|
I understand, because you don't understand the basics of science you feel the need to oversimplify, but maybe instead use better examples if you have them and can help it
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Avalerion posted:I don't understand why assuming something isn't real unless proven otherwise should not be default position? Especially if being unprovable is often conveniently a trait attributed to the thing I'm being asked to disprove. I get that you are arguing that the sensible thing would be to remain agnostic, but by that argument should I also be agnostic about the already mentioned Hogwards exists statement, which seems... silly to even consider?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not necessarily. An intercessory God could potentially be tested. Depending on the proposed action of intercession we could test certain types of claims about God's activity, not God's existence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:You could test for existence given certain definitions of an intercessory God. Like if I say "I'm holding an intangible clock that makes audible beeping noises at noon", if there's no beeping at noon, we know there's no intangible clock that beeps at noon. Religious people aren't usually interested in constructing definitions that rigorous, but it's at least in principle possible. Well no, your beeping would only indicate a source. It's your assumptions that would tell you it's a clock (for example, it seems to occur at noon in accordance with standard clocks). If the thing is truly intangible you'd be unable to determine whether it's a clock or any other conceivable or inconceivable thing appears to beep once a day. And this isn't a rigorous example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:People like Francis because it was a shift to a nice old conservative guy from literally the evil Star Wars emperor. At least it's true that neither Palpatine nor Ratzinger are particularly photogenic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
So, if they were motivated to do bad, they were motivated by religion, and if they were motivated to do good, they were not motivated by religion?quote:I'm having a hard time thinking about one motivated by religion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Someone giving to charity because god says so is good, but doing so because you rationalize that it's the right thing to do or good for society would be, in my opinion, even better. doverhog posted:Charity in general is bad, and mainly a way for the rich to justify not paying more taxes. Social services need to be comprehensive, and funded with mandatory taxation, so that you don't need charity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The problem is that this is one of many equally valid interpretations of Christianity, and there is no way for you to legitimately assert what is "authentic" Christianity.  (I kid, I kid.) quote:Mysticism was a much larger component of early Christian practices as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Jesus, via Matthew 43 - 48 posted:“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It isn't leftism that's hostile to religion, it's religion that's hostile to leftism. In America, as Churches go left their membership declines. "Adapt and die" is a very real phenomenon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Please note also that while religious liberal/conservative and American political liberal/conservative categories often overlap, they are very different things. EDIT: Shbobdb posted:They'd be better off putting down their bibles, staying away from their congregations and doing pretty much anything else. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
I agreed to no such thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Numbers 5 the Bible says priests should perform abortions on fetuses that are the product of adultery. EDIT: I should be more charitable: an *interpretation* of the very, uh, distinctive NIV interpretation. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Nah, there's major sexual asymmetry here: there's no equivalent of this procedure for a man if he was suspected of straying. On the other hand, if found "guilty" by this procedure she'd not still be sentenced to capital punishment, but only shamed and, likely, divorced. (If CAUGHT in the act of adultery, man and woman alike were due death.) Reading about it right now after checking other translations, it's a surprisingly interesting piece of text. Robert Alter in his translation footnote writes, quote:This troubling and also fascinating ritual is the only clear-cut trial by ordeal in the Bible. It became the basis for a whole tractate of the Talmud, Sotah ("the straying woman"), . . . Apologetic approaches seem questionable . . . The ordeal, moreover, is based on a kind of archaic magic, however one seeks to square it with loftier versions of monotheism. Parallels have been noted with the Code of Hammurabi, which provides for an oath by the woman if her husband accuses her of unfaithfulness, and an ordeal of jumping into a river, sink or swim, if the accusation comes from someone else (compare the prominence of water here). Our passage powerfully records an ideology of marital relations, but in point of historical fact, there is no way of knowing to what extent it was actually practiced in ancient Israel. It is doubtful whether this was a living legal institution in the Second Temple period, and if the sanctuary setting of the ritual is the Tabernacle, it may even have not been observed in the First Temple period. In any case, it is a vivid male fantasy of testing and exposing sexual "defilement" in a woman. In support of your prior comment and the NIV (really though, friends don't let friends read NIV), I must stand corrected: Alter also notes that while translation is unclear, if this procedure is taken to address a woman who's suspected of adultery because she is already pregnant (which may not be the case), the sudden negative reaction to the water could be referring to a miscarriage, "though this remains uncertain." I have seen one take that suggests that because the simple concoction and consequent violent reaction were unlikely to occur, this was a placebo for the husband's conscience to make things easy for the woman. If this didn't satisfy him he'd have to take it up with God, as the wife had already effectively been found innocent. This might be supported by the speculation that this practice, if truly practiced at all, was discontinued because society's adultery problem only got worse. Still very sexist! I will continue reading up on this one later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
EDIT: Argh, double post, sorryrudatron posted:Similarly, if you believe the universe was created with intent, that is in direct conflict with science, because it's a statement about the universe, and science is a method of developing a model for the universe, and a belief in the creation of the universe with intent is unscientific, given what we already know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I argue against religion because it is mostly a distraction and a waste of effort and time. (...) ...effort spent praying for a sick person could be spent volunteering, donating, or even slacktivism raising awareness for a disease or a hospital would have actual benefit to people that need it. This applies to almost all aspects of religions where the effort put in would be more effective in a secular execution including feeding the hungry, educating children, and charity work in general. Of course because we're coming at this from different sides, with different perspectives and goals, we'll disagree on the preliminary matter of whether doing religiousy things has any worth. That's fine. But first, I'd draw this criticism out a little more, to add that contemporary American/Western society is filled with time-draining diversions. We're a people who often celebrate time poorly spent! Suppose some woman has traded in three hours of, for example, playing video games each week, and instead uses that time to attend religious service and pray regularly: even if you think these acts are pointless I hope you'd at least agree this is just a lateral move. Maybe the rest of her week is packed with work, raising children, attending to a sick parent, and trying to just make it. The video games gave her a lot of stress release and connected her to a community of friendly players around the country, but through church and prayer she found both material help for keeping atop her responsibilities and an inner peace that eases her stress regularly, and not just that time she set aside for gaming. Should she stop wasting her time and just go do secular charity work? Or, maybe a guy has been addicted to porn, masturbation, and drugs for twenty years. He's tried to quit on his own innumerable times, but through a twelve step program he finally gets clean, opens up to a life of faith and clean living, starts putting the pieces back together. He insists that he couldn't get through this without that submission to a higher power, and for him that power is God. Do you tell him his experience is wrong, that he should drop the spiritual nonsense, instead try the ice bucket challenge and research cognitive therapy or something? My point actually isn't, look at how great religion is!, it's that we should be more sensitive to how others wish to conduct their lives, and not presume to know what's right for them. I think these outdoorsy types who spend weeks of the year mountain climbing and hiking remote locales are kooks, but that's their choice. Maybe they do it for work, testing products for REI or something, and it's their dream job. Maybe being out there helps focus their minds so they offer more respect and kindness for humans in civilization, and maybe it's a deep, spiritual ecstasy to encounter nature as they do. Which brings up my second point: secular activity does not preclude prayer. Prayer isn't just a thing done in isolated silence before bed. We can pray as we work, we can pray before and after and between tasks, and we can turn our work itself into a kind of prayer. The charity, teaching, being face to face with other human beings, can be a form of prayer. When Christian mysticism is allowed to shine on a person's spiritual life ( ) our whole relationship to the world and each given moment changes.And third, volunteering, donating, etc. are mainstays of religious organizations. Believers often fail to offer the support they could, but this is true even outside the doors of the church. Yes, you can be good without God. But! To roll around just a bit to the initial disagreement — the wisdom of the spiritual in the first place — please consider that if you DO believe there is a God, who hears our prayers and acts through the world and through believers toward His ultimate ends, one shall desire to be an agent of his grace. God doesn't just call us to be good, he calls us to be saints. So I agree that more people should be active in their communities, working to the betterment of society, but I don't think it's fair to call out religion for taking a lot of time away from them, whether religious observation — if observed at all — is limited to an hour or two once a week, or five prayers a day, or going full cloister. quote:On a single planet in a solar system of eight planets, which is one of a hundred billion solar systems in the Milky Way, which is one of a hundred billion galaxies, which could potentially be part of a bubble universe or something we aren't sure on the full scope of existence yet. This massive scale of time, life, and space is absolutely nothing like what is described in religions, and it seems to show that humans and earth are very likely a nothing blip in the scope of the universe. And not some predestined or lucky random one in a billion chance, literally next to nothing. (...) ... we clawed our way through mass extinction events and chaos. We only get one shot at life, and it is brief and difficult. And God so condescended, so self-emptied, to meet us in love through Christ. His coming way down to us lifts us up. Richard Feynman in his "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" video interview (I think that was that one) has a fun bit where he scoffs at the idea of God coming to "the Earth!" Throughout its history the Incarnation has been controversial, challenging, infuriating, blasphemous, dangerous, problematic. But this is key! We aren't mere humans, it's not just that we're apparently insignificant, rare, fleeting, or that we're sinners, born of ash (or star stuff): we're beloved, every one; we are precious, tiny jewels in the crown of the cosmos, capable of radiant beauty. We are called to be saints, to participate in the nature of Christ, to be divinized, and encounter the very God "in whom we live and move and have our being." Every neglect or violence against another human is neglect or violence against Christ, against God. When we sacrifice anyone in the name of our own ideas of society or progress or whatever, we might as well be hammering the nails into Jesus with our own hands. Apologies if any of the above is muddled or asinine. I'm phone-posting, and my mobile device is possessed of many very noisy and impolite demons. At any rate I likely made many errors.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I mean, the bolded part any catholic would sign too... *raises hand* But I'd swap out social sciences for philosophy. quote:...even the ones who think homosexuality should be suppressed. Not this part, though. This part is bad. EDIT: Confounding Factor posted:I would argue for a Christianity that is outside of the mainstream Protestant mold into something more radical . . . I agree with Che, you cannot have a genuine revolution without it guided by love, however I think the kind of love required is what the Gospels set forth. True revolutionaries must go through Christianity, to put a spin on Zizek. I want to echo this one again from a few pages back, because a similar insight helped guide me (among many other things) toward wherever it is I'm headed. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
4:8 is also good: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Similarly, the process of self awareness requires you to confront uncomfortable truths about yourself, constantly. So, religion?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Is it possible for one's emotions and intuition to be poisoned — as by, for example, addiction, depression, disease, or social pressure —so that this moral framework cannot be validly constructed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:All that I'm saying is that science is not the entirety of human thought. Though let's be candid here: in our culture this is where the popular idea about science has been going. I don't have a copy to quote, but I recall at the beginning of The Moral Landscape Sam Harris set his definition of science as effectively everything factual or material, which is broad to the point of becoming meaningless. And any length of time arguing with atheists will bear this out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:So nothing, there's just flaws in the scientific method, is all. It's not perfect and it cannot determine all things, just the things it was made for. This isn't a flaw in the method, this is PEBKAC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How can you believe anything if you can't explain The Crystal Heads? Get outta my face Dan and just let me try the vodka. I'm skeptical of anything provided in a gimmick bottle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
I don't care if they used the Christmas tears of Estonian children and charged whatever amount of small change might be found in an average sofa if the vodka tastes like Popov.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So can we just change the thread title to "Why Do Religions Hate the Left?" Anecdotally, it seems the winner of the competition for hating the Left is, by a country mile, the Left itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Using your religious ideology to impact anyone's life is an obstructive power structure Drop the R-word and this is still true. Maybe this idea of living in communities was a mistake and is a problem, and we should deny the very idea of structure. st_anthonythegreat.txt
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:The bible...pretend[s] that we are the main characters The Bible, composed by man, inspired by God, is an account of man's relationship to the divine, and thus also an account of man's relationship with one another and creation as a whole. Most of the canon demonstrates what a bunch of lame gently caress-ups we are, which is why the whole thing is important to begin with. The Bible isn't revelation for dogs or birds; we are the "main characters", insofar as we by our free and rational nature have certain responsibilities and have always struggled to inscribe into our hearts the greatest commandments. The Bible isn't "the story of the universe." it's "man reckoning with his place in creation." quote:Science acknowledges that while we are fascinating creatures, we hold no significance on the cosmic scale. Science says no such thing. "Significance on the cosmic scale" may be the case quantitatively, as we are not so large as star or powerful as a black hole or resilient as certain viruses (though does a star have anything so interesting as a human brain?), but this isn't the same relative or qualitative significance we're generally talking about when we say man is "significant". A scientist could just as easily declare that we, as thinking beings not only able to perceive and understand the universe, but change both ourselves and the world to achieve our aims, makes us already very significant. Significance is a philosophical (and theological!) position, not scientific. And the Bible echoes here: we are humbled before the vast and inconceivable depth of the cosmos, we are ash or dirt, yet we are special and beloved in our being. quote:However, one day we could achieve such significance. See how quickly you slipped into that kind of qualitative concept of significance here? If we skip back to the quantitative assessment this doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And at what point have we changed so much that though we're now "cosmically significant" we're also no longer even human? And where's the line between insignificant and significant, human and post-human? Though informed by material facts, both of these are philosophical distinctions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is what people talk about when they call some religions denigrating. If you think mankind is a bunch of lame gently caress-ups then that's incredibly sad and disappointing. OK. Man is great and "very good", beloved by God, elevated by the Incarnation; "for God so loved the world..." etc.; "the glory of God is a man fully alive." Man isn't a lame gently caress-up by nature, but plays one on TV, often following the path of concupiscence that leads to suffering for one's self and for others. We are good, but we don't always choose the good, and sometimes we choose the very bad. So we're not a bunch of lame gently caress-ups, but we also kill a lot of people, wreck ecosystems, exploit others, stick gum under desks, and so forth — yeah, when telling the story of man's activity on Earth, we act like a bunch of lame gently caress-ups. We stumble. The Bible is us asking God "what the hell, man" and God trying to push back to show us how to realize our true human glory, reassuring us to have no fear and to trust even as we stumble.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:How in the hell can you conceive of people being gently caress ups in a scientific view? (etc.) This is something a lot of people — religious and non — don't always grasp, which reveals itself every time someone scoffs and says, LOL, but if the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/other were really the so-called word of God then wouldn't he have thrown some advanced physics in there? Some advanced chemistry for formulating important medicine? Going into space is an excellent achievement. Curing disease is a huge boon to public health. We harnessed the power of the atom! Good job, us! But we are talking about human relationships. The Bible is about relationships. We can pass things down to grow our knowledge, but we also pass down race hatred and family blood feuds. We cure disease, but oh, sorry, it involved experimentation without consent on a minority population and resulted in some terrible outcomes that affect their families for generations. We harnessed the atom but then we put it into a bomb and used it. What a wonderful variety of devices we have, built using materials mined in third-world nations by families struggling to live, that enable us to ignore the person sitting right next to us. etc. quote:The idea that we are a bunch of gently caress ups comes from religion comparing humans to hypothetical perfect or larger than life beings. It comes from the idea that the most important thing is to love each other, and we, often, don't. It doesn't mean we should be ashamed as gently caress-ups by nature, it doesn't mean we are unworthy, it means we can and should acknowledge our errors and get better, because we are worthy and good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:God let us Free will's a tough cookie
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:You may look at a church or cathedral and simply see a nice looking building. Walk into the church and you might see the crucifix which hangs in condemnation of your whole project of violent revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:im sure glad we literally destroyed the world waiting for jesus Why did you do that? Jesus literally cautioned against doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:Just on the contrary, comrade, name me one hand that carved the stone of the vatican, laid the pillars of the pantheon, placed the tile of the sacred mosque. All of their achievements are already buried. Lost to "great men" how claim their sweat and blood as their own. Who says the atheist Left lacks religious faith? See it here, a shining city on . . . somewhere just past the horizon. We take what is built by men for the glorification of all men, and we replace it with something else built by men for the glorification of wait
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I can't help but laugh if you think that churches were built for the glorification of all men. I suspect we don't share a definition for the term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:Can you please explain how a church is a celebration of humankind? Nah Come and see.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Yep, bring whomever you wish.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:I would rather not. They're full of whack jobs who believe that some invisible man in the sky made everything that you see, and suddenly two thousand years ago sent his brown son down here to be ravaged by his creations in order to give flawed people an excuse to never work on their flaws. oh ffffuu no way? like next you're gonna tell me he was a JEW A SEMITE who else have you told??? EDIT: quote:an excuse to never work on their flaws In all seriousness though, this is nuts Bolocko fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The metaphor explicitly casts the attainment of knowledge as a bad deed deserving of punishment. The snake is the good guy. The bad deed isn't the attainment of knowledge. The bad deed, among the two creations walking in the backyard with the creator of the cosmos, was disobeying God's one specific command because either they knew better than God via some creature, or, God's lying to them to deny them something to which they think themselves entitled, also via the testimony of not-God. Yeah, God wasn't loving around when he said eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death. They serpent conned them by saying it would make them gods, and guess what it didn't do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:he would have done more than walk and talk What, dying doesn't count now?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
It's the atheist inverse of a Jack Chick tract.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:45
|
|