Gunny's Thread on Religion

[AVG-JOE]

I have, and to go into further discussion would also be completely off topic as it would require way more than a single post. However, since you do not care for generalizations of off topic discussion perhaps you could start your own thread, since the formulas are not what is important here, but what is, the big bang theory was replaced by a more plausible theory recently, gas cloud I think was the term used for it.

Are you referring to nebular cloud theory, which deals with the formation of plants and stars within the universe?

As for most scientists agreeing with the big bang theory, no, they haven't,

TBT remains the dominant and most widely acceted theory, in no small part because no other theory has yet been put forth that explains so much so well

we cannot learn why an atom exists just by figuring out how it got there through any mathematical model, it's not something science can do, because the "why" is not measurable, it's religious.

'why' is not a valid question. There is no 'reason' that the universe is the way it is, other than the interplay of the laws of the universe acting on energy/matter

"Why?" is what makes us different from the animals. "Why?" gave us the scientific method and religion. "Why?" is the parent of both, making them related.

Both are useful tools for us to use, but both, like any tool, can be used in pursuits that can only be described as "a fucked-up psycho-bitch pain in humanity's ass".

This is why we need law; a study based more in "what" than "why"... if we can come to a consensus on what behaviors are acceptable (preferably based in popular opinion that is dynamic and able to change with the times) we will all be able to pursue our own tangents of why and get each generation that much closer to touching the stars.

Step one is accepting that everyone else has the right to be wrong. This is where religion has historically fucked up.

-Joe

 

[KittenKoder]

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

You know less about christianity than muslims do. Learn about it, not recommending "joining up", but actually read their books. Their religion does not answer how, it does not even attempt to address it. Their key book gives a very vague outline that could fit any theory or eventually discovery of fact, without contradicting it or being contradicted. I have told many this same thing, even christianity (truly no religion) makes an attempt to replace science, only some of those who follow those religions try to, often because they want to justify their desire to avoid learning (nothing wrong with the desire to just live and let live, I love Amish people). They don't need to justify that, just as you don't need to force them to either.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again, the 'why' doesn't exist; it is not a valid question. KK and joe are simply buying into a theist 'out' they use to try to validate a perceived 'need' for their delusions and systems, despite their lack of reason, zero grounding in reality, and religion's hsitory of being detrimental to the wellbeing and peace of Mankind

Bullshit. "Why" is art. Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.

And since I believe in my heart that the short window of time I have right here and right now is all I get, barring any 'spiritual' continuation that will never be proved or disproved this side of death, I want art in my life.

Is that too much to ask?

-Joe

 

[JBeukema]

"Why" is a valid question,

It is invalid, just like 'what is the meaning of life?'

and thanks to science it is now the most important question we have left, all the others are getting answered almost as fast as we can ask them,

Really? I would contend that there are still a lot of unanswered questions. If the graviton exists, as our models imply, what is its mass? How does the graviton 'work'? is it effected by other gravitons? How does the graviton fit with the 'curvature' of spacetime around massive objects? Will Moving Dimensions Theory prove true? if so, does that mean it is truly impossible to ever exceed c? Are the hypothetical models of 'warp drives' involving bending spacetime really applicable in the real world? If so, what energy requirements would be involved and how would it be achieved? Can spacetime be warped indefinitely or can it 'tear'? If the latter, what would such 'tearing' actually entail, and what would be the repercussions? Will intergalactic travel and communications ever be feasible, or will any people who leave our own be effectively cut-off from the rest of mankind? how long might it take for speciation to result? Will 'brain transplants' or the transfer or our conscious selves to an artificial medium ever do achieved? Can the Em and other 9m,ostyly E-M) forces be overcome to allow matter to pass through matter, taking advantage of the fact that matter is mostly empty space?


There are many questions to be answered, KK

except that one simple, single word, question. For the millions (perhaps billions) of years our species has existed, it is the one question, the ultimate question, to which empires have sacrificed millions of lives in pursuit of answering, to which millions of sonnets have been writ, which is the only driving force that has kept us civil to each other at all in this world ... "Why."

You know less about christianity than muslims do.

right

That's why I oft end up schooling so-called 'christians' on their own books

 

[JBeukema]

Bullshit. "Why" is art. Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.

And since I believe in my heart that the short window of time I have right here and right now is all I get, barring any 'spiritual' continuation that will never be proved or disproved this side of death, I want art in my life.

Is that too much to ask?

-Joe

You can believe anything you like

it doesn't make you right

 

[Kalam]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

 

[JBeukema]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science concurs with that assertion- they attack it

 

[AVG-JOE]

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

You know less about christianity than muslims do. Learn about it, not recommending "joining up", but actually read their books. Their religion does not answer how, it does not even attempt to address it. Their key book gives a very vague outline that could fit any theory or eventually discovery of fact, without contradicting it or being contradicted. I have told many this same thing, even christianity (truly no religion) makes an attempt to replace science, only some of those who follow those religions try to, often because they want to justify their desire to avoid learning (nothing wrong with the desire to just live and let live, I love Amish people). They don't need to justify that, just as you don't need to force them to either.

I'm with JB on this one... you don't need to understand the theology of Christianity to know that it is founded on a story of origins, an explanation for the unexplainable and a "feeling" that you have met God in its stories and fellowship.

Please do not think that I scoff at the "feeling". I have felt it, I know it is powerful and I will be the first to admit that I miss its comfort.

That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.

Let's face it - we all have a set of beliefs and we all have faith in our beliefs, otherwise we would be foolish and weak. The trick is to demand respect for our own beliefs by respecting the right of everyone else to be wrong.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Bullshit. "Why" is art. Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.

And since I believe in my heart that the short window of time I have right here and right now is all I get, barring any 'spiritual' continuation that will never be proved or disproved this side of death, I want art in my life.

Is that too much to ask?

-Joe

You can believe anything you like

it doesn't make you right

Was that so hard?

-Joe

 

[KittenKoder]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science concurs with that assertion- they attack it

See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ... it gives a vague time descriptive, the one given is "day", which we all know is completely subjective, not only to which planet you are on, but also what species. So it is not outside the realm of science that a being much bigger or powerful than us would have much longer days, like perhaps millions or billions, or even trillions, or our "years" (again a highly subjective measure of time). Also, no, not all christians "attack" scientific discovery, many have integrated it into their beliefs rather well. But like the few who try to ignore science, you are ignoring the religious aspects of existence. Time is subjective, while still linear no matter who it involves, the measure of it is not constant. Also, according to quantum mechanics, time is reversible, but also that our understanding of the phenomena is extremely limited, so to our perspective it would not exist until we did, period.

 

[Kalam]

I'll contend that religions are primarily useful as mechanisms of enforcing social order. In this sense, religions should be judged based on the types of societies that their respective teachings entail. Religions are also useful in providing fellowship with individuals that share similar moral beliefs. Religious beliefs that concern themselves purely with individual spiritual salvation and pleasing some personal creator are useless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JBeukema]

See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ...

god said let there be or let us make and -poof!- there is was


Silly kitty

Time is subjective, while still linear no matter who it involves, the measure of it is not constant. Also, according to quantum mechanics, time is reversible, but also that our understanding of the phenomena is extremely limited, so to our perspective it would not exist until we did, period.

Time existed or passed prior to the emergence of man. Man simply started measuring it. Time requires matter and space to exist- Man is not required.

 

[JBeukema]

I'll contend that religions are primarily useful as mechanisms of enforcing social order. In this sense, religions should be judged based on the types of societies that their respective teachings entail.

now, Kalam- take what you just said and apply it to the tra, bible (any popular canon) and Canon.

Can you see why a text that calls for a social order that is oppressive of women, calls for genocide in multiple instances, and supports slavery (among other things) is reprehensible in the modern age, given the morality of our society? Anyone who does not believe in the religion of the Abrahamic god who has a moral characte will find himself (or herself) compelled to not only reject these texts, but also to fight against their influence in society and the law- just as those who did not believe in Malech, who were bound by their own consciences, could not sit idly by and allow the sacrifice of small children in the fire

Religions are also useful in providing fellowship with individuals that share similar moral beliefs. Religious beliefs that concern themselves purely with individual spiritual salvation and pleasing some personal creator are useless as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree. Even acting on a more limited scale, thepersonal emotional bnenefits and resulting sense of identity can still provide a unifying factor and common groundfor the formation and stability of society. So, in to sociological sense, such a religion can still be 'useful'

 

[Kalam]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science concurs with that assertion- they attack it

I think this comes primarily from scriptural literalism/inerrancy and the mistaken belief that an entire religion becomes invalidated if a few passages of its holy text are shown to be wrong. Notice how some of the posters here flip a shit when you point out that the Bible is, if taken at face value, historically inaccurate. Read your book of choice analytically and it becomes easy enough to reconcile it with modern science.

 

[KittenKoder]

See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ...

god said let there be or let us make and -poof!- there is was


Silly kitty

Time is subjective, while still linear no matter who it involves, the measure of it is not constant. Also, according to quantum mechanics, time is reversible, but also that our understanding of the phenomena is extremely limited, so to our perspective it would not exist until we did, period.

Time existed or passed prior to the emergence of man. Man simply started measuring it. Time requires matter and space to exist- Man is not required.

No, it states "god said let there be ... and so it was" ... it doesn't say "poof" and it doesn't say how long, nor does it say when really, it gives a vague time reference, "day", and lets the reader define that how they wish. Sorry but right now I feel like I am debating with a first day theologian, not a scientific mind. I have also used this same debate with christians who wanted to say their religion denies .... whatever the catch phrase of the topic is, it works on scientists who do the same, like you. Even if you take the christian creation myth word for word, as fact, it does not answer much of what science tries to answer, and science does not answer anything any of the creation myths focus on, which is the "why". Again, you are ignoring the most important aspect of religion, as well as almost all religions from what I have seen in other posts. Christianity is not the only religion, it isn't even one single religion itself anymore, there now several religions within christianity, and out of that archetype there are thousands more religions, each with a creation myth, and each following the basic outline. The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all? If there is no "why" then there is no reason to care. If you don't care then there is no reason to create laws or protect the innocent. So without religion we do have chaos, and without purpose we become ... well ... monkeys again.

 

[JBeukema]

The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all?

You're pulling that old atheist = amoral bullshit, which has been refuted countless times. Newsflash! Christianity doesn't teach morality, it teaches obedience based on fear and coercion. It doesn't give a reason to bee ;good' because it is 'good' to do so- it merely says that failure to abide by outdated laws resultys in punishment. That's not morality, it's coercon and trying to CYA

If there is no "why" then there is no reason to care. If you don't care then there is no reason to create laws or protect the innocent

Wrong. All laws arise from social contract,. Acknowledging that actually allows to to look objectively at a situation and pursue the 'greatest good'. there are plenty of philosophies that deal with morality in the abscense og god. Humanism is but one example- ad the moral instinct can easily emerge from within the natural world itself, making any 'justification' for its existence unneded.

.

So without religion we do have chaos, and without purpose we become ... well ... monkeys again.

1) no religoon = chaos? there is no secular law?
2)We were never monkeys, you stupid little cat

Now you're just parroting long-debunked theist talking points

Good (insert your favorite Deity here) I just started a sentence with "And" followed by one started with "But"!

Please do NOT tell my mother

-Joe

Meh. We'll justy call this exchange dialogue and let it pass on those grounds if, that is, you agree to ignore my typos in return. Deal?

 

[Barb]

I'm giving fair warning straight - up. Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved. Call it what you want, but there you have it. I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.

Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.

Okay, discuss ....

Discuss what? If one posts a thread, does one not also necessarily include a position on the topic?

Which religion? All? Any? If? What is your position, what do you want to know about others positions?

 

[KittenKoder]

The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all?

You're pulling that old atheist = amoral bullshit, which has been refuted countless times. Newsflash! Christianity doesn't teach morality, it teaches obedience based on fear and coercion. It doesn't give a reason to bee ;good' because it is 'good' to do so- it merely says that failure to abide by outdated laws resultys in punishment. That's not morality, it's coercon and trying to CYA

If there is no "why" then there is no reason to care. If you don't care then there is no reason to create laws or protect the innocent

Wrong. All laws arise from social contract,. Acknowledging that actually allows to to look objectively at a situation and pursue the 'greatest good'. there are plenty of philosophies that deal with morality in the abscense og god. Humanism is but one example- ad the moral instinct can easily emerge from within the natural world itself, making any 'justification' for its existence unneded.

.



1) no religoon = chaos? there is no secular law?
2)We were never monkeys, you stupid little cat

Now you're just parroting long-debunked theist talking points

Good (insert your favorite Deity here) I just started a sentence with "And" followed by one started with "But"!

Please do NOT tell my mother

-Joe

Meh. We'll justy call this exchange dialogue and let it pass on those grounds if, that is, you agree to ignore my typos in return. Deal?

No, they are not theist talking points, they are anthropological talking points, a science you clearly know too little about, but a real and kick in the ass science just like all the others. It is the science that determined the question of "why" is what made us exceed our limitations and learn to form societies more complex. I used "monkeys" as an inside joke, I do know the theories and facts of evolution, the word "troglodyte" though is a bit tiresome to type and not as funny. However there is something far more humorous in your replies now, seeing the pattern just now, you have nothing, no ideas, logic, or even science to counter anything except "talking points" ... thus why you wrongly asserted my scientific statements as such.

A true scientist does not discount anything, absolutely everything is valid and has reason, even the most adherent Amish is of importance to study. You, those like you, are fascinating cases of zealotry, but still no less than religious zealots. The only difference is the side of the coin you reside, but the coin is still the same. Now here's something to ponder, would people have gathered as they did without some form of religious ceremony? The answer is simply, no. Though the primitive religion was worshiping of animals and forces of nature, it was still religion that drove them together. As humanity progressed beyond the caves and grass huts they had to recreate their gods, into those we are more familiar with now. In the first cultures religion was the law, even the Pharaohs, as powerful as they were, could not undermine the priests(esses) of the temples where the first laws were created for all of humanity, well, the first truly moral laws. Even the tribal laws in early North America were formed by the religious elders, not the chiefs. The laws were not enforced just because either, they were enforced because the "gods said so" and people who obeyed them were promised a better afterlife than those who did not, with some room for error tossed in. Ancient Egyptians taught that their laws may not be the right ones, but that if you followed them anyway you would still get into the underworld (heaven essentially). Aztecs used sacrifice to frighten their people into obeying the laws, and look what happened to them. The promise of reward has historically been the one factor that has caused people to obey the laws, not the threat of punishment, though punishment is often required it has never been the strength of law.

 

[Barb]

The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information,

Nor the ones who say god loves 'all his children' or who present the biblical god as one of peace and love and mercy

"God" the Creator. What does "God" actually have to be? A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image. Man himself is capable of recreating life through cloning. Don't think because there is some ban on human cloning that some eggheads aren't already hard at it.

So let's apply some logic here. Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance. Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.

That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.

Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.

Would you agree that where theology tries to encroach on science, it is also out of its depth? At least that the two should be taught as separate disciplines?
As for happenstance in science, ecology, specifically the study of biota, suggests evolution is evident in many more places than you might think. The hierarchy of levels, scales, and natural constraints of different criteria, and even landscape corridors match in some way arrangements of human government, civil engineering, competition, family structure (more cohesive within than without), and social activity points to the smallest of organisms. Humans, no matter how one sees them emerging, got here last. Does it not seem more reasonable that the similarities we see are evolutionary, and that we copy other organisms because we have a (or some) shared beginning (s)?

As for me, I believe in the great "I am," but I also believe that a supreme being, or deity, has the necessary reach to reach all people in the way they would best understand. Its the "dad likes me best" wars of exclusive use I find disturbing about organized religion, the social controls built into the dogma, and the history of using it as an excuse to demonize others to steal their women, their land, and their water.

 

[Harry Dresden]

god said let there be or let us make and -poof!- there is was


Silly kitty

why is that silly?.....stay with me here....the god described in the bible seems to be VASTLY superior to humans....so obviously his KNOWLEDGE must be also...so his knowledge of physics might be great enough were said being COULD quite conceivably create a "universe" with primitive life forms using a method that we have described as a "BIG BANG".....i dont see why that would be any more silly than anything put forth so far in this discussion.....including what you have speculated upon JB....