Jump to content
Kasanova King

The Religion/Spirituality Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

While I agree the vast majority of Catholics/people-in-general are decent folks(Certainly not something as evil as pedophiles.) I do not agree it's prejudice to criticize your group or any other for that matter. I do it out of sanity and compassion and sincere concern not some strange discriminatory hatred for all the good people who are in my opinion lost and legitimizing/endorsing a pedophile cult. I find it very frustrating.

I see your logic.  And in a sense, you are on a very high moral platform.  

But how can you walk outside when your country has pedos running loose?  

Every nation has sickos.  The Catholic Church is no different. 

And yes, it's extremely hypocritical when the largest religious nation in the world fails to bring these people to justice....and yes....it looks like the same old "buddy buddy" system of politics....and maybe there was some of that.   But for someone to look down on another human being for being Catholic is no different than looking down on someone because of where they are from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are various groupings of atheists - even atheists are not very much in agreement,

1280px-AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.png

     on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
     on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
     on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know whether a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.

nice tits

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'll tell yous one thing for free though, of all the notions of a higher power, a high power a defined by the judeo/christian/islamic theology seems the least likely. 

I don't think  any of those "define" god

sure, they call him yahweh whatshisface, but as to the true nature of god? don't they all say it's a mystery? that's my understanding of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Catholic here, the fact that the house needs to be cleaned and that they need to be more open about things I absolutely agree with. It's an absolute disgrace that this wasn't cleaned up when news first broke. I disagree on the idea of a hierarchy. You need some type of hierarchy to make final decisions on theological issues. 

The rampant issues of abuse and rape is so systemic and rampant and ongoing and for so long I do not believe their corrupt organisation is capable of being more open. Especially considering they have always fiercely protected the wrongdoers. I'm not buying what the current PR-Pope is selling.

The house doesn't need to be cleaned it needs to be condemned it is rotten. Take the bits that are still good and build something better.

6 minutes ago, action said:

all i'm saying is show me proof that god does not exist and i'll believe you too

That's poor logic. 

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, action said:

all i'm saying is show me proof that god does not exist and i'll believe you too

It's not possible to prove the non-existence of anything. If something does exist you should be able to show evidence otherwise the logical conclusion must be that it doesn't.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, action said:

I don't think  any of those "define" god

sure, they call him yahweh whatshisface, but as to the true nature of god? don't they all say it's a mystery? that's my understanding of it

True, in the sense of understanding the fabric of God but I mean the narrative aspects, the son and the father and the holy ghost and showing up in Israel as a carpenter or Moses and the burning bush and all that game or the arab merchant trader Muhammad and his getting revelations from angels and flying on a winged horse on a tour of various places etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

While I agree the vast majority of Catholics/people-in-general are decent folks(Certainly not something as evil as pedophiles.) I do not agree it's prejudice to criticize your group or any other for that matter. I do it out of sanity and compassion and sincere concern not some strange discriminatory hatred for all the good people who are in my opinion lost and legitimizing/endorsing a pedophile cult. I find it very frustrating.

If you guys rounded up the priests and they were punished here and now by mans law and the Vatican hierarchy was abolished, the secret libraries were digitized and shared and a healthy Catholicsm 2.0 arose then I would be very happy for all, despite still not personally sharing your religious beliefs.

:facepalm:

yes, you are prejudiced to a group of people, as this post clearly shows. you criticise "our group", not only pedophile priests. if you take away the pedophile priests, what have the 99,99 % of good christians done wrong to you? consciously or not, I don't care, but your posts is prejudiced to the point of inciting hate on religious grounds. (Where i live such statements are a criminal offence, just telling)

Sure, lots of pedophile priests abound, but that has absolutely nothing to do with "our group" as you call it.

Why can't you narrow down your criticism to pedophile priests? why involving every one of us?

And another thing, I certainly do not need your compassion, the least from an individual calling my belief ridiculous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It's not possible to prove the non-existence of anything. If something does exist you should be able to show evidence otherwise the logical conclusion must be that it doesn't.

That makes sense to me.

When I look at my son's eyes, when I see the intricacy of flowers, when I am humbled by mountains and the beauty of the sea,  when I stare at the clouds by day and am silenced by the stars at night,  when I look at the moon and gaze down on my palm, looking at every intricate detail... you don't need faith to believe in God.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I see your logic.  And in a sense, you are on a very high moral platform.  

But how can you walk outside when your country has pedos running loose?  

Every nation has sickos.  The Catholic Church is no different. 

And yes, it's extremely hypocritical when the largest religious nation in the world fails to bring these people to justice....and yes....it looks like the same old "buddy buddy" system of politics....and maybe there was some of that.   But for someone to look down on another human being for being Catholic is no different than looking down on someone because of where they are from. 

The difference is my country actively fights to bring pedophiles to justice and the Catholic church actively fights to protect them. But yes there is wrongdoing everywhere it is unfortunately part of life. But we should fight to reduce it as much as we can especially when it is so brazen and obvious as it is in this case.

That's why I speak with such fervor; the obviousness of it all. It's not that I think I'm this high moral dude who has it all figured out. I've fucking definitely got this figured out though that I am certain.

Looking down on someone for being Catholic isn't the same as that because you can help being Catholic you can't help where you're born. But just to be very clear I don't look down on you. In fact I like you, Mikey, Gracii, Lio, Basic, action(think that's all the Catholics on here I've interacted with?). I guess I am just a very demanding guy I expect people to be on the same page when something's so obvious. It's not that I think I'm above you all. I'm the kind of person who doesn't need to go around approving 100% of someone's ideals to care about them and get along. You would be welcome here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

True, in the sense of understanding the fabric of God but I mean the narrative aspects, the son and the father and the holy ghost and showing up in Israel as a carpenter or Moses and the burning bush and all that game or the arab merchant trader Muhammad and his getting revelations from angels and flying on a winged horse on a tour of various places etc. 

yeah, that's all very interesting (nah, not so much), but ultimately the bible, nor the quran or any other book tells the thing that matters: who or what is god?

strangely, the bible does not try to prove god exists. it just tells you god is there, as a given. Then, god does all sorts of goofy stuff as you described (a lot of which, has been conveniently borrowed from much older tales).

I never took the bible as proof of god, I always thought it was kind of a boring book to be honest, I still think. But to me, there is just absolute certainty that god exists. Proof, is everywhere around you. Like a dead body and a gun is proof of a murder, the trees, the earth, the universe, the fundamental elements, the fundamental laws and all the forces of the universe are proof of creation

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That makes sense to me.

When I look at my son's eyes, when I see the intricacy of flowers, when I am humbled by mountains and the beauty of the sea,  when I stare at the clouds by day and am silenced by the stars at night,  when I look at the moon and gaze down on my palm, looking at every intricate detail... you don't need faith to believe in God.  

This is something I've never had.  It makes me think the worlds a beautiful place...but God?  Do I see the hand of God in that?  I can't make that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

This is something I've never had.  It makes me think the worlds a beautiful place...but God?  Do I see the hand of God in that?  I can't make that.

Open your mind.  I can buy a video game created by dozens of developers and can create my own virtual reality world.  And we are in 2019.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

yeah, that's all very interesting (nah, not so much), but ultimately the bible, nor the quran or any other book tells the thing that matters: who or what is god?

I guess mankind aren't really disposed to comprehend the infinite.  Things have to have an identity, a beginning an end, where did it come from, how longs it been here etc etc.  And if God is all seeing all knowing all omnipotent then we can't ever understand him/her/it.  Which I suppose would be a good response to the atheist perspective of requiring proof.  So it all boils down to a feeling in certain individuals and a lack of that same feeling in others.

Quote

Proof, is everywhere around you. Like a dead body and a gun is proof of a muder, the trees, the earth, the universe, the fundamental elements, the fundamental laws and all the forces of the universe are proof of creation

I struggle to make that connection, I don't see the logical line of reasoning between a world full of beauty and the intracies of the building blocks of life and the existence of a deity.  Unless of course the universe itself is God, there's a curious proposition.  Because end of the day nature and all that is in it is kind of self governing.  But then by that theory we would be parts of God, which I suppose lends credence to certain faiths that say God lives inside us, we are all one etc etc

13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Open your mind.  I can buy a video game created by dozens of developers and can create my own virtual reality world.  And we are in 2019.  

You've lost me there Skip :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, action said:

Like a dead body and a gun is proof of a murder, the trees, the earth, the universe, the fundamental elements, the fundamental laws and all the forces of the universe are proof of creation

Not really. Science can explain in great detail pretty much everything you’ve just mentioned without the need to invoke a creator. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff like this made me believe in god (not proof, but more than strong indications, on a scientific level):

and this:

no bible in sight, just respected scientists.

to me, more than strong indications of a creator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Not really. Science can explain in great detail pretty much everything you’ve just mentioned without the need to invoke a creator. 

The origins of DNA?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, action said:

:facepalm:

yes, you are prejudiced to a group of people, as this post clearly shows. you criticise "our group", not only pedophile priests. if you take away the pedophile priests, what have the 99,99 % of good christians done wrong to you? consciously or not, I don't care, but your posts is prejudiced to the point of inciting hate on religious grounds. (Where i live such statements are a criminal offence, just telling)

Sure, lots of pedophile priests abound, but that has absolutely nothing to do with "our group" as you call it.

Why can't you narrow down your criticism to pedophile priests? why involving every one of us?

And another thing, I certainly do not need your compassion, the least from an individual calling my belief ridiculous.

Wow. What a ridiculous post. Wtf are you on about? Are you drunk? You're being irrational and incoherent and trying to put words in my mouth. So, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. :shrugs:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Not really. Science can explain in great detail pretty much everything you’ve just mentioned without the need to invoke a creator. 

I would certainly like to hear that explanation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The origins of DNA?  

I'd have to defer to @SoulMonster on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, action said:

I would certainly like to hear that explanation

Well this is a start. :shrugs: 

Quote

The standard model for the formation of the Solar System (including the Earth) is the solar nebula hypothesis. In this model, the Solar System formed from a large, rotating cloud of interstellar dust and gas called the solar nebula. It was composed of hydrogen and helium created shortly after the Big Bang 13.8 Ga(billion years ago) and heavier elements ejected by supernovae. About 4.5 Ga, the nebula began a contraction that may have been triggered by the shock wave from a nearby supernova. A shock wave would have also made the nebula rotate. As the cloud began to accelerate, its angular momentum, gravity, and inertia flattened it into a protoplanetary disk perpendicular to its axis of rotation. Small perturbations due to collisions and the angular momentum of other large debris created the means by which kilometer-sized protoplanets began to form, orbiting the nebular center.

The center of the nebula, not having much angular momentum, collapsed rapidly, the compression heating it until nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium began. After more contraction, a T Tauri star ignited and evolved into the Sun. Meanwhile, in the outer part of the nebula gravity caused matter to condense around density perturbations and dust particles, and the rest of the protoplanetary disk began separating into rings. In a process known as runaway accretion, successively larger fragments of dust and debris clumped together to form planets. Earth formed in this manner about 4.54 billion years ago (with an uncertainty of 1%) was largely completed within 10–20 million years. The solar wind of the newly formed T Tauri star cleared out most of the material in the disk that had not already condensed into larger bodies. The same process is expected to produce accretion disks around virtually all newly forming stars in the universe, some of which yield planets.

The proto-Earth grew by accretion until its interior was hot enough to melt the heavy, siderophile metals. Having higher densities than the silicates, these metals sank. This so-called iron catastrophe resulted in the separation of a primitive mantle and a (metallic) core only 10 million years after the Earth began to form, producing the layered structure of Earth and setting up the formation of Earth's magnetic field. J.A. Jacobs was the first to suggest that Earth's inner core—a solid center distinct from the liquid outer core—is freezing and growing out of the liquid outer core due to the gradual cooling of Earth's interior (about 100 degrees Celsius per billion years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

Edited by Dazey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Well this is a start. :shrugs: 

 

 

I'm aware of the basic processes behind this, those are described to a certain degree by science indeed.

but science can't explain the role of dark energy in all of this, for one thing.

Actually, science doesn't really "explain" it rather than "observe" what happens, and then communicates it back to us. But an "observation", even in great detail, is not an explanation. Why is there gravity? What is it? To this day unexplained yet of very high importance to the creation of solar systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, action said:

I'm aware of the basic processes behind this, those are described to a certain degree by science indeed.

but science can't explain the role of dark energy in all of this, for one thing.

Actually, science doesn't really "explain" it rather than "observe" what happens, and then communicates it back to us. But an "observation", even in great detail, is not an explanation. Why is there gravity? What is it? To this day unexplained yet of very high importance to the creation of solar systems.

See the difference between a scientific approach and a faith based approach is that the scientist will happily admit that there are some things that are not yet fully understood. That doesn't mean that god did it, it just means that there is more work to be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

I have a high level of respect for Agnostics.  They are humble enough to admit that "they don't know".

What I fail to understand are atheists.  

Knowledge is usually not binary in the sense that we know for certain that something is or isn't but comes as a continuum ("I am fairly sure", "I am confident", "I don't think so"). Very rarely do we have the fortune of being able to say something with absolute confidence, and usually that is only when it comes to mathematical truths (like 2 + 2 being 4). Of almost everything else we are looking at a less than 100 % confidence. Not even existing is something we can be 100 % confident is true (we could all just be coded computer algorithm designed to believe we are conscious).

Yet, in everyday conversation we often say that we "know" something for certain. Because in everyday lingo "knowledge" of something doesn't require 100 % confidence but something approximating that. So I can say that I know I am alive. That I know the Earth is round. That I know what the name of my grandfather is, despite there being a theoretical probability that I am wrong on all accounts. No one would disparage me for jumping to conclusions on these things despite that the confidence is less than exactly 100 % in each case. It is just accepted that when there is no reason to assume otherwise, when all evidence points in one direction, when it doesn't contradict our understanding of the universe and its laws, we can accept that we talk as if it is mathematically proven to be correct.

The same goes for god's existence. Just like I can say in everyday speak that I "know" what my grandfather's name was, I can say that I "know" that gods don't exist. The confidence in both cases approximates 100 %, it is inline with all we know about the universe, there are no credible evidence contradicting it, and there is n supporting evidence. And just like people don't arrest me for saying that I know what my grandfather was named, no one should arrest me for being an atheist and not an agnostic. It feels just as absurd to me to say that I "believe" I know what my grandfather's name was as it is to say I "believe" there are no gods, or that I am agnostic about either. 

If we can accept some leeway about when we use the term "I know" then we should accept that it is also used about god's existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Knowledge is usually not binary in the sense that we know for certain that something is or isn't but comes as a continuum ("I am fairly sure", "I am confident", "I don't think so"). Very rarely do we have the fortune of being able to say something with absolute confidence, and usually that is only when it comes to mathematical truths (like 2 + 2 being 4). Of almost everything else we are looking at a less than 100 % confidence. Not even existing is something we can be 100 % confident is true (we could all just be coded computer algorithm designed to believe we are conscious).

Yet, in everyday conversation we often say that we "know" something for certain. Because in everyday lingo "knowledge" of something doesn't require 100 % confidence but something approximating that. So I can say that I know I am alive. That I know the Earth is round. That I know what the name of my grandfather is, despite there being a theoretical probability that I am wrong on all accounts. No one would disparage me for jumping to conclusions on these things despite that the confidence is less than exactly 100 % in each case. It is just accepted that when there is no reason to assume otherwise, when all evidence points in one direction, when it doesn't contradict our understanding of the universe and its laws, we can accept that we talk as if it is mathematically proven to be correct.

The same goes for god's existence. Just like I can say in everyday speak that I "know" what my grandfather's name was, I can say that I "know" that gods don't exist. The confidence in both cases approximates 100 %, it is inline with all we know about the universe, there are no credible evidence contradicting it, and there is n supporting evidence. And just like people don't arrest me for saying that I know what my grandfather was named, no one should arrest me for being an atheist and not an agnostic. It feels just as absurd to me to say that I "believe" I know what my grandfather's name was as it is to say I "believe" there are no gods, or that I am agnostic about either. 

If we can accept some leeway about when we use the term "I know" then we should accept that it is also used about god's existence.

Do you believe that there is a "possibility" of a "Higher Power"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

When I look at my son's eyes, when I see the intricacy of flowers, when I am humbled by mountains and the beauty of the sea,  when I stare at the clouds by day and am silenced by the stars at night,  when I look at the moon and gaze down on my palm, looking at every intricate detail...

So basically you are ignorant about how all these things could exist without god. Okay.

26 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The origins of DNA?  

Abiogenesis.

26 minutes ago, action said:

I would certainly like to hear that explanation

Go to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×