Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Do we believe in magic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Interesting that you equate religion with magic. Was that a Freudian slip?
    I think he's trying to equate science with magic. But he's Totally Not being anti-science.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I think he's trying to equate science with magic. But he's Totally Not being anti-science.
      The noted author and scientist Arthur C. Clarke had something to say about that

      “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”



      How unscientific of him.



      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        The noted author and scientist Arthur C. Clarke had something to say about that

        “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”



        How unscientific of him.

        And if you believe that I have a bridge for sale. Interested. Btw, Arthur C.Clarke was not a trained scientist, he was mostly a science fiction writer who dabbled in science. As you like to put it:

        FAIL BETTER!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          The noted author and scientist Arthur C. Clarke had something to say about that

          “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”



          How unscientific of him.

          Dawkins has even referenced that in saying no amount of evidence could ever convince him of theism because no matter what it was, it could be aliens toying with us or something.

          Very evidence-based position to say no amount of evidence can convince you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

            Dawkins has even referenced that in saying no amount of evidence could ever convince him of theism because no matter what it was, it could be aliens toying with us or something.

            Very evidence-based position to say no amount of evidence can convince you.
            Yeah, and I'd be willing to bet that Dawkins never actually said that either.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
              That non-European cultures have to be cites indicates a reliance on a nonscientific traditions.
              I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

              The European tradition is much rooted more scientific and understands that intersex conditions are genetic abnormalities.
              A good understanding of genetic abnormalities is going to be <100 years old and often <50, that is not really "tradition". So I don't really view your sentence here as coherent.

              Having XXXY still makes one male and having X0 or XX and the SRY gene still makes one female.
              Have you decreed it so? Are you now the dictator of biological truth?

              Less scientific cultures adjusted for a lack of understanding abnormalities. It's strange to see one who so champions science to get caught up in non-science.
              Overall what I'm seeing in your response is that it seems like you think only European cultures are valid (I'm somewhat inferring you're a white-supremacist from that), and that since European cultures (historically under the influence of Christianity) have had a gender binary for a millennia or so, you're then concluding that means only gender binaries are valid, because you assert other cultures with other cultural constructs don't count because they're not European.

              And you're very creatively conflating the recent (<400 years) scientific interest in European culture with the much older inherited-from-Christianity historical tendency towards a gender binary within the culture, and therefore completely wrongly and falsely claiming the gender binary in the culture results from the interest in science within that culture, which it absolutely does not. Your theory of the causative relationship between the two within the culture is flatly not possible given that gender binary substantially predated a scientific focus within the culture.

              If we go back within European culture to before Christian influence, we get the Roman Empire, where the priests of the Roman state religion, the Galli, fit the common 3rd-gender pattern we see in many cultures. You could take the position that Christianity was right to change European culture, to eliminate that practice, and have only genders matching to biological sexes. But those Christians sure didn't do that out any desire to be "scientific".

              The modern trans trend is not merely to perform as a gender but attempts to become the opposite sex as HRT and SRS can only reinforce sex and not gender.
              Another sentence where I have no clue what you're trying to say. Maybe get someone to double-check the google translate output?

              Given the severity of your ideological bias, you could hardly be said to be a disinterested scientist.
              What ideological bias I might have appears to be many orders of magnitude smaller than yours. And, generally speaking I would indeed say my ideology never affects the science I do - empirical results of experiments don't change because I think something about politics (thinking societies are better off if everyone is able to access healthcare when they need it doesn't somehow make the DNA in my lab be different when measured).

              They aren't scientific cultures (although the current zeitgeist is becoming unscientific).
              Can you give any kind of argument as to why only "scientific cultures" (whatever that is supposed to mean) should count?

              Even if you are a white supremacist who is entirely unwilling to let non-European cultures count, is doesn't really get you out of the basic fact that sex is not gender: The biological sex of an organism is simply not the same thing as the social roles and behavioural patterns in societies that categorize people. There might be a 1-to-1 correlation between them in a specific culture, as in European cultures where there is one gender for each sex, and you might be personally convinced that that is the best way of structuring a society and the best way of doing things. But it is not any sort of mathematical logical necessity that a culture's gender roles match 1:1 with biological sexes, and cultures can and do exist where they don't. I am not saying those cultures are good or bad to do it that way. I am just saying the fact that they organize their gender roles differently demonstrates that a culture can do so. You can say that you think those cultures are dumb, or doing it wrong, or unscientific or whatnot, but in practice they are demonstrations that biological sex and cultural gender roles aren't identical, so whether those cultures "count" or are "scientific" is somewhat irrelevant as they are simply examples that sex and gender are not necessarily the same thing and are not terms that refer to the same thing.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                Overall what I'm seeing in your response is that it seems like you think only European cultures are valid (I'm somewhat inferring you're a white-supremacist from that),

                At no point have I implied that "European cultures" are the only "valid culture" and your inference of such is just your own incredulity. The only point European culture under discussion is its development of methodological naturalism, otherwise called "science", especially as it contrasts against shamanism.

                Outside of that, I don't really care about "European cultures" nor do I think they are superior merely for being European. Personally I think the Western obsession with individualism is a detriment.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post

                  And if you believe that I have a bridge for sale. Interested. Btw, Arthur C.Clarke was not a trained scientist, he was mostly a science fiction writer who dabbled in science. As you like to put it:

                  FAIL BETTER!
                  Britannica calls him a scientist, as does the Arthur C. Clarke Library as well as the Arthur C. Clarke Foundation -- and he most certainly was an inventor. In his obit in the NYT he is referred to as a "scientific sage."

                  I can provide a lot of other confirming sources.

                  As for it's veracity, consider various native groups in New Guinea and the cargo cults.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post

                    Yeah, and I'd be willing to bet that Dawkins never actually said that either.
                    Not sure about that but he did agree with Clarke, writing in his God Delusion

                    “As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them.”


                    Seems like he might be interested in your bridge.


                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Not sure about that but he did agree with Clarke, writing in his God Delusion

                      “As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them.”


                      Seems like he might be interested in your bridge.
                      Indistinguishable in that they would have "seemed to the ancients" to be no less remarkable. Not the same! Magic is an illusion or in the biblical sense, a fable. Science is reality.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post

                        Indistinguishable in that they would have "seemed to the ancients" to be no less remarkable. Not the same! Magic is an illusion or in the biblical sense, a fable. Science is reality.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post

                          And if you believe that I have a bridge for sale. Interested. Btw, Arthur C.Clarke was not a trained scientist, he was mostly a science fiction writer who dabbled in science. As you like to put it:

                          FAIL BETTER!
                          Well! If we can dismiss Clarke for not being a "trained scientist" (he basically invented communication satellites) then we sure as heck can dismiss your ignorant comments on any topic.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Not sure about that but he did agree with Clarke, writing in his God Delusion

                            “As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them.”


                            Seems like he might be interested in your bridge.
                            David Wood talked about it here. Just go to about the 8:00 minute mark and wait.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbS5...geticsRoadshow

                            Jim can take his foot out of his mouth at any point.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                              David Wood talked about it here. Just go to about the 8:00 minute mark and wait.

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbS5...geticsRoadshow

                              Jim can take his foot out of his mouth at any point.
                              The only time Little jimmy takes his foot out of his mouth is to insert the other one.


                              Btw, the video is only 2:44 minutes long


                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                The only time Little jimmy takes his foot out of his mouth is to insert the other one.


                                Btw, the video is only 2:44 minutes long

                                Wow, you guys are so naive. Turn that around as if the speaker is criticizing Christian behavior, not atheists behavior and it explains the very cult like mindset and behavior of the very Christian cult he's trying to defend.
                                Notice also, that this guy never puts forth an actual argument of any kind for the existence of God himself, he just there to criticize Dawkins for admitting that it would be difficult for him, for Dawkins, to come up with convincing, verifiable evidence for gods existing.
                                And if this turkey thinks God could be so convincing to us as to his actual existence, which I would agree with being that god is defind as omniscient and omnipotent, then you might want to ask yourselves, why god doesn't do so? Why doesnt he make himself absolutely known to all? Have you ever asked yourselves that?
                                But again, reality from a scientific perspective might in many instances look magical, might seem to be illusory, like some sort of trick, but unlike magic, it isn't. And when Clarke says that science is indistinguishable from magic, he's not saying it's the same thing as magic.
                                Last edited by JimL; 11-30-2023, 06:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 02-06-2024, 05:18 PM
                                14 responses
                                118 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-17-2024, 04:11 PM
                                13 responses
                                145 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-16-2024, 02:15 PM
                                4 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post RumTumTugger  
                                Working...
                                X