DiabloFans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMGgi4VhfQo

One of the best things ever said about John Frusciante, quoted from a user on youtube... "Thank you so much John Frusciante for being a constant example that you can sound bad ass on guitar without doing neoclassical sweeping arpeggios etc."

Quote from Elder

Quote from Irrational

Probably one of the most heated debates of all time, and it's still continuing today. So I, being a scientific naturalist (I believe in science), have decided to open this controversial and heated argument into the forums for open discussion. Probably most of you are going to scientifically naturalistic (a.k.a. the Gay Marriage thread) so I don't think that things should be too crazy here, but still, if there is someone who doesn't agree with you, saying that they should go kill themselves should not be your go to response.

Personally, I believe that the belief of deities are in the past. Science, in the end, is the final judge. What really is science? Science is a mixture of using common sense and mathematics. A fact is not a fact until it is proven mathematically, or is so trivial that you can observe it with your own eyes. However, when a fact is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is when you try to apply common sense on an issue using previous knowledge on that current subject.

For example, hundreds of years ago, people thought that the Earth was flat. This was based on observations that Earth did not look spherical in any way, and in that case, it was a logical and fair hypothesis. However, when Christopher Columbus came around, he noticed that when sailed on the sea, they slowly disappeared into the horizon, instead of staying level and then falling off the endless abyss which would be the edge of the flat Earth. Then came the "final" conclusive evidence that the Earth was round, when people could finally fly up high enough to see the spherical outline of our planet, thus concluding that the hypothesis that the Earth was flat was not true, and the fact that the Earth was round was true.

Then we get to mathematical proofs. Mathematics (calculus, geometry, algebra, abstract algebra, infinity theories, etc) all derive from the simplest of tools: addition. As it turns out, almost all of math starts from 1+1=2, and that algebra and calculus were founded upon that simple equation (geometry has its own set of proofs that are used visually or use algebra and calculus to prove). So to question a mathematical theory, or fact, is to really question the simple use of addition.

Any questions? And also post your own views as well.

No option for both?

As I see it, Science is the search for useful information. Something that, when tested, has reasonably consistent results and is relevant to the issue you wish to address. That doesn't mean it can't be disproven, it just means no one has done it yet. They've failed to prove the null hypothosis. Still, it's useful information. For instance, Einsteinian physics supersedes Newtonian Physics, yet Newtonian Physics are not obsolete. They are quite useful in architecture, among other things. Yet if you were to try to build a building according to Einsteinian Physics, or better yet, the newer quantum physics, you wouldn't have a good building. Hence, we still have and use Newtonian physics.

On the other hand Science is not the search for truth. Philosophy is the search for truth, and religion is one of the paths used in philosophy. There is no information that can really be applied to advancement, unless it's on a personal philosophic level. You aren't looking for proof of what you believe, and quite frankly, it is my experience that anyone and everyone chooses to believe what they want, regardless of what evidence they have access to.

As long as I keep the two in separate boxes, I'm fine as both a religious person and as someone who learns the knowledge of men. Scientists will always look for the answers to forever questions, constantly finding new answers to some of the same questions and getting new information and benefits therefrom. Individuals can always find answers to their personal questions from religion that will benefit them personally.

I honestly hope that a scientist doesn't halt their research or their theories because they believe the answer to their question is already given by their God. If so, they will never try to find out anything for themselves, and will reap no benefit from their expectations.

On the other hand, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see little value in applying scientific process to religion. Faith is the operating factor in that particular world. If salvation comes from Faith, than it would be pretty stupid for God to allow himself to be proven to people who don't have it. They'd never have the opportunity to develop faith, and as such, would be damned. That and they'd no longer have a choice in the matter, and quite frankly, what good is faith, love, or devotion if it isn't given by choice.

That's just me though.

Dude, I totally agree with what you just said and can't say it any better. People are going to believe what they want.

On a sidenote here is what I believe and a short explanation to why...

I believe in God and Jesus as the son of God. I believe the bible and live by it the best I can.

Why?

C.S. Lewis made a statement about Jesus that went something like this... Either he is a liar, lunatic, or Lord.

Saying Jesus was just a good moral teacher is the easy way out of answering who Jesus really was. Either you believe he was a liar (one who perpetuated a lie/hoax through beatings and eventually to his death on a cross), a lunatic (who taught morals that most human beings live by today in a general sense), or Lord. Now I don't know about you, but it I don't know many people who would be willing to take a lie to the point of being killed for it, knowingly. Jesus as a lunatic doesn't make much since either, his teachings would not line up with a madman.

How many religions serve a risen Savior? There is enough evidence to prove that Jesus grave was found empty, but to make this short... you have to decide whether it's because he was who he said he is or if it was some kind of hoax.

Also, our universal time system is based on this one lowly, poor man. Even if "BC" and "AD" are under attack, "BCE" and "CE" are still based on the same starting point from his life, funny huh?

I also find it ironic that people question the existence of Jesus in general, to whether he was even a real man, given the fact there is more evidence for his existence compared to Socrates.

At some point a hoax, and esp. one of this grand exposure would be solved, but millions believe and the reason why is because the evidence for Jesus being who he said he was outweighs a hoax.

That's my opinion.

EDIT: (from wikipedia)

C. S. Lewis was an Oxbridge medieval historian, popular writer and Christian apologist. He popularised the argument outlined above in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." [5]

Lewis's trilemma is based on the view that, in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God. For example, in Mere Christianity, Lewis refers to what he says are Jesus' claims:

* to have authority to forgive sins—behaving as if he really was "the person chiefly offended in all offences."[6][7][8]
* to have always existed,[9] and
* to intend to come back to judge the world at the end of time.[10]

Lewis argues that these claims logically exclude the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher" because he believes that no one making such claims could possibly be rationally or morally reliable, unless he were God. Elsewhere, Lewis refers to this argument as "the aut Deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man"),[11] a reference to an earlier version of the argument used by Henry Parry Liddon in his 1866 Bampton Lectures in which he argued for the divinity of Jesus based on a number of grounds, including the claims he believed Jesus made.[12]
[edit] Formal structure

The premises are as follows.

(P): Jesus claimed to be God.[citation needed]

(Q): One of the following must be true.

1. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but believed that he was.
2. Liar: Jesus did not believe he was God, but spoke as if he did.
3. Lord: Jesus is God.

From these premises, it is argued, it follows that,[citation needed]

(C): If not God, Jesus is not great and not moral.

Dude my friend got this the other day and says it's awesome, he palys it with the Wii controller not the sensor numchuck thing or w/e but the non-sensor controller and says it's aweeessooomme. The multi-player looks SO good. I must get it, I need a wii first though...

First off, dude, ur tracks are bumpin' man! Nice work dude, you're an awesome composer.

I have 2 songs on youtube I made with audacity, they're experimental psychedelic, if you want to hear'em I'll post'em but I don't wanna steal your thread, let me know

9/10 - Pretty awesome, a lot of randomness that flows together really well, and I mean, he has a beard.

My sig is a line from a chili pepper song "Power of Equality" for those of you that don't know

8/10 - I like it.

7/10 - Not bad, a little generic in my opinion, but holds a solid 7

Scar Tissue - Anthony Kiedis' autobiography was amazing, but I'm a HUGE fanboy of the chili peppers, but even still that book is ridiculous crazy. That book gives a new connotation to the phrase "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll."

Interview With The Vampire - Just an amazing book. Easy read and great character development.

Yeah don't have time to read it. I've been way to busy with my other classes sadly... I've had tonight to do this, and although 200 pages isnt very many pages, for me that would take at least a day, not one night even if I was trying to concentrate fully...

@Metzcrag - Thanks for the try but that's just the first chapter of the book.

I don't know what I'm gonna do. I had a guy summarize the book to me the other day and I took some notes down so I'm just gonna role with it I guess.

That link didn't work for me...

Man this is not good... I know nothing about this book and gotta write a 750 word book review on it...

Hey guys! Well last time I asked for help with some homework you guys I don't think realize how much it helped, so let's see if you can help again!

Aight so I gotta do a book review on the book "A Mayan Life" which I haven't read.

Here's the catch... There is no sparknote entry, cliftnote entry, and my search optimization skills seem to be pretty rusty because I can find NOTHING on this book...

The only thing I need is a summary of this book or even any information on it...

Any help would be so appreciated!

Thanks guys!

Oh it's cool, I thought you had actually got on there and just didn't post your sources. But okay yeah dude, thanks a lot man!

Wow man, that's money right there! Think you could back up those with the sources you used? I know you said Google Books, any specific ones you can list? Thanks man, that really helped a ton, very appreciated.

Dude, that is amazing. I'm def. looking into that Macros, any additional stuff would be awesome brotha!

Hm, good idea. I mean I didn't put this in the D3 section... So it's legit. And it's not like I'm taking your thoughts and running with them, I did ask for sources. But yeah, I might take the ideas of sports and run with them... lol. I need more ideas... with more info and such. Anything is appreciated, thanks Airandius!

EDIT: Like how did geo. determinism effect how they played sports/types of sports in contrast to northern native american tribes? - That's the kind of contrast I need help finding.