and avoid stereotypes and cliches no matter where they stand on the subject.
I know we shouldn't go too deep in religion here and I apologize if I have stretched the rules.
We can talk about this more in the lobby if you want. There are threads there called "The atheist players club" and "Jesus Freak" We have some lively discussions there if you want to join us.
Click to expand...

I did not know there was a movie to Blue Like Jazz as I have only read the book... I will have to check it out.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back