soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 12 hours ago, Oldest Goat said: What's been misunderstood? Really? The many things you've been corrected about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 ...god personally writing the Bible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 7 hours ago, SoulMonster said: My primary dislike is due to it being based on a belief in a supernatural creature. Secondary, all the shitty things it has led to. The only Creature in Christianity is Jesus, fully human and fully divine. So only the flesh - the human- could be considered a Creature. And you outline a critique of belief where in your presuppositions on what god is are based on your human understandings. So on one hand the human being SoulMonster has a sharp intellect, but the human Jesus is dismissed as a "Creature." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said: @soon so I'm not wrong about many things, just this ^^^? Believe me, I do not think 'God' can even read let alone write a book - because it(talking specifically about the Christian God) doesn't exist...it's all made up! I was making that point and the information DD provided supports that point; all the evidence shows it was written by men - not God. Apparently this is not news and you both completely agree! Astounding. "Of course the word of God and what we consider holy is actually all just cobbled together by a bunch of dudes, you stupid ignorant!" Fuck me. I assumed religious people must think it is God's words because how the fuck could you possibly think that holds any weight at all? Im not interested in rehashing things. I do find it odd that you claim to not recall things in the last few days. - Christians love the crucifix - Christians find Chrsits suffering beautiful You can feel free to re-read them all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said: I explained why I said and think that. Yes, it has all been discussed. thats true. Having an explanation doesn't make something correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said: You not agreeing doesn't make me wrong/a disgusting ignorant! You were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 hours ago, soon said: The only Creature in Christianity is Jesus, fully human and fully divine. So only the flesh - the human- could be considered a Creature. And you outline a critique of belief where in your presuppositions on what god is are based on your human understandings. So on one hand the human being SoulMonster has a sharp intellect, but the human Jesus is dismissed as a "Creature." I was talking about the christian god. I can rephrase it to "belief in a supernatural entity". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said: I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson but his argument is weak, at best. He clearly states that Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. Then goes on to argue that 25% of the Nobel Peace Prize winners have been Jews but only 0.5% have been Muslim...and essentially blames that on religion. Well, anyone with any sense would ask if Jews and Muslims believe in the same God, then why is there such a discrepancy with their involvement in the maths and sciences? The obvious reasons are cultural/socioeconomic based not just religion based. He also fails to state what % of the other 75% were Christians....and it's safe to assume that the majority of the rest of the Nobel Peace Prize winners were probably Christians. One of the worst arguments I've ever seen against religion. So yeah, totally blew my mind. Edited January 13, 2018 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Oldest Goat said: You've completely missed the point. He was saying that humanity left to the rule of religion, like in the middle east, is wasted. It is pissing in the wind. Progress is only made when that shit takes a back seat/is ignored and reason and science overrides it. I completely understood the point he was trying to make. His point is utter bullshit being that the vast majority of Nobel Peace Price winners were either Jewish or Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I was talking about the christian god. I can rephrase it to "belief in a supernatural entity". Okay, thats fair. Why does that bother? And is God supernatural in that he can interact with nature in a way that you cant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said: No. Those scientists who happen to be Jewish or Christian do not make their advancements and discoveries because of their religious beliefs. They put them aside and operate by the rules of reason and scientific method. This is largely not the case in the middle east, which is dominated by their religious belief - and achieves fuck-all. But before religion took over, they too were blossoming. So all the scientists that won the Nobel Prize became temporarily atheist in order to win the Nobel Prize? Because science and religion are incompatible, right? Some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians throughout history have been highly religious and spiritual people. The claim that science is incompatible with religion is nothing but ridiculous, atheistic drivel. As far as the middle east goes....I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the region has been ruled by ruthless dictators, some of which disallowed religious belief entirely, for the majority of the past 1000 years? Nope...nothing to do with that....it's all because of religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, soon said: Okay, thats fair. Why does that bother? And is God supernatural in that he can interact with nature in a way that you cant? Most theists believe in a supernatural god (or gods) who actually interferes with his (her/their) creation, e.g. affect the physical world. They believe in this despite a complete lack of evidence for any such godly interaction with the material world. I find that highly irrational. And when you accept that supernatural entities exist, and can affect the material world, there is a very little step to accept other supernatural theories. Basically, it dumbs down humanity. I prefer theists who believe in a god who created the world but hasn't interfered with it since then. But that is also an irrational belief since we have no reason to assume it all started with something supernatural (the, on the other hand, how can the immediate time after Big Bang, or even "before) be talked about in the sense of what is natural or not? :)) So my main gripe with theism is this inherent anti-intellectuality of it. This irrational belief that lies at the center of it. The rest, the nature of the god(s), any laws they put on our behavior, whether the belief results in guilt, distress, happiness etc, is all just dressing and can be both good and bad depending upon the religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: So all the scientists that won the Nobel Prize became temporarily atheist in order to win the Nobel Prize? Because science and religion are incompatible, right? Some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians throughout history have been highly religious and spiritual people. The claim that science is incompatible with religion is nothing but ridiculous, atheistic drivel. As far as the middle east goes....I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the region has been ruled by ruthless dictators, some of which disallowed religious belief entirely, for the majority of the past 1000 years? Nope...nothing to do with that....it's all because of religion. They multi-task. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said: 1. Never said they became atheists. I said they put their beliefs aside because it has nothing to do with the scientific method. 2. I guess the short answer is; religion is not compatible with science because religion is anti-scientific nonsense. But of course there has been and will be scientists who are religious. I don't mind what people personally believe as long as they don't try peddling it as equal to or more important than logic and reason and the scientific method or compassion. 3. Never said it's nothing to do with politics and war or all because of religion. But it's clearly a large part of it. 1. I assure you they did not put their beliefs aside. It's not that difficult to believe in God and believe in science and math. Trust me. 2. The two are obviously compatible or else every scientist and mathematician in the world would be an atheist. 3. I would tend to agree that radical religious beliefs play a part. But the bigger issues, as I previously stated, are cultural/socioeconomic based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said: 1. Do you think religious dogmatic beliefs are part of the scientific method? Because they aren't. I'm not saying they stopped being religious. 2. No. They are not compatible. They just flip flop between their irrationality and their rationality. Like all humans do, religious or not. 3. I guess you could try arguing that. 1. My personal beliefs are much more complex (and simple) but yes, I think that it's compatible....and most of it is beyond our current level of human comprehension. 2. I don't really think it's "sane" to think rationally one second then irrationally the next. Wouldn't that be considered insane? Are you saying that all the religious folks who were scientific throughout history were insane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Most theists believe in a supernatural god (or gods) who actually interferes with his (her/their) creation, e.g. affect the physical world. They believe in this despite a complete lack of evidence for any such godly interaction with the material world. I find that highly irrational. And when you accept that supernatural entities exist, and can affect the material world, there is a very little step to accept other supernatural theories. Basically, it dumbs down humanity. I prefer theists who believe in a god who created the world but hasn't interfered with it since then. But that is also an irrational belief since we have no reason to assume it all started with something supernatural (the, on the other hand, how can the immediate time after Big Bang, or even "before) be talked about in the sense of what is natural or not? :)) So my main gripe with theism is this inherent anti-intellectuality of it. This irrational belief that lies at the center of it. The rest, the nature of the god(s), any laws they put on our behavior, whether the belief results in guilt, distress, happiness etc, is all just dressing and can be both good and bad depending upon the religion. I believe in the notion of a sovereign God who not only interacts with the world, but invaded it with Jesus, leaving the Sprit behind. Karl Barth was a leading theologian of the 20th century with influence reaching through out Christianity. The criticism he brought forward was the God was unknowable to the human mind and should stop being squeezed in to a comfortable shape for human consumption. Only in Christ and the Spirit could one begin to understand the nature of the mystery of God. That perhaps "supernatural" was a world that fell short to really engage the subject mater. From an essay on his work: Barth makes it explicit from the beginning that God is the unknowable and indescribable God. The hidden God remains hidden. Even when we say we know him our knowledge is of an imcomprehensible Reality. Consider, for instance, the personality of God. Barth writes: “God is personal, but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality. Barth also contends that even through the knowledge which comes by faith, than which “no more objective and strict form of knowledge can lay claim more definitely to universal validity,”†9 no full knowledge comes to us. Even when God reveals himself to the man of faith, or, more accurately, to the man to whom he gives faith, still that man with faith “will confess God as the God of majesty and therefore as the God unknown to us.”‡10 Man as man can never know God: His wishing, seeking, and striving are all in vain. In order to understand Barth at this point it is necessary to understand his objectivism. The absolutely objective, the transcendental (Kant) cannot be reached by man. It can only be reached in actus and such actus Barth finds in Scripture and pre-eminently in Christ and the Holy Spirit. And yet, as stated above, even in his revelation of himself God is ontlogically unknown and unknowable.12 On Romans 1:19, 20, Barth says: We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge. The Epistle to the Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God chooses to come to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for he is ever the unknown God. In manifesting himself to man he is farther away than before. The more we know of God the more he is yet to be known: The revelation in Jesus, just because it is the revelation of the righteousness of God is at the same time the strongest conceivable veiling and unknowableness of God. In Jesus, God really becomes a mystery, makes himself known as the unknown, speaks as the eternally Silent One. http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/karl_barths_conception_of_god/index.html I know this only speaks to a sliver of what you've put forward, but not risking to go even longer, Ill just respond to this aspect in this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said: 1. What do you mean by you think it's compatible? I'm talking about the scientific method. *KK imagines scientists who happen to be religious operating a typical chemistry lab* "I need you to check the PH levels of the - " "Hang on! Is that what Jesus would do? Let's wait until the pot plant catches on fire to find out." If you think that and can't see that they'd be focused solely on their work and not on their personal religious beliefs that have nothing to do with science; then yes that's insane. 2. I don't really think it's sane either. It's not. But people are complicated/convoluted, I guess. We could argue everyone's insane. 1. Christian beliefs are simple. As long as the scientific procedure doesn't directly conflict with a Christian belief, it's fine. Not so sure why that's hard to understand? 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 I'm not opposed to the idea of a universal creator, but can't accept the idea of an 'interfering God'. But I find all religions and beliefs, including my own, to be equally ridiculous, so I honestly don't care what anyone believes as long as it isn't detrimental to others. I guess I'd be classed as athiest or agnostic, because my foremost belief is that I can't have all the answers I want, and even if I could, I might not grasp them, but I accept some general things from religions too. Perception is a funny thing, and psychedelics have played a decent role in how I view the ideas of a soul, gods, reincarnation, and have honestly just made me comfortable with whatever sort of 'spirituality' I might have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 46 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: 1. Christian beliefs are simple. As long as the scientific procedure doesn't directly conflict with a Christian belief, it's fine. Like evolution which is the basis of modern biology you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Dazey said: Like evolution which is the basis of modern biology you mean? I was taught evolution pretty much the entire time (14 years) I spent in private Catholic School. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Kasanova King said: I was taught evolution pretty much the entire time (14 years) I spent in private Catholic School. Yeah but you can’t say it’s compatible with biblical teachings. It’s in direct contradiction to the creation myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Dazey said: Yeah but you can’t say it’s compatible with biblical teachings. It’s in direct contradiction to the creation myth. It's based on interpretation. Catholic interpretation allows/is compatible with evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Kasanova King said: It's based on interpretation. Catholic interpretation allows/is compatible with evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church Ah, the making it up as you go along argument then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Dazey said: Ah, the making it up as you go along argument then? Nah, not really. I think in time, there will be even more correlations between the Bible and Science...as we begin to discover/understand multiple universes, higher/multiple dimensions, string theory, quantum physics, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 16 hours ago, soon said: I believe in the notion of a sovereign God who not only interacts with the world, but invaded it with Jesus, leaving the Sprit behind. Karl Barth was a leading theologian of the 20th century with influence reaching through out Christianity. The criticism he brought forward was the God was unknowable to the human mind and should stop being squeezed in to a comfortable shape for human consumption. Only in Christ and the Spirit could one begin to understand the nature of the mystery of God. That perhaps "supernatural" was a world that fell short to really engage the subject mater. I have no problems with the notion that "god" is not understandable for us mere humans. But regardless, if this god interacts with his creation, then this interaction should be observable by us humans, e.g. through distinct miracles or respons to prayers, etc, even if we cannot fathom anything about the god's motives or nature. If no such godly interaction is observed, and we humans observe the world in extreme detail these days, then the most likely explanation is that no such interaction is taking place. Sure, one could argue that "god" obfuscates his interactions, and acts in ways that are not detectable, but I would then argue that such a god is indistinguishable from a world without that god, and even more, that a belief in or rather worship of such a god is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.