Support NeoGAF

[Hulk_Smash]

Your god didn’t kill anyone because he doesn’t exist. People killed people in his name because they thought they were morally justified.

I wish more atheists thought this way. Atheists or agnostics that talk about how God is an immoral being. Really? You DO believe he’s real then. Good. That’s a start.

If you’re not going to believe then extend that logic all the way. Don’t have a personal opinion about something you don’t believe exists.

 

[Airola]

You are misrepresenting what I said, I never made the assumption that small things are less significant. I merely contrasted the overly important religious self-image of man to the realities of scale in order to demonstrate the fact that religions are vastly overemphasizing mankind's position in the greater scheme of things.

"Greater scheme of things" sounds as if you are claiming our size and location should have lesser meaning when compared to the size and location of everything else.

What if we actually are the only living beings in the whole universe that can have the amount of knowledge of space that we currently have? Wouldn't that make us really special at the very least in the context of experience and self-realization?
Currently there is zero evidence of others like us living in this universe. Hell, we don't even have evidence of any other living beings in this universe than what lives in this planet. That's not to say there aren't any others out there, but it kinda makes your hard evidence-bound claims about God's non-existence weird when you are at the same breath claiming things about alien species (and even calling God's creation absurd because of the space between us and the aliens) and using stuff like that to make claims of our unimportance in this so-called "greater scheme of things" (while this greater scheme of things is ultimately just your own personal thought about what a greater scheme might be).

An atom at the deepest part in the ocean is probably an important atom for a lot of things it directly and indirectly is involved with. Us being in scale something more comparable to another galaxy in space doesn't make this atom any less important than it was without the knowledge of us, more complex things walking around in the surface. We are like that atom in that ocean when we look at the space. But the difference between us and the atom is that we are actually realizing our existence and being able to study space and able to have deep existential and philosophical and super abstract thoughts. Especially if there was a God, how wouldn't our existence be important regardless of our size and location in space? I think our current form in existence makes us really interesting and important even if there wasn't a god no matter what the "greater scheme of things" might be.

When I look at that one picture where this planet is shown as an extremely small dot and there is some text that says something like "this little dot is where all human emotions and wars have happened" or whatever, it doesn't make me think how insignificant we are in the greater scheme of things, but it actually makes me give even more importance to that small little dot and even more importance to the self-aware individuals in that small little dot.

 

[Pagusas]

Reading the OP really puts in to perspective just how crazy the idea of all this sounds.


An all powerful being, that can create anything, decides to create a son, send him to earth, and have him die, so sins can be forgiven (forgiven by whom we ask? Oh, just the same God we were just speaking of). And no one religious looks at that and says “what the heck?”

 

[strange headache]

Deficient human being? So you are disappointed that we are not supermen. You would rather blame God for our "faults" than, for example, use them to grow as persons?

I'm not disappointed, merely pointing out the fact that if humans were designed, they can only be considered a faulty product. If we assume god created us humans, then yes, of course I can fault him. If you buy a broken product, you'd take it up with the manufacturer too. Also there's plenty of biological faults that certainly add nothing of value, or how exactly is Alzheimer's supposed to "make you grow as a person"?

First of all, you don't know how much of that "unstableness" actually is something that doesn't have any reason or meaning to anything.

Ah it's the old "god works in mysterious ways" argument, brought up every time believers find themselves in an argumentative pickle. You want me to accept your god's word? Then I'm sorry to say that you need to come up with a better argument.

Considering that God is not bound to the universe, and our souls aren't either, what's so inherently bad or wrong in having an universe that ends up being ultimately destroyed?

If your soul is so eternal, then why not ascend to heaven right away? There's nothing inherently "bad" with the universe being unstable, it's just another example of a faulty design.

You also don't know how much of that "empty space" and "dead" planets is just something that has no meaning to anything instead of being a part of something like an unbelievable huge mechanical clock that not only allows us to physically interact with our physical computers to talk with each other but also might contain things that allow our possible souls and possible God be connected.

???

What if some animals were needed for some certain things in some certain time for something certain to happen at later times?

I feel like your reply lacks a "certain" precision.

What if it's ultimately better to have certain animals be alive at a certain time but not in another time? What if it's better for some certain species that the other species aren't around here any longer? Why is extinction a bad thing, especially in a reality where God exists? It seems as if you are wondering about the non-existing species being unnecessary only because they aren't alive now when you are. It seems as if you think their existence back in the day was completely unnecessary. Why do you think like that?

Are you, gasp, making the case for... wait for it... natural selection and evolution? Nah, that certainly can't be, the world has been created by design amirite?

You are choosing this particular group of people because controversial political reasons.

No, I am choosing this group because it's a valid argument. You certainly don't get to brush it aside like that.

There are plenty of people who have been shunned by both religion and God since the very beginning. We all have something that does not please God at all.

Ah yes, I'm sorry, I forgot to add "intolerant" to the list of divine faults.

Religion shuns adulterers too, yet a huge amount of people have almost overbearingly strong libido and the will to see others as sexual objects. Why God created them if they are "only to be shunned by religion."

Yeah, why? I'm not the one defending the existence of a divine creator, so the onus is on you to explain this to me.

You might want to say that now from today's world's perspective. That doesn't mean they actually were lesser back then, especially from God's cosmic point of view.

No? Then why was Eva created from Adam's rib? Why are women not allowed to become priests? Why were they not allowed to study like the rest of the clergy? Why is the Bible full of discriminatory bullcrap such as this one?

I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be quiet. - Timothy 2:12

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. - Ephesians 5:22-24

Could have fooled me there.

I believe this is actually one of the reasons God doesn't come in front of you and say "hi, I'm God."

Oh so he's also a coward. I'm sure such an almighty being has nothing to fear from a lowly mortal being such as myself.

He knows your current stance towards him. Maybe he also knows that if you get enough time to think, you might eventually change your views toward him. If he would show up right now, there would be and unbelievable huge amount of previous atheists who would only get harder against God because now they would have a concrete object to throw their accusations towards. For someone to get to appreciate God it has to come from the heart first and foremost. If your heart is already dissing God, you will be dissing God when you meet him too. He's not going to force you to join him. You would be against him probably for good then. If there ever is a chance that you, and so many other atheists, would end up loving him, it most probably can't happen in a way that lets you meet him with what your heart feels about him at this very moment. That would probably only be the end of your possibilities to ever join him and the last moment that makes you willingly be departed from him forever.

Stop proselytizing. He has apparently shown himself plenty of times in the past, there's really no reason not to. Don't give me that silly "he's waiting for you" bullcrap. "Hurr, durr he's not showing himself because of them darn atheists" is such a convenient way to circumvent the argument.

Atheists often say why doesn't God just show himself and prove he exists. When pressed, the same people would say they would hate him nevertheless if he showed up. Some of the more edgier atheists I've even heard say they'd try to kill God. So what's the point? Unless, of course, they can be given more time to think it through and let their hearts become more accepting of him, if there ever would even be a chance for it.

Oh we are still going on about this? I thought we were having a discussion, you know, with arguments and stuff. Not this pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea. I certainly don't need him to "change my heart", as the best way to win me over would be through reason and argument. In other words, I'd just want to have a serious conversation with your biblical god, because his followers certainly are doing a horrible job representing him.

When I look at that one picture where this planet is shown as an extremely small dot and there is some text that says something like "this little dot is where all human emotions and wars have happened" or whatever, it doesn't make me think how insignificant we are in the greater scheme of things, but it actually makes me give even more importance to that small little dot and even more importance to the self-aware individuals in that small little dot.

Considering that the Church was busy burning intellectuals and scientists at the stake for merely entertaining the idea that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, simply because it would make god's creation less important, I find your insight to be a couple of hundred years too late.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

He no longer died for anyones sins because he undid it all, flesh or not does not play into it.

I think it does. Flesh is weak. Christ lived in flesh and still didn’t sin. I don’t believe Adam and Eve were as we are from the beginning. I believe their flesh was different before becoming corrupt and the fig leaves are representative of that.

 

[Relativ9]

It's all rather easily summerized in the famous Epicurus' trilemma:

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

You don't have to talk about all the horrible shit he actively does, the dilemma above is reason enough not to believe in God.

 

[Airola]

I'm not disappointed, merely pointing out the fact that if humans were designed, they can only be considered a faulty product. If we assume god created us humans, then yes, of course I can fault him. If you buy a broken product, you'd take it up with the manufacturer too. Also there's plenty of biological faults that certainly add nothing of value, or how exactly is Alzheimer's supposed to "make you grow as a person"?

I don't mean that just the persons who are "faulty" would grow, but people around them too. A person with Down Syndrome might not even realize his or her condition or that that would help grow in any way, but people around that person are a completely different matter.

Ah it's the old "god works in mysterious ways" argument, brought up every time believers find themselves in an argumentative pickle. You want me to accept your god's word? Then I'm sorry to say that you need to come up with a better argument.

Your later "???" reply shows you don't know what I'm talking about. For almost ALL of the time humans have existed they have not known much about space at all. I'm not making any "god works in mysterious ways", I'm talking about the facts. And the facts are that what little did people know about space first thousands of years ago, and the a bit more hundreds of years ago and now a lot more, yet not even nearly enough to understand the whole thing, the space has been pretty much the same in the general sense. You don't have a clue about how this planet and us in it would work if some other galaxy didn't exist out there or that if there weren't the possibility for planets to "die" or if any of what space right now is wouldn't exist. You see things as unstable from your perspective that is based on what little we have been able to find when studying space. The fact just is that we don't have any evidence that whatever unstableness you might find on space wouldn't be necessary for us to exist here.

If your soul is so eternal, then why not ascend to heaven right away? There's nothing inherently "bad" with the universe being unstable, it's just another example of a faulty design.

I can't ascend to heaven. Should I be able to ascend? If we have souls, should everyone be able to ascend to heaven on their will? Why? To me this is one example of being disappointed that we are not those supermen we hope we could be. You see disadvantages as inherent faults in humans and you blame the idea of God for them.

???

It's no wonder you jumped in with the "lol, you say god works in mysterious ways" claim as you didn't understand what I said there.

I feel like your reply lacks a "certain" precision.

You base your claims on assumptions that things that existed in the past didn't matter especially in the context of God. That reply of mine had just as much precision than what yours have had.

Are you, gasp, making the case for... wait for it... natural selection and evolution? Nah, that certainly can't be, the world has been created by design amirite?

How are those things mutually exclusive? You think one can't belive in both intelligent design and evolution? If so, you should read more current theology. You are way behind the times.

No, I am choosing this group because it's a valid argument. You certainly don't get to brush it aside like that.

Yes, it's just as valid as using any other property we have that God and/or religion doesn't like. Obviously talking about those other ones don't offer enough controversial gravity in modern world than homosexuality so if you want to paint God and religion as evil things you would choose something that has more PR value for your cause.

Ah yes, I'm sorry, I forgot to add "intolerant" to the list of divine faults.

Why shouldn't God or religion be intolerant?
Everyone is intolerant of something. And everyone is tolerant of something that others think isn't good.

While we might argue what is good and bad tolerance and good and bad intolerance from our personal perspectives, when we are taking God in context things change quite a bit.

Yeah, why? I'm not the one defending the existence of a divine creator, so the onus is on you to explain this to me.

To me that question has never been a real problem as I haven't felt the need to blame someone else from whatever I personally choose to do with the cards I've been given.
God says no to something. We say yes and want to lay the blame on the opportunity and cravings. The whole ordeal with the snake in the garden of Eden deals with this way of thinking.

God says don't eat the apple. Snake comes and says lol, God lies and both presents the apple as something wonderful and presents an opportunity to go for the apple.
Eve takes it, presents it to Adam, they both eat it. When questioned by God, Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the Snake. No-one in that chain of events wants to take responsibility but they would rather blame on something else than their own will.

If we ought to be perfect in any way, why shouldn't we then have different obstacles we have to overcome? Us having sets of cravings for bad things in God's perspective is not a bad thing in itself. I don't think there are people who have all the possible cravings in their psyche, but we all have more or less different sets of weaknesses or properties that may or may not make some obstacles exist and some existing obstacles be higher than they are for others.

No? Then why was Eva created from Adam's rib? Why are women not allowed to become priests? Why were they not allowed to study like the rest of the clergy? Why is the Bible full of discriminatory bullcrap such as this one?

Does Eve coming from Adam's rib (in either literal or metaphorical sense) make women lesser persons in general?

Why not female priests? Maybe men fit for the position better than women.

Could have fooled me there.

Yeah, the sacred bond of marriage and how the wife and the husband are aligned in it tells how women in general are lesser than men.

Oh so he's also a coward. I'm sure such an almighty being has nothing to fear from a lowly mortal being such as myself.

Lol at you taking it as it being about God being afraid of your judgment.

It's not that he is afraid of YOU.
It's that he is afraid of you being departed from him forever.
Well, "afraid" is the wrong word to use even there, but I hope you get the point.

Stop proselytizing. He has apparently shown himself plenty of times in the past, there's really no reason not to. Don't give me that silly "he's waiting for you" bullcrap. "Hurr, durr he's not showing himself because of them darn atheists" is such a convenient way to circumvent the argument.

Yeah, you definitely don't get it.

Haven't you noticed that pretty damn often when he shows himself to someone (not counting as showing as Jesus - Sax would deny that anyway) it's a person who doesn't have that much vitriol towards him. The people he shows to haven't set their hearts completely against him.

By the way, your "hurr durr" comments are wildly inconsitent with your initial thoughtful posts in this thread.

Oh we are still going on about this? I thought we were having a discussion, you know, with arguments and stuff. Not this pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea.

"Still going on about this"?

As far as I know this is the first time you reply to me in this thread.
I'm sorry I'm not able to change my course while you are reading a post of mine and while you are replying to it for the first time.

I certainly don't need him to "change my heart", as the best way to win me over would be through reason and argument. In other words, I'd just want to have a serious conversation with your biblical god, because his followers certainly are doing a horrible job representing him.

Sure, I don't doubt you believe that.

And I didn't say you need him to change your heart. I said he's waiting and hoping for you to change your heart.

If Christianity is true and God is real, you are going to meet him eventually so you might get what you wish for. Not sure you can change your heart anymore then though. And even if you can, it might be you won't. I'm quite positive you already think you won't. The world has been full of death and destruction forever.

People have been able to know that and live with that for ages and still respect God. People have thought about "the problem of evil" awfully lot of time too, yet they've been able to respect God. It could very well be that whatever God would tell you in your meeting you wouldn't accept it because you have set your mind that death, disadvantages and suffering are inherently bad things without a single ounce of positive outcomes to them.

Considering that the Church was busy burning intellectuals and scientists at the stake for merely entertaining the idea that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, simply because it would make god's creation less important, I find your insight to be a couple of hundred years too late.

Yeah, I wasn't a member of Catholic church in the middle ages and I'm not a member of it today. My insight has got nothing to do with whatever some insecure Catholic priest thought about things just as you don't have anything to do with the scientists who have used their knowledge to bring death and destruction to the world either.

Besides, on the other hand it was a Jesuit priest who first came up with the concept of Big Bang and Mendel was a monk too.

 

[strange headache]

I don't mean that just the persons who are "faulty" would grow, but people around them too. A person with Down Syndrome might not even realize his or her condition or that that would help grow in any way, but people around that person are a completely different matter.

Oh now it's suddenly the people around us, shifting goalposts again. So all these horrible diseases and biological faults exists only so that we can "grow" as a person, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's almost as if there aren't a myriad of other ways to develop, no it must be terrible afflictions. Not to mention the fact that bringing a terrible disease upon a person for the benefit of others, seems not only terribly misguided but also rather utilitarian, which runs contrary to the deontological approach of christian ethics. I'm not denying that misery can be a valuable teacher, but "other people suffer so that we can be better" isn't a very workable solution.

Your later "???" reply shows you don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry but there's just nothing to reply to that incoherent word salad. I've tried to extract whatever little meaning it tried to convey but honoring it with a reply would elevate that jumbled mess to something ti doesn't deserve.

For almost ALL of the time humans have existed they have not known much about space at all. I'm not making any "god works in mysterious ways", I'm talking about the facts. And the facts are that what little did people know about space first thousands of years ago, and the a bit more hundreds of years ago and now a lot more, yet not even nearly enough to understand the whole thing, the space has been pretty much the same in the general sense.

Indeed and the more we found out about the mysteries of space, time and the fabric of reality the less important religion became because their mythological explications were quite evidently insufficient. Religion is a poor substitute for the things that we have not managed to explain as evidenced by the advancement of science and religion's attempts at halting the progress of knowledge.

You see things as unstable from your perspective that is based on what little we have been able to find when studying space. The fact just is that we don't have any evidence that whatever unstableness you might find on space wouldn't be necessary for us to exist here.

The universe suffering death by entropy is not speculation, so by definition it is not a stable solution as it will inevitably come to an end.

You see disadvantages as inherent faults in humans and you blame the idea of God for them.

No, I see disadvantages as proof that god's creation is faulty, hence why the argument from design must be irrevocably refuted.

It's no wonder you jumped in with the "lol, you say god works in mysterious ways" claim as you didn't understand what I said there.

What? It's quite literally what you said:

First of all, you don't know how much of that "unstableness" actually is something that doesn't have any reason or meaning to anything.

You accuse me of not finding meaning due to my lack of knowledge and understanding, which is what the adage "god works in mysterious ways" is all about.

How are those things mutually exclusive? You think one can't belive in both intelligent design and evolution? If so, you should read more current theology.

The theory of evolution is the antithesis to intelligent design, hence why so many believers are so vehemently opposed to it. But hey, I'm glad that we seem to be making progress getting through that thick dogmatic shield against reason and scientific inquiry. Seems to me as if agnostic and atheist debate is bearing fruit after all. Now if you would be so inclined and pass the message on to your numerous brethren who still think the Earth is 5.000 years old, that humans lived together with dinosaurs and that creationism must be taught at schools, I'd be much obliged.

You are way behind the times.

That's a juicy statement, considering the fact that "current theology" is always a couple of hundred years behind the curve.

Yes, it's just as valid as using any other property we have that God and/or religion doesn't like. Obviously talking about those other ones don't offer enough controversial gravity in modern world than homosexuality so if you want to paint God and religion as evil things you would choose something that has more PR value for your cause.

I have been criticizing faith based homophobia long before the current political climate. So how about you offer me an actual counter-argument instead of engaging in baseless whataboutism that's merely tangential to the argument at hand. Your desperate attempt at shifting the discussion into this direction is merely reinforcing my assumption that you have very little to offer to counter what I said on an argumentative basis.

Why shouldn't God or religion be intolerant? Everyone is intolerant of something. And everyone is tolerant of something that others think isn't good.

Being intolerant of same-sex relationships, the heliocentric worldview, the theory of evolution, men and women being equal and other religions or agnostic views is a good thing now?

While we might argue what is good and bad tolerance and good and bad intolerance from our personal perspectives, when we are taking God in context things change quite a bit.

Nah, seems more as if religious bigots are hiding behind god in order to engage in their intolerant, superstitious and obsolete views. Case in point, the person who started this very topic.

To me that question has never been a real problem as I haven't felt the need to blame someone else from whatever I personally choose to do with the cards I've been given.

Me neither, hence why I don't believe in god. Contrary to the myriad of believers who regard tragedy as a punishment from god.

Does Eve coming from Adam's rib (in either literal or metaphorical sense) make women lesser persons in general?

No, but its the metaphorical meaning of that specific passage.

Why not female priests? Maybe men fit for the position better than women.

Please, make my day, give me one single reason why women can't be priests.

Yeah, the sacred bond of marriage and how the wife and the husband are aligned in it tells how women in general are lesser than men.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you defending these Bible quotes by implying that "women are lesser than men" through marriage? Here, let me quote this again:

I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be quiet. - Timothy 2:12 // Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. - Ephesians 5:22-24

Be precise, are you defending this?

It's not that he is afraid of YOU. It's that he is afraid of you being departed from him forever. Well, "afraid" is the wrong word to use even there, but I hope you get the point.

I'd say that I couldn't be departed any further than I currently am. So what's he got to lose? Also, why is an omnipotent being so obsessed with being popular and well liked? I've seen high-school girls with more confidence than that.

Haven't you noticed that pretty damn often when he shows himself to someone (not counting as showing as Jesus - Sax would deny that anyway) it's a person who doesn't have that much vitriol towards him. The people he shows to haven't set their hearts completely against him.

Is he that much of a coward that he can't show himself towards somebody who's skeptical? If he's all-knowing, it wouldn't be much of a problem convincing a non-believer of his ways. You know, because he's all-knowing, so he's already got a pretty huge advantage. Or are you implying that he's so impotent that he can't even convince a non-believer through reason? Notwithstanding the fact that if he showed himself, a lot of the initial doubt would already be cast aside. Makes no sense.

By the way, your "hurr durr" comments are wildly inconsitent with your initial thoughtful posts in this thread.

Sometimes I like to fight fire with fire. I admit, it's a fault of mine, but I guess god created me like that. So you might wanna take it up with him.

And I didn't say you need him to change your heart. I said he's waiting and hoping for you to change your heart.

Seems awfully convenient. In order to be convinced of his divine glory I first need to convince myself before I even get the chance to have a reasonable debate about all this. If you think kafkatrapping is the path to faith, you're awfully mistaken.

People have been able to know that and live with that for ages and still respect God. People have thought about "the problem of evil" awfully lot of time too, yet they've been able to respect God.

If the faith in god is one of the prime causes for much of the pain and suffering in the world, it's pretty hard to "respect god".

Yeah, I wasn't a member of Catholic church in the middle ages and I'm not a member of it today. My insight has got nothing to do with whatever some insecure Catholic priest thought about things just as you don't have anything to do with the scientists who have used their knowledge to bring death and destruction to the world either.

By all means, go ahead and criticize all you want. Scientific knowledge can always abused for nefarious reasons, so expressing your reasoned criticism is important. Considering that science is founded upon critical thinking instead of dogma, I'm pretty sure science can deal with it.

Besides, on the other hand it was a Jesuit priest who first came up with the concept of Big Bang and Mendel was a monk too.

I'd say both Lemaître and Mendel made their discoveries despite their faith. Considering that one lived in the 1920's and the other in the 1820's it's no wonder they were believers.

 

[Codes 208]

Your god didn’t kill anyone because he doesn’t exist. People killed people in his name because they thought they were morally justified.

This is also what I believe. I’m not even going to get into the rhetorics of arguing science versus beliefs but I never considered god to be hateful. I just condemn the acts of humanity for what they are not. Take the crusades for example, wars started over the idea of securing what was believed to be a holy land that ended with both sides taking casualties and there was even more than a single crusade, one was even fought with children. These aren’t acts of god, these are acts of humans in power taking advantage of their lessers.

 

[Thurible]

I'd say both Lemaître and Mendel made their discoveries despite their faith. Considering that one lived in the 1920's and the other in the 1820's it's no wonder they were believers.

I think the word we are looking for is because, not despite.

Man, I just don't get it. You seem like a very intelligent guy who can make some good arguments, but when someone mentions religion you don't seem to listen to any points and make strawmen that you try desperately to burn.

If the faith in god is one of the prime causes for much of the pain and suffering in the world, it's pretty hard to "respect god".

Really man, do you have any proof that God makes people suffer? Read many perspectives on the problem of evil, don't just parrot "God is evil because there is hunger and disease". It is a complicated issue that doesn't just have one simple answer.

Sometimes I like to fight fire with fire. I admit, it's a fault of mine, but I guess god created me like that. So you might wanna take it up with him.

This is just so rude and bad of a reply. "I'm an aggressive atheist because God made me that way, not because of my own biases". What?

I'd say that I couldn't be departed any further than I currently am. So what's he got to lose? Also, why is an omnipotent being so obsessed with being popular and well liked? I've seen high-school girls with more confidence than that.

Did you even listen to Airola when he said that God is wants to be with His children and is worried for them. You literally just made up a reason for God wanting people to know Him that has no basis in theology.

Being intolerant of same-sex relationships, the heliocentric worldview, the theory of evolution, men and women being equal and other religions or agnostic views is a good thing now?

When will you understand that religion and science don't clash. Are you really so arrogant and deadset that you will ignore basic facts that many in science (present and past) are religious and their faith has influenced the way they see the world and understand how it works. They compliment each other. Stop being obtuse. I think I have sent you a list of thousands of names in science that were and are influenced by religion before in a thread (just a tip of the iceberg btw), do you want me to send you a few again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

https://www.google.com/amp/listographic.com/top-muslim-scientists-and-their-inventions/amp

Nah, seems more as if religious bigots are hiding behind god in order to engage in their intolerant, superstitious and obsolete views. Case in point, the person who started this very topic.

Why are you so gosh dang intolerant and bigoted. You are literally calling Christians evil and stupid. How is a belief in God in any way shape or form "obsolete" "superstitous" and "intolerant". The only one acting like the way you describe here is you.

I'm angry and disappointed at you strange. I hope in the future you at least try to be tolerant of other people's beliefs and try to understand their arguments and why they hold their beliefs. God bless you.

 

[MastAndo]

I wish more atheists thought this way. Atheists or agnostics that talk about how God is an immoral being. Really? You DO believe he’s real then. Good. That’s a start.

If you’re not going to believe then extend that logic all the way. Don’t have a personal opinion about something you don’t believe exists.

I'm agnostic, and I pose similar questions to people I know who are Catholic. I'm not making the argument that "God has to be bad", I'm more asking them why it makes sense or is OK to them to accept certain things - for example, can you think of any set of conditions you would create for your own child that would lead to your eternal damnation if they are not upheld? I mean, we're supposed to be God's children, so such a thing seems a bit harsh, no? That doesn't sound anything like love to me. I just kind wrap my brain around it

...and to boot, though I'm hardly an expert in scripture, the criteria for not ending up in hell seems pretty rough. I could be wrong though, and modern Catholicism could have a new/revised take on that. Then again, most Catholics I know are extremely fair-weather and basically just believe "believe in God and be kinda nice = heaven" and "don't believe in God = hell," despite what the Bible has to say about it.

 

[Halo is Back]

Oh my what great sacrifice, he got resurrected from the dead. Wish I had the luxury to kill my one and only son only to resurrect him shortly after and sit down and have a beer like it was nothing

 

[5secondrulesucks]

no one wants a bitch as a god

 

[Halo is Back]

But the same god will deem you worthy of eternal torture in hell. Because nothing screams a good God who has the privilege to resurrect his own son while we all suffer when our loved ones die even when pray our hearts out for their survival, and the same god will send people to burn in hell with Satan for all of time. Yep! Totally good!

 

[Halo is Back]

I wish more atheists thought this way. Atheists or agnostics that talk about how God is an immoral being. Really? You DO believe he’s real then. Good. That’s a start.

If you’re not going to believe then extend that logic all the way. Don’t have a personal opinion about something you don’t believe exists.

When Atheists bring up the morality of God they are not implying the existence of god is true, just simply stating what religious people believe dose not add up with the scripture religious people use in defense. It is a very valid way to approach an argument rather than to simply dismiss anything they as BS with 100% confidence.

 

[Yoshi]

I thought part of the flood story was God realizing he went too far and giving the rainbow as a sign he wouldn't do that again. So God did change a little there.

He did that absurd act of genocide and then afterwards:
(*) Killed innocent children (among many other cruel acts) in Egypt because of not liking the behaviour of the pharaoe
(*) ... that is, despite making the pharaoe act like this deliberately
(*) ordered the full extinction of tribes while conquering what was to become Israel
(*) ordered the killing of someone for working on sabbath
(*) let Satan torture his most loyal follower to demonstrate how loyal said follower is. This includeds, again, the killing of innocent people
(*) orders the death penalty for homosexual sex
(*) orders the slaughtering and burning of animals to appease him and for his olfactorial pleasure
(*) outrules picking partners from different tribes
(*) sends his son to be killed in order to atone for other people's sins... towards himself. This is pure curelty, because he could just choose to firgive people's sins without having his son tortured and killed

This character obviously is an arrogant, hateful, vicious and disrespectful being. The act with his own son that AngularSaxophone is citing is just another one in an enormous list of dispicible inhumane acts.

 

[Papa]

no one wants a bitch as a god

Your mum is my god

 

[Yoshi]

It's all rather easily summerized in the famous Epicurus' trilemma:

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

You don't have to talk about all the horrible shit he actively does, the dilemma above is reason enough not to believe in God.

This dilemma is only a marginal one, though, because yes, it shows that not all three, god is all-powerful, all-good and exists are possible to coincide, but the valuation that he is all-good is his own even in the bible, so you could still believe in his existence and just acknowledge that the all-good property is a bit of a stretch. Maybe also the all-powerful one.

 

[llien]

Your god didn’t kill anyone because he doesn’t exist.

Or she. Chuckle.

Your mum is my god

The way my Indian friends explained it to may, god can be anywhere, so you can pray to anything (perhaps anyone too?), including, say, your notebook.

This character obviously is an arrogant, hateful, vicious and disrespectful being.

That's easy.
It's just we cannot comprehend his plan.
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

 

[Airola]

Oh now it's suddenly the people around us, shifting goalposts again. So all these horrible diseases and biological faults exists only so that we can "grow" as a person, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's almost as if there aren't a myriad of other ways to develop, no it must be terrible afflictions. Not to mention the fact that bringing a terrible disease upon a person for the benefit of others, seems not only terribly misguided but also rather utilitarian, which runs contrary to the deontological approach of christian ethics. I'm not denying that misery can be a valuable teacher, but "other people suffer so that we can be better" isn't a very workable solution.

Where did I say diseases exist only so that we can grow?
If you want to blame me for "shifting goalposts" try not to throw strawmen around to prove your point the next time.

I'm sorry but there's just nothing to reply to that incoherent word salad. I've tried to extract whatever little meaning it tried to convey but honoring it with a reply would elevate that jumbled mess to something ti doesn't deserve.

Great argument, bro.

Indeed and the more we found out about the mysteries of space, time and the fabric of reality the less important religion became because their mythological explications were quite evidently insufficient. Religion is a poor substitute for the things that we have not managed to explain as evidenced by the advancement of science and religion's attempts at halting the progress of knowledge.

The only thing these space studies can debunk is any notion of God living as some physical being right above the sky.

The universe suffering death by entropy is not speculation, so by definition it is not a stable solution as it will inevitably come to an end.

You can see many verses in the Bible talking about everything eventually ending. In fact atheists used to laugh at believers saying everything had a beginning and everything will end. Turns out believers were right. And now that's used against them for some reason.

No, I see disadvantages as proof that god's creation is faulty, hence why the argument from design must be irrevocably refuted.

Yes, faulty by your standards.

What? It's quite literally what you said:



You accuse me of not finding meaning due to my lack of knowledge and understanding, which is what the adage "god works in mysterious ways" is all about.

So you then know that for example another galaxy isn't part of a full complex "mechanical clock" type of system? And you know the empty space is truly empty and meaningless in the context of our existence?

The theory of evolution is the antithesis to intelligent design, hence why so many believers are so vehemently opposed to it. But hey, I'm glad that we seem to be making progress getting through that thick dogmatic shield against reason and scientific inquiry. Seems to me as if agnostic and atheist debate is bearing fruit after all. Now if you would be so inclined and pass the message on to your numerous brethren who still think the Earth is 5.000 years old, that humans lived together with dinosaurs and that creationism must be taught at schools, I'd be much obliged.

There are many prominent theologians right now who think the notion of Earth being 5000 years old is absurd and who are openly saying the people who think otherwise are wrong.
As I said, you should really listen to modern theologians and philosophers a lot more.

That's a juicy statement, considering the fact that "current theology" is always a couple of hundred years behind the curve.

I say it again. Go and read and listen to the theologians who are alive today and writing books and giving lectures and participating in debates.

I have been criticizing faith based homophobia long before the current political climate. So how about you offer me an actual counter-argument instead of engaging in baseless whataboutism that's merely tangential to the argument at hand. Your desperate attempt at shifting the discussion into this direction is merely reinforcing my assumption that you have very little to offer to counter what I said on an argumentative basis.

The point is that religions and God are intolerant of plenty of things. When you accuse of them being intolerant of some certain thing you have an issue with, you have to understand that the intolerance does not go only for the minorities or the oppressed but also to the majorities and those in power.

Being intolerant of same-sex relationships, the heliocentric worldview, the theory of evolution, men and women being equal and other religions or agnostic views is a good thing now?

Same-sex relationships? Well, not relationships in general as there are a lot of different relationships people can be in, but if the context is men and women having a special sacred bond and that it is important to their creator it's not a wonder if that creator isn't tolerant with what goes against that.

Heliocentric worldview? I don't think God would be intolerant with that, but I can imagine some insecure priests having issues with it. I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe the church as an institution being the authority to listen to in every issue out there. So especially in this issue I don't feel God would agree with whatever problem they might've had with people saying earth is not the center of everything.

The equality of men and women? To what extent should've there been equality for both? Would it be better if women would have been put in the frontlines in war along with men back then?

And obviously IF God exists, why should he be tolerant of people worshipping nonexistent Gods?

Nah, seems more as if religious bigots are hiding behind god in order to engage in their intolerant, superstitious and obsolete views. Case in point, the person who started this very topic.

I'd say you are partly right on that.
Sure there are people who use their religion to justify their personal hatred towards others.
Not that at core it's always about that but yeah, some are certainly doing that. And that isn't to say that those who would do that are doing that in every case of them being intolerant of something. I mean, a person who is intolerant of, say, homosexuals because of his general sense of personal disgust towards homosexuals could be intolerant of, say, sexual hedonism without having personal disgust towards it but basing it in the Bible.

Me neither, hence why I don't believe in god. Contrary to the myriad of believers who regard tragedy as a punishment from god.

I wouldn't say that understanding we are personally to blame for what bad things we do and tragedies being a punishment from god being mutually exclusive things.
I personally think it's more of god setting the consequences beforehand and then telling do not do this and that wrong thing, and if you do you will face this and that consequence.

No, but its the metaphorical meaning of that specific passage.

Can't really argue against your personal interpretation of the metaphore.
To me it's more about men and women being part of each other.

Please, make my day, give me one single reason why women can't be priests.

Obviously they can. The question is if they should be. Now, I don't personally have an issue with women being priests. My country and church has had female priests for most of my life. What I have personally experienced is that they have often lacked the charisma male priests have had (not that there aren't uncharismatic male priests too) sounding and feeling more like kindergarten teachers than someone whose job is to remind us how to save our souls. But then again that might be just a Finnish thing - or even just a local thing. I don't think a woman handling a marriage ceremony or something else takes away something from the holiness of the ceremony. I have no personal issue witnessing a female priest doing her job. But that doesn't tell anything about whether it's good or not, or if it's better or worse than a male priest.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you defending these Bible quotes by implying that "women are lesser than men" through marriage? Here, let me quote this again:

Those Ephesians verses continue with:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

And later in the same chapter:
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

On Malachi 2 God gets angry with a priest who has been unfaithful to his wife.
And later in that same chapter:
“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty.
So apparently according to God wives should be protected and violence against them (note, even metaphorical violence) is a bad thing.

There are so many passages that calls men to protect and love their wives that I just wonder why people have so much vitriol towards God for Paul saying preaching should be for men instead of women in their churches.

I'd say that I couldn't be departed any further than I currently am. So what's he got to lose? Also, why is an omnipotent being so obsessed with being popular and well liked? I've seen high-school girls with more confidence than that.

Of course you can be more departed. If you think your current state and position in this physical existence is as far as you can be from God, then you haven't understood God and the Bible at all.

And it's not about his popularity. It's about you and your existence.

Is he that much of a coward that he can't show himself towards somebody who's skeptical? If he's all-knowing, it wouldn't be much of a problem convincing a non-believer of his ways. You know, because he's all-knowing, so he's already got a pretty huge advantage. Or are you implying that he's so impotent that he can't even convince a non-believer through reason? Notwithstanding the fact that if he showed himself, a lot of the initial doubt would already be cast aside. Makes no sense.

You have already said if he existed you would be his greatest critic and would despise him even more. This isn't merely being skeptical. This is being against him no matter what.

Now, with your claims about god being a coward, I'm not quite getting what you are aiming with that. Clearly as you don't believe he exists your claims about his cowardice wouldn't hurt him so are you making that claim to try to maybe hurt my beliefs? Or are you trying to to make me not believe in him because for some reason this property of being a coward would make a creator be nonexistent?

Sometimes I like to fight fire with fire. I admit, it's a fault of mine, but I guess god created me like that. So you might wanna take it up with him.

I'm not sure what fire I have brought up for you to even think about a need to "fight fire with fire", and yes, in Christian sense we are all assholes in one way or another so whatever antics you might have in this thread don't really surprise me

Seems awfully convenient. In order to be convinced of his divine glory I first need to convince myself before I even get the chance to have a reasonable debate about all this. If you think kafkatrapping is the path to faith, you're awfully mistaken.

At the very least you should go at it from a more neutral point of view. Don't pretend you wouldn't have general antipathy towards God. Your discussion would probably be more like a "hc sjw feminist" or Jim Acosta talking to Trump; all accusations, zero listening.

If the faith in god is one of the prime causes for much of the pain and suffering in the world, it's pretty hard to "respect god".

First of all, aside from you ignoring all the love and goodness it has brought to the world, "one of the prime causes" might need some receipts.

Secondly, sure, for you pain and suffering might make it pretty hard to respect god, but surely countless of people who have endured terrible tragedies have stayed faithful (Biblical example would be Job) or even become believers. It's not as if the existence of pain and suffering would and should be a reason for people to lose their faiths in general because we can see all over the world that not being the case.

By all means, go ahead and criticize all you want. Scientific knowledge can always abused for nefarious reasons, so expressing your reasoned criticism is important. Considering that science is founded upon critical thinking instead of dogma, I'm pretty sure science can deal with it.

Are you claiming science isn't ever used in dogmatic ways?

Science is as good as the people using it are. You only need one bias to go for wrong calculations or conclusions. Hypotheses are also a big part of science. Hypotheses are gunned down all the time based on personal worldviews.

I'd say both Lemaître and Mendel made their discoveries despite their faith. Considering that one lived in the 1920's and the other in the 1820's it's no wonder they were believers.

But you seemed to claim religion was against whatever they did. So does religion stop people from finding scientific truths or not?

 

[strange headache]

I think the word we are looking for is because, not despite.

Considering the hostile stance that institutionalized religion has held against every scientific progress that went against religious doctrine, the term "despite" is perfectly apt. The vast majority of scientists who happen to be believers separate their scientific research from their personal faith which merely goes to show how fundamentally incompatible religion and science really are.

Your fellow brother in faith who keeps spamming this forum with his religiously motivated hostility towards science is a perfect example of that. Now, is he representative of the majority of believers? Maybe not, but I've met countless people like him. His views are the logical conclusion of consistently applied dogmatic faith, so if anything, he's at least rigorous when it comes to his religious beliefs.

Man, I just don't get it. You seem like a very intelligent guy who can make some good arguments, but when someone mentions religion you don't seem to listen to any points and make strawmen that you try desperately to burn.

Apparently my supposed intelligence is only appreciated so long as critical thought is not directed towards something that you hold dearly, such as your own dogmatic faith. I can live with that. My argument are far from being strawmen, they are sufficiently reasoned and sourced in history and empirical observation.

Really man, do you have any proof that God makes people suffer?

If he is the supposed omnipotent and omniscient creator of all things, of course he's also responsible for all the suffering in the world. As already stated above, he's either incapable of preventing evil or unwilling to do so. In either case, it does not paint a very favorable picture of your biblical god.

This is just so rude and bad of a reply. "I'm an aggressive atheist because God made me that way, not because of my own biases". What?

I'm an aggressive atheist? That's rich considering the fact that I'm not the one going around spamming this forum with my religious views. I only ever bring up agnosticism or atheism as a reaction to whenever one of you people make yet another religious topic. So far, I've stayed clear of your Christianity [OT] partially out of respect and also because the quality of discussion is severely lacking. If that is representative of the level of discourse that faith-based intellectualism has to offer, I'm glad that I didn't tumble down the religious rabbit hole.

Contrary to you, I'm not the one proselytizing and preaching my faith every time I get the chance to insert my religious views into a discussion. I don't call myself "strange atheist", so I'm finding it a little bit rich of you accusing me of being a militant. I haven't opened a single topic about atheism, agnosticism or humanism as the only times I ever discuss these things is when the likes of you are creating yet another topic to showcase your dogmatic faith. Outside of the Christianity [OT], where I'm allowing you to have your little intellectual safe space out of courtesy, I consider every religious topic to be open season.

They compliment each other. Stop being obtuse. I think I have sent you a list of thousands of names in science that were and are influenced by religion before in a thread (just a tip of the iceberg btw), do you want me to send you a few again?

We've had that discussion before and I gave you ample evidence of the numerous intellectuals and thinkers who have been persecuted for breaking with religious dogma throughout history (Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Kant, Descartes, Turing, Darwin, Newton, Leibniz, Clarke, Wegener, and many many more...). The fact that all these scientists were also Christians means very little considering that Christianity used to be such a widespread religion in the western world and that children used to be baptized against their will.

I'm not denying the fact that the Church didn't allow for the pursuit of scientific knowledge, but only so far as it was in accordance with religious dogma. Everything else was considered heresy and entailed serious consequences for the researchers. Hence why the Church's monopoly on knowledge has kept mankind in the dark ages for hundreds of years. You don't get to whitewash the history of your religion, I'm here to remind you of all these atrocities committed against science.

The only reason why science is where it is today, is because enlightenment thinkers revolted against religious dogma, making religion basically irrelevant for the scientific pursuit of knowledge.

Why are you so gosh dang intolerant and bigoted. You are literally calling Christians evil and stupid. How is a belief in God in any way shape or form "obsolete" "superstitous" and "intolerant". The only one acting like the way you describe here is you.

Apparently Hitchens, Dawkins, Russell, Harris, Dennett, Hume, Epicurus, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and Kant, all of them well respected and great thinkers, are bigots now. I'm not ashamed to be intolerant of the atrocities committed in the name of religion, burning scientists at the stake, ostracizing homosexuals, demonizing sexual relations, fabricating false knowledge, censoring scientific truth, forbidding certain literature, abusing children, brainwashing people, creating dogma, shunning critical thought and waging religious wars against heretics and non-believers. Pretty much every single intellectual and thinker that I gold dearly has been oppressed and persecuted in the name of your religion.

Failing to provide even one single evidence, one little argument in the long history of Christianity, I have no reason whatsoever to believe the existence of god. Who are you to expect of me to simply assume something that you've subjectively decided to believe in for whatever reason? Who are you to come to this forum and spread your gospel expecting that people just take it? I'm not interested in whatever religious frippery you have to offer and I think to have sufficiently demonstrated as to why my position is more than reasonable.

I'm angry and disappointed at you strange. I hope in the future you at least try to be tolerant of other people's beliefs and try to understand their arguments and why they hold their beliefs. God bless you.

Tell me why I should be tolerant of other people's views when they are clearly being intolerant of my own? I do not wish you any harm and I do not seek to have your speech censored. I will counter your religious views with arguments though, which is about the necessary level of civility you can ever hope to expect, especially considering that you are espousing some of the most regressive views on this forum.

That being said, I have no problem with people entertaining the idea of a metaphysical being. That's why people like Jordan Peterson have my attention, because they treat the notion of god as a metaphysical idea, not empirical truth. I do have a problem with people hiding behind their biblical god and their institutionalized religion in order to market their regressive views. In that regard I find your biblical god not only morally repugnant, but also ethically nonviable because it's the sort of authoritarian moralism that goes against everything that philosophy stands for. Wisdom and enlightenment comes from within and not from above.

Sapere aude.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Considering the hostile stance that institutionalized religion has held against every scientific progress that went against religious doctrine

this is bullshit. there have been tons of scientists who were religious people themselves. the concepts of universities, schools, doctors, etc. come from church infrastructure. many medieval and Renaissance scholars were heavily into Kabbalah and Gematria. the person who theorized the Big Bang theory, the most popular "secular" theory for the origin of the universe, was a Catholic Priest.

true, it has been used at times to oppress certain ideas and certain people, but so has the state, the police, the military, etc.

i don't see how removing religion would end violence or wars. that seems as silly as many people think religion is. if you make all TV and movies nonviolent would that mean no more wars? of course not. people will always be greedy. they will always be jealous. there will be murder and robbing. media does not magically transform people into monsters. to believe that is to believe in a supernatural power, which is ironic, cos atheists love to believe this.

people don't do these things because they read them in a book. they are in the book because people do them.

for that matter, it is utterly useless to decry "death and suffering" when there is no possible alternative, that death and suffering are part of life, that things are unfair, and it is weird that people who profess to be atheists still have these hang ups over good and evil and punishment. if you were really atheist and non attached to universal morality, you wouldn't give a shit, you would spend time calling out the real world material factors that go into historical warfare. but no, it's easier and more self-flattering to score internet points dunking on a very narrow view of religion which is entirely your own (as are all).

tbh it doesn't matter WHAT one believes, or how that is communicated. as long as you don't force me to think a certain way, im cool w you.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

people always say look at all the death caused by religion. what about the 20th century? Hitler rised to power trying to systematically wipe a religion from the Earth. Communists in China and Russia were also systematically killing religious people. tens of millions of people died in order to wipe out religion, for political control, in the 20th century alone.

furthermore, look at historical warfare. the English and the French were at war constantly, all of Europe was inter-fighting for a thousand years, families were inbred and turned on each other and were at war with themselves, military mismanagement resulted in roving bands of mercenaries, material conditions for even the wealthy were exceedingly poor, and medical science was more likely to do you great harm than cure you. the law was extremely violent, and if you were overheard cursing the king in a pub as late as the 17th century, you could be tried, hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and your head stuck on London bridge. these were the secular laws.

if you think getting rid of the church would have stopped bloodshed, i don't see why, in fact, all the charity work the church does would be gone, the hospitals they run would have never existed, the homeless shelters run by good nuns and monks just never got built. add all those sick, unemployed, homeless people to the godless masses. maybe cannibalism becomes a thing now, as it's not considered a sin anymore. maybe incest among the ruling class is even more rampant. certainly there are historical crusades we can point to as directly inspired from religion. but more often than not the reasons for violence and war were just the same old standard reasons: territory disputes (US vs Russia in Afghanistan), squabbling over resources or political ideology (The Cold War), vengeance against a wrongdoer (9/11).

life in our modern, godless, rational world isn't entirely peaceful and wonderful, now is it? people can criticize God all they like but lol pretend their own shit don't stink to high heaven.

 

[Redneckerz]

Your mum is my god

[vis_name][/vis_name] is my God. And your God. And his God.

God is also dead if we have to believe Nietzsche, so take that as you will.

 

[Airola]

people don't do these things because they read them in a book. they are in the book because people do them.

This is well said!

 

[Thurible]

CatholicGamerGuy is my God. And your God. And his God.

God is also dead if we have to believe Nietzsche, so take that as you will.

?

 

[Redneckerz]

?

Spoiler

Its a joke with a tag called vis_name. It adds everyone's logged in name to the comment.

 

[strange headache]

this is bullshit. there have been tons of scientists who were religious people themselves.

You people keep repeating that argument which I've already refuted many times before. You really need to read up on enlightenment.

the concepts of universities, schools, doctors, etc. come from church infrastructure.

Aristotle's Lyceum, Plato's Academy, Hippocrates, what are you even talking about?

true, it has been used at times to oppress certain ideas and certain people, but so has the state, the police, the military, etc.

At times? I think your as understating how much damage and opposition religion did to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

i don't see how removing religion would end violence or wars. that seems as silly as many people think religion is. if you make all TV and movies nonviolent would that mean no more wars? of course not. people will always be greedy. they will always be jealous. there will be murder and robbing. media does not magically transform people into monsters. to believe that is to believe in a supernatural power, which is ironic, cos atheists love to believe this.

I never said without religion there would be no such things. Religion merely adds to the misery in this world, because of its inherently dogmatic structure. Do you deny that many of the conflicts in the world today are the result of religious zealotry?

people don't do these things because they read them in a book. they are in the book because people do them.

If that were the case, then why isn't the bible as a collective work being actively revised, updated and extended? As it stands, it's a dead piece of fiction that is maladapted to the realities of the modern world. No, it's simply because the bible is considered the word of god, a holy book, another dogma that must not be touched, no matter what inane, obsolete and regressive bullcrap may be found in it.

tbh it doesn't matter WHAT one believes, or how that is communicated. as long as you don't force me to think a certain way, im cool w you.

The feeling is quite mutual

people always say look at all the death caused by religion. what about the 20th century? Hitler rised to power trying to systematically wipe a religion from the Earth. Communists in China and Russia were also systematically killing religious people. tens of millions of people died in order to wipe out religion, for political control, in the 20th century alone.

That's a fallacious argument, I agree that these things are equally as bad, that doesn't mean that I can't criticize religion in a topic about religion.

if you think getting rid of the church would have stopped bloodshed, i don't see why, in fact, all the charity work the church does would be gone, the hospitals they run would have never existed, the homeless shelters run by good nuns and monks just never got built. add all those sick, unemployed, homeless people to the godless masses.

That's a silly assumption, the Church isn't the only institution who engaged in altruistic activities. Charity work and hospitals existed long before Christianity and other monotheistic religions were even a thing. Not to mention that most of the Church's charitable work was often combined with needless proselytizing. Considering that the Catholic Church used to be one of the richest institutions in the world, leeching money off of the goodwill of their religious flock, a little bit of charity is the least they can do to uphold their public image.

Why is it that religious people have a tendency to attribute things to their religion that aren't even theirs to claim in the first place?

maybe cannibalism becomes a thing now, as it's not considered a sin anymore. maybe incest among the ruling class is even more rampant.

Are you implying that religion is the only thing keeping us to become cannibals and moral degenerates? That's hyperbole and completely false as proven by history.

life in our modern, godless, rational world isn't entirely peaceful and wonderful, now is it? people can criticize God all they like but lol pretend their own shit don't stink to high heaven.

Unfortunately, the modern world is far from being godless and rational.

 

[fantomena]

I only think one thing and that is if God really does exist, he is either extremely incompetent or doesn't give a shit.

 

[Redneckerz]

I only think one thing and that is if God really does exist, he is either extremely incompetent or doesn't give a shit.

I go for ''extremely incompetent at giving a shit.''

Yeah, that is an apt description. Really shows the duality of his character in a great way.

 

[Thurible]

You people keep repeating that argument which I've already refuted many times before. You really need to read up on enlightenment.

How have you refuted the argument that religion and science are complimentary in any way shape or form? You are literally ignoring the basic fact that the people who contributed to scientific progress who were religious were heavily influenced by their religious beliefs both on a personal and public level.

Do you know why the Vatican commissions scientists? Because they want to know both why and how God works (like the cosmogony). Many scientists wanted to understand the world better and the how to creation. Their religion influenced their developments. Understanding the how to the why is and was very important to many people. Religion never impeded that. There is also nothing contradictory of believing in God while believing in evolution and things like the big bang. Many religious people believe in cause and effect and don't believe everything began all of a sudden a couple thousand years ago.

Aristotle's Lyceum, Plato's Academy, Hippocrates, what are you even talking about?

The modern instutions of education like universities have strong roots in catholicism. Many monks were gatekeepers of records and knowledge. During medevil times being part of the clergy and the upper echleon of society was a pathway to learning both theology and the sciences. To say that the Church contributed to the sciences would be an understatement.

The greeks had public forums where ideas could be exchanged and taught. Many great intellectuals taught and tutored both publically and privately on topics such as philosophy and the sciences. Schools have indeed existed for a long time, certainly before the institution of the university. However, it wasn't the same form as what we would consider an educational system today. Universities started to open higher education up to the public little by little.

Also, if you are trying to say that religion has nothing to do with education and the sciences by throwing universities of old under the bus by establishing that schools existed before Christian universities (I don't think anyone was arguing that) then you are surely mistaken. What do you think was taught at these schools? Philosophy, ethics, theology, science, medicine, etc. The greeks were most certainly not irreligious and you yourself acknowledge their contribution to philosophy and the sciences.

At times? I think your as understating how much damage and opposition religion did to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

How? Just How?

Also, how the heck do you know a society without religion would be more advanced?

I never said without religion there would be no such things. Religion merely adds to the misery in this world, because of its inherently dogmatic structure. Do you deny that many of the conflicts in the world today are the result of religious zealotry?

Misery? Have you heard of faith and hope? Many who have lived in dire situation relied on their faith to get them through. Have you seriously never met a person who used their faith in times of struggle?

Btw, most wars are done for land and resources.

"an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1400766/amp

They got this statistic from Axelrod's encyclopedia of wars, and others seem to back it up.

If that were the case, then why isn't the bible as a collective work being actively revised, updated and extended? As it stands, it's a dead piece of fiction that is maladapted to the realities of the modern world. No, it's simply because the bible is considered the word of god, a holy book, another dogma that must not be touched, no matter what inane, obsolete and regressive bullcrap may be found in it.

Wow, thanks for calling over a billion people's way of life and beliefs stupid and regressive. Have I called atheism incredibly stupid and regressive, is that charitible? What's wrong with the bible? Just because it hasn't been recontextualized for current western culture does not mean that the lessons and spiritual truths it teaches are false. If I said "Plato's Republic is stupid because it doesn't cope with my modern sensibilites" would you take me seriously? History, culture, and language are important to understand what is being said in scripture.

That's a silly assumption, the Church isn't the only institution who engaged in altruistic activities. Charity work and hospitals existed long before Christianity and other monotheistic religions were even a thing. Not to mention that most of the Church's charitable work was often combined with needless proselytizing. Considering that the Catholic Church used to be one of the richest institutions in the world, leeching money off of the goodwill of their religious flock, a little bit of charity is the least they can do to uphold their public image.

Why is it that religious people have a tendency to attribute things to their religion that aren't even theirs to claim in the first place?

I don't think some people realize that while the Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the world, it's primary purpose is to be a Church and teach people about God.

How is tithing leeching exactly? I'm sure a few clergy members abuse the funds (as there are evil people everywhere, even in holy instutions) but for the vast majority the money goes to expanding the church and charitable services.

Are you implying that religion is the only thing keeping us to become cannibals and moral degenerates? That's hyperbole and completely false as proven by history.

I agree in the sense that I doubt people would become murderers in a horrible timeline where religion somehow completely disappears. However, much of moral and ethics stem from religious instutions. Altruism as we know it has many roots in judeo-christian beliefs.

Also consider this, Judeo-christian religions consider man to be sacred. People are not mere objects but beings created from God. Offenses against your fellow man have much more meaning if one subscribes to this belief and would likely be less inclined to hurt others for their own benefit (again not saying atheists are evil).

God bless you and Sapere Aude

 

[Elcid]

May the Father bless you and show himself to you all.

 

[Iorv3th]

His flesh died. He didn’t come back in the flesh. Every account of him appearing after his death wasn’t a normal fleshly encounter at all. He had to “eat” something because the disciples were freaked out by his appearance. It’s written that flesh doesn’t inherit the kingdom.

Except when "Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” " If he wasn't flesh how were they seeing and interacting/touching him?

What? God didn’t kill all of the first born children. He actually made the killings stop. I still don’t believe God kills anyone. He’s the God of the living. There is a god of the dead, If you’re handed over to death, and death takes your life, who’s the killer? God didn’t invent death. He didn’t even kill Lucifer. He cast him out. If he hasn’t even killed the absolute worst spirit in scripture as of yet then why would he kill anyone else? When he allows someone to be given over to death, to me that means that person is no longer doing the will of God anyway and it’s probably determined he never will therefore his own will leads him to be handed to death. Not Gods will.

I don't know which bible you are reading but God specifically kills people. Especially in the old testament. The new testament is about following very different teachings from Jesus. There are vast differences between the God of the old testament and the new testament.

I mean you basically just wrote that if we never stopped doing Gods will we would never die.....

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Except when "Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” " If he wasn't flesh how were they seeing and interacting/touching him?



I don't know which bible you are reading but God specifically kills people. Especially in the old testament. The new testament is about following very different teachings from Jesus. There are vast differences between the God of the old testament and the new testament.

I mean you basically just wrote that if we never stopped doing Gods will we would never die.....

Ok I stand corrected on flesh but I still don’t think he was the same. A few verses before it says he hadn’t ascended to the Father yet but then there’s this.

“But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?” They answered Him, “No.” And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some. ” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish. Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.” Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:4-12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

To me that seems like he was changing his appearance somehow but they knew it was him. As far as doing Gods will, I believe if we did we’d more than likely walk with him longer here but no we wouldn’t die because we’d always have him but that life also comes from belief in Christ.

Luke 24 in its entirety have the other events I was referring to.

“Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:36-43‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So yes He had flesh but something had changed. Perhaps he was made like Adam before the fall.

 

[Rentahamster]

I wish more atheists thought this way. Atheists or agnostics that talk about how God is an immoral being. Really? You DO believe he’s real then. Good. That’s a start.

If you’re not going to believe then extend that logic all the way. Don’t have a personal opinion about something you don’t believe exists.

Umm, I think you're missing the fundamentally present but often unsaid (due to brevity and context) "...if He were real..." in that argument. They're saying that if God exists and does the things you believe Him to do, then his actions are immoral.

 

[Yoshi]

Wow, thanks for calling over a billion people's way of life and beliefs stupid and regressive. Have I called atheism incredibly stupid and regressive, is that charitible? What's wrong with the bible? Just because it hasn't been recontextualized for current western culture does not mean that the lessons and spiritual truths it teaches are false. If I said "Plato's Republic is stupid because it doesn't cope with my modern sensibilites" would you take me seriously? History, culture, and language are important to understand what is being said in scripture.

He did not do that, he said that the bible might include stuff that is regressive or stupid. That's a far cry from what you made out of it.

To answer what's wrong with the bible, take my list of why Yahweh as described in the bible is a terrible person.

He did that absurd act of genocide and then afterwards:
(*) Killed innocent children (among many other cruel acts) in Egypt because of not liking the behaviour of the pharaoe
(*) ... that is, despite making the pharaoe act like this deliberately
(*) ordered the full extinction of tribes while conquering what was to become Israel
(*) ordered the killing of someone for working on sabbath
(*) let Satan torture his most loyal follower to demonstrate how loyal said follower is. This includeds, again, the killing of innocent people
(*) orders the death penalty for homosexual sex
(*) orders the slaughtering and burning of animals to appease him and for his olfactorial pleasure
(*) outrules picking partners from different tribes
(*) sends his son to be killed in order to atone for other people's sins... towards himself. This is pure curelty, because he could just choose to firgive people's sins without having his son tortured and killed

 

[RyanReedyMusicMultimedia]

God already stated His case about His authority and sovereignty in Isaiah 45 -
"I am the Lord, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things. "

 

[strange headache]

How have you refuted the argument that religion and science are complimentary in any way shape or form? You are literally ignoring the basic fact that the people who contributed to scientific progress who were religious were heavily influenced by their religious beliefs both on a personal and public level.

I already have refuted this many times, but you just keep ignoring it. But hey, if you don't believe me, let's take a look at some quantifiable data:

A majority of the public says science and religion often conflict, with nearly six-in-ten adults (59%) expressing this view in newly released findings from a Pew Research Center survey. The share of the public saying science and religion are often in conflict is up modestly from 55% in 2009, when Pew Research conducted a similar survey on religion and science.

The majority of the U.S. population shares my stance that religion and science are not compatible. Only those who are "highly religious" (such as yourself) view no conflict at all, which is rather evident otherwise they wouldn't be religious in the first place. And this is a rather favorable view considering the fact that religion plays a much bigger role in american society compared to the more secular European countries. This only goes to show that my arguments are far from being outlandish as you desperately try to make it seem.

The result is not surprising considering that the epistemological methodology are vastly different between science and religion. The former relies on the scientific method which is heavily influenced by Popper's critical rationalism and falsifiability, the latter is founded upon dogmatism and divine authority.

Moreover, religious belief structures clash most fierce with scientific theory when certain dogmas are concerned, for example the origin of the universe and the nature of man. The same study also affirms that hostile views correlate with church attendance, i.e. how strong your religious convictions are:

Frequency of church attendance is also associated with adults’ views about evolution. Those who attend worship services regularly are closely divided over whether humans have evolved over time and just 15% of this group says humans have evolved due to natural processes. [...] A clear majority of the religiously unaffiliated (67%) say humans have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection. This is the only group among whom a majority holds this view.

When it comes to scientific evidence that do not challenge religious dogma, believers are more accepting towards science. Which only demonstrates the impact of religion on your subjective bias, meaning that science is only accepted so long as it doesn't contradict religious doctrine and scripture. This general attitude towards science is in line with the historical arguments that I've provided in my previous comments.

Do you know why the Vatican commissions scientists? Because they want to know both why and how God works (like the cosmogony). Many scientists wanted to understand the world better and the how to creation. Their religion influenced their developments. Understanding the how to the why is and was very important to many people.

The only reason why the Vatican commissions scientists is to keep searching for scientific evidence for the existence of god in order to uphold their creationist narrative as stated by scripture. The Vatican is highly concerned about the fact that their holy book is so wrong on so many accounts, it's an inherently self-serving endeavor.

The modern instutions of education like universities have strong roots in catholicism. Many monks were gatekeepers of records and knowledge. During medevil times being part of the clergy and the upper echleon of society was a pathway to learning both theology and the sciences. To say that the Church contributed to the sciences would be an understatement.

Plato's Academy endured for nearly a thousand years. It was almost destroyed after 300 years by the Roman Emperor Sulla but continued to exist as a beacon of higher learning, until it was closed by the Christian Emperor Justinian in 529 CE in an effort to suppress the heresy of pagan thought. Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum (which stood for 300 years) were beacons of free thought producing some of the most diverse academic views that are still relevant today. Ever wondered why most European High Schools are called "Lyceum" or where the terminology came from?

Catholicism merely copied these educational concepts and claimed them as its own. Contrary to the open education of the ancient Greeks, the catholic learning environment was highly homogeneous, merely tolerating scientific research that was in accordance with their religious scripture. Catholic education in the middle-ages merely served as a tool of indoctrination, it was highly censorious and neither accessible to the broader public, nor intended to educate the population. It was in essence, the Church's attempt to keep their religious hegemony over the progress of knowledge.

The greeks had public forums where ideas could be exchanged and taught.

The Greeks had many different forms of education, from Aristotle's peripatetic approach, over Socrates' public deliberation to Epicurus' garden and Plato's more conventional literary approach.

The greeks were most certainly not irreligious and you yourself acknowledge their contribution to philosophy and the sciences.

Comparing polytheistic Greek mythology to the monotheistic religion of Catholicism is highly erroneous, as Greek education allowed for a vast range of different views, most of them agnostic by design. The reason for that are the Presocratics who laid the foundation for classical philosophy starting with Socrates. The Presocratics are highly important because they mark the transition from a mythological worldview (mythos) to a scientific one (logos). Their rupture with traditional mythological explanations of the world and its phenomena is also the reason why their are known as Natural Philosophers because they observed the world in an empirical manner, thus laying the foundation for natural sciences. You have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1400766/amp They got this statistic from Axelrod's encyclopedia of wars, and others seem to back it up.

Oh look, an article by a Rabbi who, very unsurprisingly, comes to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with his religion. Whodathunkit! The Encyclopedia in question merely considers religious wars as conflicts that are "primarily driven" by religion, which conveniently neglects the fact that war is a multi-variable phenomenon, a complex mixture of economical, resource orientated, territorial, ideological and religious causes. Before googling "religion and war" you might want to check your sources before falling for the first link that confirms your subjective bias.

It also neglects the fact that, while not being the prime cause, religion is often used as a dangling carrot to mobilize the masses for war. If we take a more academic source, like Steven Pinker for example, we can easily refute this article:

Atheist regimes in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people. Doesn’t this show that we were better off in the past, when our political and moral systems were guided by a belief in God?

This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.

First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.

Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).

When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between thesistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights.

But wait, there's more!

But things started going downhill in 312 when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the historical facts are not consistent with the claim that Christianity since then has been a force for nonviolence:

• The Crusaders perpetrated a century of genocides that murdered a million people, equivalent as a proportion of the world’s population at the time to the Nazi holocaust.
• Shortly afterwards, the Cathars of southern France were exterminated in another Crusader genocide because they had embraced the Albigensian heresy.
• The Inquisition, according to Rummel, killed 350,000 people.
• Martin Luther’s rant against the Jews is barely distinguishable from the writings of Hitler.
• The three founders of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII, had thousands of heretics burned at the stake, as they and their followers took Jesus literally when he said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”
• Following the biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” Christians killed 60,000-100,000 accused witches in the European witchhunts.
• The European Wars of Religion had death rates that were double that of World War I and that were in the range of World War II in Europe.
• Christian conquistadors massacred and enslaved native Americans in vast numbers, and perhaps twenty million were killed in all (not counting unintentional epidemics) by the European settlement of the Americas.
• World War I, as I recall, was a war fought mostly by Christians against Christians. As for World War II and its associated horrors, see my answer to the previous question.

Moreover, recent empirical studies, which are more reflective of the actual situation in the world, corroborate Pinker's observations and paint a vastly different picture than your highly biased article. Like this one for example:

Religion is not the main cause of conflicts today. Whilst religion has evidently been a cause of many conflicts throughout history it is by no means the only reason for conflict. Surveying the state of 35 armed conflicts from 2013, religious elements did not play a role in 14, or 40 per cent. [...] Nevertheless, there are two religious characteristics which are associated with peace; restrictions on religious behaviour as well as hostilities towards religion. Countries without a dominant religious group are, on average, more peaceful and have less restrictions or social hostilities around religion than countries with a dominant religious group.

What we can conclude from that is that governments which are founded upon a single dominant religion are less likely to be peaceful than agnostic and pluralistic states that allow a vast array of different worldviews. Which merely demonstrates that in places where a certain religion is dominant, it is highly intolerant towards differing views. If given free reign, religions do not tolerate worldviews that challenge their divine authority.

Wow, thanks for calling over a billion people's way of life and beliefs stupid and regressive. Have I called atheism incredibly stupid and regressive, is that charitible?

Oh stop being so overly dramatic, I never said such a thing. Religious people can be highly intelligent and rigorous academics, like my old Jesuit teacher for example. That being said, I see no reason to believe in something that has no basis in rational and/or empirical evidence. As such I have no intention to be "charitable" towards your religious views. The only thing I'm interested in are arguments and so far your religion (or any other) has provided not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a divine being.

If that hurts your religious fee-fees, that's your problem. Feel free to call atheism stupid, I couldn't care less. Considering the historical atrocities your religion has committed in the name of your biblical god and the glacial pace with which the Catholic Church comes to terms with scientific reality, I'd say merely being called stupid and not being burned at the stake is already a huge progress.

What's wrong with the bible? Just because it hasn't been recontextualized for current western culture does not mean that the lessons and spiritual truths it teaches are false. If I said "Plato's Republic is stupid because it doesn't cope with my modern sensibilites" would you take me seriously? History, culture, and language are important to understand what is being said in scripture.

Philosophy, contrary to religion, is a continuous debate, as such there's a constant progress of ideas based on a dialectical approach. There simply is no bible, no sacred text when it comes to philosophy as everything is subject to the harshest of criticism. There's a lot to criticize about Plato's Republic, for example its rigid caste system. As such his philosophical ideas have been revised and updated for the modern age by many other philosophers. No philosopher worth his salt would consider Plato's Republic the be all end all of political philosophy. The fact that you need to even ask "what's wrong with the bible?" merely demonstrates the fact that religion is woefully unable to do the same intellectual grunt work.

I don't think some people realize that while the Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the world, it's primary purpose is to be a Church and teach people about God.

If the intent is ultimately self-serving in order to preach to the people, I'd say that certainly diminishes the altruistic nature of the Church's charitable endeavors.

God bless you and Sapere Aude

Nice oxymoron. Don't use expressions you don't understand.

 

[Yoshi]

Excellent posting strange headache - I know the like functionality is there for that, but I feel a posting with that amount of thought deserves written acknlowedgement.

 

[Thurible]

I already have refuted this many times, but you just keep ignoring it. But hey, if you don't believe me, let's take a look at some quantifiable data:

Yes, because as we all know majorities decide the facts? I never argued that some people believe religion and science can't intermingle, just that they DON'T contradict each other and DO compliment each other (though I can come up with some data that suggests while there are some countries and areas that have the misguided notion of a clash of religion and science, it isn't totally consistent and widespread take for example central and eastern europe).

"There is no consensus in the countries surveyed on the question of whether science and religion are generally in conflict. In nine of the 18 countries surveyed, at least half of respondents say there is a conflict between science and religion.
Generally, respondents in Orthodox-majority countries are less likely than people in Catholic-majority nations to say religion and science are in conflict. Across the 10 Orthodox countries surveyed, the median share saying there is such a conflict is 44%, compared with 56% in the four Catholic-majority countries.
In the Baltic countries, relatively few people say science and religion are in conflict, including 34% in Latvia and 35% in Lithuania.
In some places, such as the United States, highly religious people are less likely than others to say there is a conflict between religion and science. While this is true in a few countries in Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Bosnia), in other countries surveyed there are no significant differences between the views of highly religious and less religious respondents on this issue."

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion/

This source is a general non-biased overview of the "situation".

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/an-overview-of-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/

Here is one from the pew research center that claims that most Americans see no clash (though I am not too sure of that as it does seem correct that the U.S. is a place where people sadly believe that they can't)

"Most American adults (68%) say there is no conflict between their personal religious beliefs and science. For the 30% who do see a conflict, the most common source of disagreement involves beliefs about evolution and the creation of the universe. "

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewr...interplay-between-religion-and-science/?amp=1



Just because some people believe something doesn't make it true Strange. Who does and doesn't believe in the "struggle" doesn't matter. The facts decide on what is true and what is false. With that said, there is no evidence that they contradict each other.

The only reason why the Vatican commissions scientists is to keep searching for scientific evidence for the existence of god in order to uphold their creationist narrative as stated by scripture. The Vatican is highly concerned about the fact that their holy book is so wrong on so many accounts, it's an inherently self-serving endeavor.

What an insulting and condenscending response. Just wow. You don't think that the Vatican just wants to know more about God and the world?

Strange, have you ever heard of the concept of the devil's advocate? This term has to do with inquiries on the validity of miracles and the like. When the Church looks at something, they do it closely and with scrutiny. They look at all the flaws and contrary evidence and assess what exactly is going on. For the most part, the Church actually REJECTS most proposals on the validity of a miracle. They find most of the "miracles" that are given to them to research to be normal physical phenomenons.

Do you HONESTLY think they just do and say whatever they want when it comes to science. They have some of the most respected scientists and minds in the field at their disposal. Are you calling those scientists just some pawns for the Church?

Plato's Academy endured for nearly a thousand years. It was almost destroyed after 300 years by the Roman Emperor Sulla but continued to exist as a beacon of higher learning, until it was closed by the Christian Emperor Justinian in 529 CE in an effort to suppress the heresy of pagan thought. Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum (which stood for 300 years) were beacons of free thought producing some of the most diverse academic views that are still relevant today. Ever wondered why most European High Schools are called "Lyceum" or where the terminology came from?

Catholicism merely copied these educational concepts and claimed them as its own. Contrary to the open education of the ancient Greeks, the catholic learning environment was highly homogeneous, merely tolerating scientific research that was in accordance with their religious scripture. Catholic education in the middle-ages merely served as a tool of indoctrination, it was highly censorious and neither accessible to the broader public, nor intended to educate the population. It was in essence, the Church's attempt to keep their religious hegemony over the progress of knowledge.

I just can't deal with you. You are literally putting your subjective bias over the facts now. Many different ideas came out of the university system that did not exist to support the Church. I mean Voltaire was taught at the Lycee Louis-le-Grand. Where do you think some of the enlightenment ideals came from? Do you honestly believe the Church was some kind of grand censorer? Ideas were encouraged to be expressed and exchanged.

Comparing polytheistic Greek mythology to the monotheistic religion of Catholicism is highly erroneous, as Greek education allowed for a vast range of different views, most of them agnostic by design. The reason for that are the Presocratics who laid the foundation for classical philosophy starting with Socrates. The Presocratics are highly important because they mark the transition from a mythological worldview (mythos) to a scientific one (logos). Their rupture with traditional mythological explanations of the world and its phenomena is also the reason why their are known as Natural Philosophers because they observed the world in an empirical manner, thus laying the foundation for natural sciences. You know what you are talking about.

I wouldn't call the greeks agnostic or irreligious. Many served and worshiped different gods and served in different cults. It certainly wasn't uniform but they believed in something. You do know that there beliefs did not stop with empirical observations, right?

Oh look, an article by a Rabbi who, very unsurprisingly, comes to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with his religion. Whodathunkit! The Encyclopedia in question merely considers religious wars as conflicts that are "primarily driven" by religion, which conveniently neglects the fact that war is a multi-variable phenomenon, a complex mixture of economical, resource orientated, territorial, ideological and religious causes. Before googling "religion and war" you might want to check your sources before falling for the first link that confirms your subjective bias.

War is multifaceted, but your inane generalization of its causes by simply saying "Religion is bad and is the cause of most wars!1!" is simply wrong. Most causes of war are a mixture of several different reasons, but it certainly isn't because "religion is bad".

Philosophy, contrary to religion, is a continuous debate, as such there's a constant progress of ideas based on a dialectical approach. There simply is no bible, no sacred text when it comes to philosophy as everything is subject to the harshest of criticism. There's a lot to criticize about Plato's Republic, for example its rigid caste system. As such his philosophical ideas have been revised and updated for the modern age by many other philosophers. No philosopher worth his salt would consider Plato's Republic the be all end all of political philosophy. The fact that you need to even ask "what's wrong with the bible?" merely demonstrates the fact that religion is woefully unable to do the same intellectual grunt work.

Theology is an ongoing debate with many different ideas and interpretations of God, His word, and man's role in the world. It is a dialogue that isn't static in the slightest. People debate scripture all the time. One needs to look at all the possible meanings, cultural and historical context, and who the author and audience is to get an understanding of it.

Oh stop being so overly dramatic, I never said such a thing. Religious people can be highly intelligent and rigorous academics, like my old Jesuit teacher for example. That being said, I see no reason to believe in something that has no basis in rational and/or empirical evidence. As such I have no intention to be "charitable" towards your religious views. The only thing I'm interested in are arguments and so far your religion (or any other) has provided not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a divine being.

If that hurts your religious fee-fees, that's your problem. Feel free to call atheism stupid, I couldn't care less. Considering the historical atrocities your religion has committed in the name of your biblical god and the glacial pace with which the Catholic Church comes to terms with scientific reality, I'd say merely being called stupid and not being burned at the stake is already a huge progress.

Many people base their lives on their faith, calling their beliefs stupid IS callinf them stupid. Did you call your Jesuit teacher's beliefs stupid?

Also, I am insulted because you are insulting my intelligence and my beliefs (which are apart of my very being). I also think you are insulted otherwise you wouldn't be so adamant at saying "God doesn't exist" and calling religion evil. I hope you can one day be tolerant of religion. If atheist regimes did many abhorrent crimes and I tolerate atheists, you should be able to tolerate religious people.

Nice oxymoron. Don't use expressions you don't understand.

Not an oxymoron. It means "Dare to know". I gave you your little quip back because you aren't trying to open your mind and know. Sapere aude and God bless.

 

[Afro Republican]

I don’t think Christ was God. He’s the Son of God. He was God in that he did the will of his Father and was also made God by God for coming here just as a king would give the throne to his son. Scripture says he was made heir of all things.

This is why most christian aren't actually christian and go to fake churches that don't actually read scripture and teach the doctrine correctly, especially branches that came from Europeans or European Americans. Especially since that continent never followed the bible correctly from day 1 with the early European churches.

Jesus was not god, god went into jesus, the body of jesus was the son of man who walked the earth and the intention was he would be sacrificed for the many sins (no not for future sins you aren't being forgiven for those unless you repent) and got rid of the old sacrificial laws which removed some of the instant death penalties for disobeying certain laws which you can remedy, if sincere, by repenting. ( no, "getting rid of the law' does not mean all the laws and commandments were gotten rid of, a popular money grabbing pastor spin.) he was not the blood son of god he was a seed of david ( and no you don't pray to Mary, she is not the "mother of god" and she is not blessed "above' all other women.)

 

[Afro Republican]

The only reason why the Vatican commissions scientists is to keep searching for scientific evidence for the existence of god in order to uphold their creationist narrative as stated by scripture. The Vatican is highly concerned about the fact that their holy book is so wrong on so many accounts, it's an inherently self-serving endeavor.

That's not the reason, they are trying to make the Catholic doctrine as vague as possible so that science can't contradict it. There are many things in the Bible science can't explain, but there's science that can explain the catholic doctrine with science.

Also for it to be the Catholics Holy book you'd think at some point they would actually follow it. Which they never have from the start.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hebrews 1 in its entirety, 1 John 5, even the most simplest verse we all know, John 3:16 says Christ is the son of God. You have to be taught that he is anyone else. God is wholly apart from sin. Everyone would perish in an instant if He were to come Himself.

 

[Thurible]

That's not the reason, they are trying to make the Catholic doctrine as vague as possible so that science can't contradict it. There are many things in the Bible science can't explain, but there's science that can explain the catholic doctrine with science.

Also for it to be the Catholics Holy book you'd think at some point they would actually follow it. Which they never have from the start.

What's your problem with catholicism? What you just said about our beliefs on science and faith is incredibly false. I think we if we can just talk and understand my beliefs a little better we can get along.

 

[Afro Republican]

What's your problem with catholicism? What you just said about our beliefs on science and faith is incredibly false. I think we if we can just talk and understand my beliefs a little better we can get along.

Do you think all the Popes were holy men that followed the Book?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

John 5 too. There are literally entire sections of Christ speaking about who He is and who his Father is and he doing the will of his Father. Popes have no understanding because they say that Christ is God when scripture plainly says he’s the son. Popes will even go as far as calling themselves the vicar of Christ when Christ said he was sending the Holy Spirit to lead us in truth. He wasn’t coming back every Sunday for a sacrament.

Christ is still a part of Catholicism though so I dunno. Could be a representation of the world a matter of finding your way out through truth meaning the spirit. What’s made me pause and think recently was this. Kinda creepy.

https://www.enkiptahsatya.com/english.html

 

[Thurible]

Do you think all the Popes were holy men that followed the Book?

Not all Popes were good people, but they are the sheperd to the Church's flock. As a Christian I of course know the Bible and believe it was divinely inspired, however I don't take everything that happens in it literally (particularly some of the old testament).

Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is perfect or knows all. It means that in matters of faith and morals he does not err, but outside of that he certainly DOES err. It is hard to explain. It's like when he speaks and acts in the position of a leader in faith he acts without error, but if he personally does and act on something that has nothing to do with faith and morals then he has no real authority on that matter.

 

[Afro Republican]

Not all Popes were good people, but they are the sheperd to the Church's flock. As a Christian I of course know the Bible and believe it was divinely inspired, however I don't take everything that happens in it literally (particularly some of the old testament).

Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is perfect or knows all. It means that in matters of faith and morals he does not err, but outside of that he certainly DOES err. It is hard to explain. It's like when he speaks and acts in the position of a leader in faith he acts without error, but if he personally does and act on something that has nothing to do with faith and morals then he has no real authority on that matter.

And morals? you want to look up Nicolas and Alexandria before continuing down that route? Also which parts of the old testament are you referring to? Are you praying to statues of mary and have idoltry around your neck in the shape of a cross? Do you celebrate mardigra and Easter?

Also my issue isn't really with Cahtolics at a blank, but they have tainted the book and have directly caused a lot of the hatred toward it with doctrine that's not even in it and have had a lot of media influence, in fact they still do in part. I have to spend hour explain things that are in the bible to get someone to even take it seriously, but when they learn certain things that are taught are actually not in it then they usually have a more positive image of the bible.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Really. It’s not “Catholics” per se but the ones leading the so called One True Church.

 

[Thurible]

And morals? you want to look up Nicolas and Alexandria before continuing down that route? Also which parts of the old testament are you referring to? Are you praying to statues of mary and have idoltry around your neck in the shape of a cross? Do you celebrate mardigra and Easter?

Are you talking about Pope Nicholas and Alexander? There are many popes by that name so I will ask you to be more specific. I would assume that they probably did some wrongdoing by the way you wrote that. If a Pope does something wrong then they have sinned and should go to confession and repent. Papal infallibility doesn't mean that the Pope can't be a horrible person, it just means if they are speaking of the faith and morals they cannot err. (I may have a few details off, as I don't know too much of papal infallibility myself as I don't see it as an issue). If the Pope killed a man he did something evil, but that doesn't mean that the position of the papacy and the Church is wrong. If the Pope tries to use his authority to advocate murder he would not be necessarily be speaking infallibly. His words need be in accordance with dogma, scripture, and tradition.

I think the story of the flood and the creation stories are more allegorical in nature due to the way it is written contextually and historic and scientific data that refutes it.

I don't pray to statues or engage in idoltry. Religious art and iconography only serves the purpose to give glory to God. We don't worship Mary but we hold her in a special place in our hearts. She is like a second mother to us. She is the ark of the new covenant, as she bore Christ. In order to bear God, the vessel (Mary) needed to be pure herself. We believe she never sinned and was born without original sin, never had relations, and never died (She was assumed into heaven and reigns as queen). Her accepting to be the Mother of God Incarnate is a big deal to us.

We also pray to the saints as they are sort of role models for us to aspire to be. We do not worship them but we ask them to be intercessors in prayer to God for us. We can just pray to God but praying to a Saint brings the people in the communion of saints involved.

Yes I celebrate easter and (I guess) Mardi gra. Mardi gra is also known as fat tuesday as it is the day before ash wednesday and the beginning of the lent season. It is tradition for us to fast during this time so some catholics like to party and eat a bit before this period of fasting begins.