|
Negative Entropy posted:Do other species exhibit religious behavior or superstition?
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Those things can be argued against, and have been argued against. Christian doctrine can be argued against, and has been argued against. It's that simple. The evidence brought against it can't be held in hand, and can't be put into graphs, but it can be understood and tackled as a system of things that exist in their own space independent from the physical world (maybe), and I don't know how anybody could find it offensive since it doesn't infringe on conventional science or on anybody's self-realization. It's just people refining their understanding of what they consider divine by treating it as real by the virtue of being contained in real spiritual movements. The evidence is "A bunch of guys said its true, so therefore it is" This is not very good evidence, nor does is beholden itself to a very reliable self-correcting or even a social order that can be properly confronted, because there will always be someone higher in the chain who can disregard your claim as invalid with no evidence whatsoever. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The evidence is "A bunch of guys said its true, so therefore it is" This is kind of pointless but also true, since such a body of knowledge and theory exists, even if it's not "rational" the way chemistry and physics are. However, neither is artistic theory or literary analysis, but people don't get offended that these intellectual disciplines and activities exist (unless, of course, they're used against something they are personally fond of, but never mind that).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We're not a hive mind, you know. We have different opinions. Not all Christians believe in hell or that Jesus was real or that the Bible was true. Stop associating me with all the people on Paul of Tarsus' blog. You don't have any proof Paul wrote those racist emails. Besides I disagree with Paul on many key points. In any case here's an article I think you may find interesting. pauloftarsus.org/women-should-be-silent-in-church/ The Bible verses are like the Ghosts from Super Mario. The authoritative Word of God until you look directly at one, then "What? Who Me? Noooo I'm just scenery!" steinrokkan posted:Well, it would perhaps become useful if people used it to help formulating their own ideas. No, it's not. Just like calling the Grand Unified Theory of Physics "VitalSign's Theory" is useless. "Hey guys, I named the theory, at least I'm doing something. Let me know when you find something, even if everything I wrote is completely wrong, something will be right and that'll be VitalSign's Theory then, don't forget to credit me!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What I think steinrokkan is trying to state here is, basically, "there is a system of Christian theology which is complicated but has been subjected to logical rigor. It may not be true but it is not irrational, once you take certain premises (if only for the sake of the argument) which are not susceptible to scientific proof the way that chemistry or physics are." He made comparisons such as this: steinrokkan posted:You don't have to forgive me, as atheists don't take sin too heavily, and the thing is that you have it backwards. When a physician says that a good theory can be reproduced and communicated to any rational listener, and be accepted as correct based on testing, he isn't claiming mastery of a universal law, or that the universe is agreeing with him. He is professing a reasonable belief that his reason has managed to translate a part of the universal laws into an intelligible statement, that he is a student of an objective authority of nature. And to the atomists who, while wrong now, were still working within the fabric of reality to make discoveries and philosophy about existence. When you try to drag naturalism and early scientific discoveries into arguments about the metaphysical reality of god, you've crossed a line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He made comparisons such as this: The comparison was to point out similar logical relation between objects in the two cases, not to argue that physics and theology are the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
I want to do metaphysical experiments like the atomic physicists did. What kind of sample size do you think I need to determine with statistical significance whether a snake will offer me some fruit if I hang around the forest in the buff for long enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It has kind of struck me pretty profoundly that a lot of Christians seem to be more like Paulists in practice. They use Jesus as their totem but they actually focus on what this cranky old tax collector wanted. Pretty good gig for him I guess. Right. Christian because Jesus, but we pick and choose the rest we like. I appreciate your response, but fail to see how Jesus Christ squares with poo poo like evolution. Which really I think is a fundamental question: Is empirical science incompatible with theology? The answer is yes btw, and anyone who says "Science and Religion can coexist because they support each other" is blowing smoke up your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The comparison was to point out similar logical relation between objects in the two cases, not to argue that physics and theology are the same. No, I know you were not arguing that they are the same, but at the same time the CASES are not comparable at all either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I want to do metaphysical experiments like the atomic physicists did.  http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/stones-of-fire-rick-mittelstedt.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I want to do metaphysical experiments like the atomic physicists did. The same sample you would choose for determining whether 1 = 1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The same sample you would choose for determining whether 1 = 1. What sample size is necessary for GOD = TRUE? At least 1 = 1 has real, demonstrable implications
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right. Christian because Jesus, but we pick and choose the rest we like. I don't think empirical science is incompatible with theology in and of itself (though perhaps with SOME DIRECTIONS of theology) because theology is much closer to philosophy than to physics. It isn't the same kind of thing. There are a lot of theological writings that overlap with empirical scientific fields in the modern day, of course. This is not what Protestant fundamentalists in America claim, of course, and those are probably the people who you're thinking of when you think of "religion." You probably aren't thinking of, for instance, Buddhist monks, whose theology is ultimately much closer to psychology than anything involving evolution, and whose spiritual practices have been, in significant part, successfully integrated into empirical psychotheraputic practices. Similarly, even the old ridiculous statement, about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, did have a philosophical point to it - is it possible to have a thing that exists but does not occupy any space? So I guess what I'm saying is: Science is incompatible with the ridiculous claims of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity in America in the present day, but that's not the only kind of theology there is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right. Christian because Jesus, but we pick and choose the rest we like. What is the point of asking the question when you are going to answer it yourself without even allowing for the possibility you could be wrong? I am of the opinion science and religion can coexist, their incompatibility is a function of the individual such as yourself who disagrees and creates a self fulfilling prophecy in the process. But only for themselves/yourself. You can smugly insist otherwise, but that will not make it any more true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right. Christian because Jesus, but we pick and choose the rest we like. Actually, Jesus isn't necessary either. steinrokkan posted:all I've been saying is that it makes sense to assume there can be a comprehensive theory of metaphysics, and that if such a theory can indeed exist, Christianity must adopt it regardless of its relation to its prior doctrine. If it turns out we can logically show metaphysically that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, and instead Mohammed is His Prophet, then that now becomes Christianity and is true. Christianity can literally never be wrong! steinrokkan posted:The same sample you would choose for determining whether 1 = 1. Oh my God, it is the Libertarian thread. "I don't need to prove praxeology. See that proof of the Pythagorean Theorem over there? Yeah it's just like that!" Mr. Wiggles posted:No of course not. Christ died for all. While this is my preferred interpretation of Christianity, to what denomination or tradition to you subscribe? This kind of universalism has been pretty well deemed heresy since like the time of Origen, and I'm not sure that Nicene Christians even consider Universalists to be Christian at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think empirical science is incompatible with theology in and of itself (though perhaps with SOME DIRECTIONS of theology) because theology is much closer to philosophy than to physics. It isn't the same kind of thing. There are a lot of theological writings that overlap with empirical scientific fields in the modern day, of course. Care to demonstrate this? Nessus posted:So I guess what I'm saying is: Science is incompatible with the ridiculous claims of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity in America in the present day, but that's not the only kind of theology there is. We've covered this: Yes, you can be religious and be a scientist. I highly doubt that your theology has any bearing on the end product of your research however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While this is my preferred interpretation of Christianity, to what denomination or tradition to you subscribe? This kind of universalism has been pretty well deemed heresy since like the time of Origen, and I'm not sure that Nicene Christians even consider Universalists to be Christian at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Care to demonstrate this? In the Bible, Adam and Eve were brought into the world naked. Now go give birth to a baby. Look! It's naked! Just as the Bible predicted. Also, ever notice how you can go to a different country and not understand a word anyone says? Just like the Babel Story said would happen?! Eh? Ehhh? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Care to demonstrate this? "There are a lot of old theological writings which discussed topics which we would presently consider to be the proper subject for empirical science." An example would be Aquinas's theorizing on the origins of life through spontaneous generation, and the creation of variants on "the corruption of the seed." While the latter might be considered to loosely approximate ideas of mutation, a modern Catholic theologian would (presumably) not bother with theories on the origin of life in the general sense of "life on Earth," though they might develop arguments on how human lives begin at conception rather than birth, quickening, etc. e: for double clarity, I am totally not saying Aquinas was right even if he made a few approximately lucky guesses in his work; however, he WAS theorizing about biology, which would not be approached in this manner today. Gregor Mendel, of course, made his genetic discoveries, but these were not inspired by theology - he just happened to be a monk rather than a pea farmer. Nessus fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I phrased this poorly. Fair enough, I see your point however he could hardly continue outside of thought experiment with just his theological expertise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I'm a Roman Catholic. And this: Nessus posted:I think you are permitted to hope fervently for universal salvation, even to say "I feel it is likely," but you have to admit that someone going to H E double Hockey Sticks is a possibility. I'm not sure if you have to allow for the specific hell-boundness of Satan and his angels either. Is correct. The thing is, though, that Hell isn't the permanent thing often thought of by the Evangelicals. To quote William Barclay (quoting Gregory of Nyssa), 'Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.' It's a very good way to look at it. Sure, there might be some sort of punishment after death, a concept which squares very nicely with the Catholic concept of purgatory. But in the end people will be cleansed and reunited with the one who made them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Is correct. The thing is, though, that Hell isn't the permanent thing often thought of by the Evangelicals. To quote William Barclay (quoting Gregory of Nyssa), 'Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.' It's a very good way to look at it. Sure, there might be some sort of punishment after death, a concept which squares very nicely with the Catholic concept of purgatory. But in the end people will be cleansed and reunited with the one who made them. Well, for this we have to assume god is real, despite being unknowable, and therefore the unknowable god makes hell real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Right, and if the attitude was "I'm telling you to get right here so you can save yourself a thousand years of Jesus Jail before you get to go to heaven," I think that has a very different overtone to "heh heh, if you don't agree with me, ETERNAL HELLFIRE! heh heh!"CommieGIR posted:Well, for this we have to assume god is real, despite being unknowable, and therefore the unknowable god makes hell real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Even if it's just a cultural construct it's certainly an evocative one. It is kind of funny that the way we say "Jesus!" is about the same way the Romans invoked Hercules. "By Hercules, that guy's a dipshit!" etc. There are plenty of real threats, hell there were even more real threats during the early stages of the Church to have to need to expound upon eternal damnation. People bought into it for the same reason people buy into the idea of eternal life: Nobody wants death to be the end. Thats it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, for this we have to assume god is real, despite being unknowable, and therefore the unknowable god makes hell real. If you don't assume God is real, then why would it matter? If you do assume God is real, then you ask your self why you believe that. If the answer is "because Jesus", then you don't have an unknowable God, but a God who has shown us what He is like through the person of Jesus. Therefore love. But like Paul said, if Jesus wasn't resurrected then the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash anyway. The entire religion is predicated on that one thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:If you don't assume God is real, then why would it matter? It sometimes seems like Christ's teachings are irrelevant to Christianity, and that only the fact that he died and came back matters. I guess there is the salient point that, presumably, this makes him unique, but you know, at a certain point his horrible death was presumably only a PART of the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
How come Christians don't believe in reincarnation, are there any sects that do? Any explanation beyond that its not in the bible? I guess I mean how does the doctrine explain souls and the like without it? If I was going to be religious that would make a lot more sense to me, especially with the whole "Earth as a testing ground thing". A single collection of a few billion souls going through earthly trials would at least be thermodynamically plausible rather than YHWH making each individual soul each time (for all animals as well? Do animals have souls? does god make souls as they come up or did he make all the souls at the beginning?) even when he already knows this one he's making is going to be a Hitler. E: Isn't worshipping Jesus instead of god pretty much blasphemy too? I mean Jesus called god his dad, which suggests god is not himself and makes Jesus a middle eastern Herakles. e2: doesn't OT god specifically tell people not to worship anyone but him? Was this just a ploy to get people to crucify his son? Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
The Snark posted:What is the point of asking the question when you are going to answer it yourself without even allowing for the possibility you could be wrong? I'm not insisting, I'm saying this as I interpret the sayings in religious texts. Stuff like "The world is a dome", "the planet is here for mankind", Jesus is the son of God", "Adam and Eve propagated the entire human race", "Homosexuals should be put to death", "The world was created from scratch by an intelligent being and certain humans know what that being wants"...these are all claims that are incompatible with what we know about the world and about logically consistent statements. Based on what we can empirically observe, if we were to add in any of these things into our analysis of the world, we would be demonstrably wrong in some way shape or form. Of course I allow for the possibility I am wrong. I'm just looking back over 2000 years of scientific advancement and have to conclude that maybe those people in the desert didn't have all the answers for all eternity, nor do they have any more special insight into the origins of the universe than I do. So yeah, they can coexist, but only as separate entities with religion relegated to social mores and customs and with science actually how we approach the world. How many questions were previously answered by religious claims but changed to another with science, and how many scientific claims have been found to be wrong and substantiated with a religious one? Nessus posted:Well, from my understanding this is a little like saying "how can making cheese and wine square with poo poo like sanitary sewers," because they both involve microbes, sort of. True enough and I agree. But...we don't have the Buddhists coming after people and shaping policy in modernized democracies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:If you don't assume God is real, then why would it matter? You'd have to forgive me, but I don't think God coming to Earth as Jesus makes up for his Old Testaement routines. An abusive parent doesn't just show up and make up for years of abuse with one swift kick and turn into a loving figure. And yeah, it is entirely hinged upon him being resurrected, which based on the idea that the Bible is largely stories made up by men, leaves the whole resurrection in a bit of mess. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:True enough and I agree. But...we don't have the Buddhists coming after people and shaping policy in modernized democracies. Now that said I imagine if Christian sects "came after people and shaped policy" in this manner we would likely have a higher collective opinion of American Christianity. There's obviously a receptiveness to this, look how much people like Pope Francis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:How come Christians don't believe in reincarnation, are there any sects that do? Any explanation beyond that its not in the bible? I guess I mean how does the doctrine explain souls and the like without it? quote:A single collection of a few billion souls going through earthly trials would at least be thermodynamically plausible rather than YHWH making each individual soul each time
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
What happens after, inevitably, all human beings are dead and gone? Does Christianity mandate that the whole universe will cease to be at that moment? If so, why would the universe exist before mankind?(and it did exist). If not, why would your God keep something around that is no longer useful to him(supposing indeed that the universe was created for mankind).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:What happens after, inevitably, all human beings are dead and gone? Does Christianity mandate that the whole universe will cease to be at that moment? If so, why would the universe exist before mankind?(and it did exist). If not, why would your God keep something around that is no longer useful to him(supposing indeed that the universe was created for mankind).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
RavingManiac posted:The destiny of souls after death is written to be judgement/cleansing by God. No do-overs. Yeah I understand that god can do what he wants because -. But does he just spend all his time making souls then? Does he know the destiny of each soul as he makes it and is this a result of how he makes it? It must be otherwise that would mean souls are made from outside his omniscience/potence which would mean we don't have free will. Although I suppose you could just handwave and say god can do whatever he wants so he can make things that are outside his power? The whole free will thing honestly baffles me, I can understand the idea of free will and predestination at the same time but only without a creator figure who already knows all the outcomes, if thats the case then our destinies are made by him at our soul's creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:What happens after, inevitably, all human beings are dead and gone? Does Christianity mandate that the whole universe will cease to be at that moment? If so, why would the universe exist before mankind?(and it did exist). If not, why would your God keep something around that is no longer useful to him(supposing indeed that the universe was created for mankind).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:See I don't get this. Even if Jesus wasn't resurrected, while this would certainly gently caress up the dominant interpretation of Christianity, what would this do to Christ's ethical and religious teachings? It wouldn't do anything to Christ's ethical teachings. But ethical teachings aren't the whole kit and kaboodle with Jesus, though they are terribly important. We must remember that aside from "love each other", there is the "love God" part of it, which of course has the necessary corollary of "God loves you". CommieGIR posted:You'd have to forgive me, but I don't think God coming to Earth as Jesus makes up for his Old Testaement routines. An abusive parent doesn't just show up and make up for years of abuse with one swift kick and turn into a loving figure. The point of Christ's preaching was that God was and always would be there, loving all people everywhere and for all time. This "abusive parent" nonsense not only misses the point, it misses the entire conversation. quote:And yeah, it is entirely hinged upon him being resurrected, which based on the idea that the Bible is largely stories made up by men, leaves the whole resurrection in a bit of mess. I'm afraid this doesn't follow at all. The resurrection is a thing that is attested to by people, just like the Punic War and the crowning of Charlemagne. Medieval Medic posted:What happens after, inevitably, all human beings are dead and gone? Does Christianity mandate that the whole universe will cease to be at that moment? If so, why would the universe exist before mankind?(and it did exist). If not, why would your God keep something around that is no longer useful to him(supposing indeed that the universe was created for mankind). The universe was around for a really long time before people, it might well be here for a very long time after. In the Christian paradigm it doesn't really matter either way. RavingManiac posted:Assuming that mankind and the universe do not end together a la the futurist interpretation, there's no reason for God to uncreate the universe (which is not to say that he won't). It's not like there's finite universe-sustaining resources to go around. Oh yeah well the Omega Point theory could be right in which case when we evolve to one-ness with God's saving perfection then the universe will have naturally reached its conclusion. Mr. Wiggles fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:What happens after, inevitably, all human beings are dead and gone? Does Christianity mandate that the whole universe will cease to be at that moment? If so, why would the universe exist before mankind?(and it did exist). If not, why would your God keep something around that is no longer useful to him(supposing indeed that the universe was created for mankind).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Yeah I understand that god can do what he wants because -. But does he just spend all his time making souls then? Does he know the destiny of each soul as he makes it and is this a result of how he makes it? It must be otherwise that would mean souls are made from outside his omniscience/potence which would mean we don't have free will. Although I suppose you could just handwave and say god can do whatever he wants so he can make things that are outside his power? Why he does what he does is unknowable. One can only speculate. Nothing is outside his power or knowledge. Yes, he knows the destiny of every soul. But we have free will anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:How come Christians don't believe in reincarnation, are there any sects that do? Any explanation beyond that its not in the bible? I guess I mean how does the doctrine explain souls and the like without it? fade5 posted:More fun American religious statistics, courtesy of Pew Research:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The point of Christ's preaching was that God was and always would be there, loving all people everywhere and for all time. This "abusive parent" nonsense not only misses the point, it misses the entire conversation. I think you're going to have to blame most Christians for that then, not flippant atheists. Their god is a petty tyrant, however nice and kind yours might be. quote:I'm afraid this doesn't follow at all. The resurrection is a thing that is attested to by people, just like the Punic War and the crowning of Charlemagne. Wow, only a lot more tenuous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:29
|
|