Religion vs. Science?

[TheArtfulDodger]

Well, I thought I was clear, but let me rephrase.

I do not credit my experience as a reliable method of determining objective truth, and I hope no one else does either.

Ah, I see...so you only credit other's experience as determining objective truth?

Science is based off of experience. If theoretical models did not have to match up with our observations (experience!), then there would be no way to discriminate between them.

Similarly, science is also based on faith. If theorists did not have some kind of faith in the way they think the world should work, for example, that everything obeys physical laws, that causality should not be violated, and that physics should remain invariant under certain transformations, very little would have been accomplished in the past hundreds of years. To give a very specific example of this, when Dirac was deriving the relativistic wave equation of Quantum Field Theory he demanded that certain terms would cancel out so that the equation would have a certain quality (namely that if you know the description of particle at one time you will be able to systematically evolve that description in time). This lead to a whole bunch of conclusion, such as the postulate of antimatter, which turned out to fit with observations (experience).

Let me ask you this Lunalle: do you think Einstein's theory of relativity is an accurate description of reality? What about quantum mechanics? Electromagnetism?

[neo-x]

Don't claim, prove!

Okay, sure.

1 Corinthians 13:7 starts with "Love bears all things..." So you have no justification to claim you are both loving (bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does), and leaving (not bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does).

Now, I expect we are going to disagree on the word "bear" ... am I right?

And that right there is your delusion. You think Christians have to be absolutely following a rule book. Perhaps that is what it seems to you. You think others must do the same. I follow the spirit of the whole scriptures. Cherry-picking doesn't help. If you don't understand the why of these words then you would go through it like an accountant or a lawyer as you are doing.

[neo-x]

Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.

You just want to pick an argument to ram. Just being the contrarian for the sake of it. You are holding others to your feelings, this won't get you anything. For ne this is becoming pointless. You say you came here to learn but your actions betray your words. You repeatedly accuse others of dishonesty as if you alone are entitled to it. I think you need to work on your communication skills. You want to paint others in a corner with things they don't even adhere to. You're wasting our time.

[PaulSacramento]

Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.

Governing Body? Are you a JW or former JW ??

[Lunalle]

You just want to pick an argument to ram. Just being the contrarian for the sake of it. You are holding others to your feelings, this won't get you anything. For ne this is becoming pointless. You say you came here to learn but your actions betray your words. You repeatedly accuse others of dishonesty as if you alone are entitled to it. I think you need to work on your communication skills. You want to paint others in a corner with things they don't even adhere to. You're wasting our time.

Yes, I need to work on my communication skills. I openly admit that I am autistic, and have poor communication skills. I work very hard on them, but my mental processes are abnormal.

I want us all to grow. I want you to explain with more precision what you believe, and what you mean about what you say.

I don't want to paint others in a corner with things they don't adhere to, but I can only work with what others give me.

When you give me a definition of love (according to the Bible, which I believe you selectively adhere too), and I point out that love (according to your definition) is not always the best option, then you argue about the definition (that you supplied) of what love is, it becomes a very frustrating game of "reinterpret the words". I think I've been very generous in playing this game with all of you, but it is extremely irritating. I point out flaws in your logic and morality to give you the opportunity to improve them. I do this to build you up, not break you down. However, your continuous act of redefining words in order to justify your adherence to a belief is ultimately a stumbling block to your own progress. This is a major issue I have with apologists, but I'm willing to work through it with you.

[Danieltwotwenty]

When you give me a definition of love (according to the Bible, which I believe you selectively adhere too)

Yep

, and I point out that love (according to your definition) is not always the best option

Yep

, then you argue about the definition (that you supplied) of what love is

No, Paul gave you the meaning of bearing all things, not a redefinition of love.

it becomes a very frustrating game of "reinterpret the words".

There is no reinterpretation of any word(s), we gave you the definition of love and then gave you the meaning of bearing all things, please explain how this is redefining love.

I think I've been very generous in playing this game with all of you, but it is extremely irritating.

Your failure to understand is your fault not ours.

I point out flaws in your logic and morality to give you the opportunity to improve them.

As do we.

I do this to build you up, not break you down.

No you don't, you do this because you think your right when your not.

However, your continuous act of redefining words in order to justify your adherence to a belief is ultimately a stumbling block to your own progress.

The only stumbling block to any progress around here is your failure to understand what people are saying to you.

This is a major issue I have with apologists, but I'm willing to work through it with you.

I don't think we have any actual apologists here. Willing to work with us, your words betray your ego.

It seems to me that when you hear an answer you don't like you build a straw man and attack that instead and then pull the everybody is attacking me/accusing me card when they point it out.

Dan

[Danieltwotwenty]

Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.

Governing Body? Are you a JW or former JW ??

I want to see this question answered.

[Lunalle]

, then you argue about the definition (that you supplied) of what love is

No, Paul gave you the meaning of bearing all things, not a redefinition of love.

"Love bears all things." That is not a redefinition (or at least a refinement of the definition) of love? Wow, well, uh... the noun is "love", the verb is "bears", the adverb is "things", and the emphasizing adverb is "all". So this is a claim of what love does. Love bears all things. It is also incoherent if taken literally.

it becomes a very frustrating game of "reinterpret the words".

There is no reinterpretation of any word(s), we gave you the definition of love and then gave you the meaning of bearing all things, please explain how this is redefining love.

I believe I've done this already. Paul has claimed that love IS bearing all things, they are synonymous. If you reject that they are synonymous, you reject Paul's claim, which is what I'm encouraging.

I think I've been very generous in playing this game with all of you, but it is extremely irritating.

Your failure to understand is your fault not ours.

Perhaps. I believe it is more an example of differing methods of critical thinking than a failure to understand though.

I point out flaws in your logic and morality to give you the opportunity to improve them.

As do we.

Oh, good.

I do this to build you up, not break you down.

No you don't, you do this because you think your right when your not.

You have no knowledge of my intentions. I'm sorry you don't believe my claim about my intentions. Of course, there is no necessity for belief, it is just unfortunate, in my opinion.

However, your continuous act of redefining words in order to justify your adherence to a belief is ultimately a stumbling block to your own progress.

The only stumbling block to any progress around here is your failure to understand what people are saying to you.

I disagree, but we've both made unfalsifiable claims, so let's move on.

This is a major issue I have with apologists, but I'm willing to work through it with you.

I don't think we have any actual apologists here. Willing to work with us, your words betray your ego.

Really? What do you consider yourselves? I think people here have interesting ideas of labels. This is kind of humorous to me.

It seems to me that when you hear an answer you don't like you build a straw man and attack that instead and then pull the everybody is attacking me/accusing me card when they point it out.

Huh, well thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to watch for it. I never intended to "pull the everybody is attacking me/accusing me card." My intention for saying things like that is to convey my frustration, not give unjustified credit to my claims.

--

I've tried various religions, but JWs were not one of them.

[Lunalle]

I wanted to talk about this a bit:

And that right there is your delusion. You think Christians have to be absolutely following a rule book. Perhaps that is what it seems to you. You think others must do the same. I follow the spirit of the whole scriptures.

Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices: (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ristianity)

Humanitarian: concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... manitarian)

I think Jesus was a phenomenal humanitarian, and you're trying to be one too. I'm all for being humanitarian, just without the unnecessary baggage of the Christian religion.

[PaulSacramento]

adjective
concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.

Promoting human welfare in what regard and to what aim?
I know a few self-professed "humanitarians" that all they care about is the MONETARY and MATERIALISTIC welfare of humans, and by humans I mean selected groups of people.

[Lunalle]

adjective
concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.

Promoting human welfare in what regard and to what aim?
I know a few self-professed "humanitarians" that all they care about is the MONETARY and MATERIALISTIC welfare of humans, and by humans I mean selected groups of people.

That's the million dollar question. I know a lot of "Christians" who value monetary and materialistic welfare. What's your point?

I advocate promoting human welfare in regards to physical and mental health, and equal opportunity.

[PaulSacramento]

adjective
concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.

Promoting human welfare in what regard and to what aim?
I know a few self-professed "humanitarians" that all they care about is the MONETARY and MATERIALISTIC welfare of humans, and by humans I mean selected groups of people.

That's the million dollar question. I know a lot of "Christians" who value monetary and materialistic welfare. What's your point?

I advocate promoting human welfare in regards to physical and mental health, and equal opportunity.

My point is lots of crap gets done in the name of "promoting humanity" or "progress for mankind".
Just as lots of crap gets done in the name of this religion or that.
The commonality?
Man.

Equal opportunity for who? based on who's standard of "equality"?

[Lunalle]

Yup, man is fallible. I totally agree.

Equal opportunity for everyone. There's no standard of "equality". It is a mathematical concept. The "standard of opportunity" will of course be determined by available potential over number of people, which would prove it equal.

[Danieltwotwenty]

"Love bears all things." That is not a redefinition (or at least a refinement of the definition) of love? Wow, well, uh... the noun is "love", the verb is "bears", the adverb is "things", and the emphasizing adverb is "all". So this is a claim of what love does. Love bears all things. It is also incoherent if taken literally.

I am lost in what you are trying to convey, we gave you the Christian definition of love which was 1 Corinthians 13:1-13

Love to the Christian is an action and not some warm fuzzy feeling chemical reactions in the brain.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

So please explain from the above how love says to but up with being abused.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.

Governing Body? Are you a JW or former JW ??

I want to see this question answered.

If you don't want to answer the question, that is ok but you could just say that instead of ignoring it.