Religion

[chasfh]

On 12/1/2023 at 12:12 PM, Tigeraholic1 said:

Listen, My guy.... Sceintist still have the opinion that BB is a theory yes or no? Religon is a theory no? I have tried to respectable. I am not here tearing anyones theory down. Respect my opinon and as you see I respect yours. Geez......

 

Big Bang and God (which I think is what you meant by "religion") are not theories of the same kind.

Big Bang is a scientific theory, meaning a concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations. A scientific theory is created from large collections of facts and allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. A scientific theory is testable and can be refined or rejected based on new evidence.

The existence of gods is definitely not a scientific theory. It's more of a philosophical theory, one that contemplates the natures of existence, reality, knowledge, and morality. In that sense it better aligns with concepts like existentialism, utilitarianism, and metaphysics.

There is no scientific basis for philosophical theories, although this is not to say there hasn't been a good deal of thought, debate, and even negotiation in the development of their precepts. Most of the major religions designed to codify the idea of gods developed across millennia in some cases, and I think Christianity is both one of the most developed religious philosophies and one of the more fractured. How many religions that consider themselves Christian consider other Christian religions to be apostate beliefs? Several of them, I think, with my old team the Catholics bearing the brunt of most of those.

In any event, I'm with you on agree to disagree. I am also a fan of live and let live, and I suspect you might be, too. Too bad so many of your more fervent fellow travelers don't agree with either one of those.

[casimir]

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

Who are you addressing with this comment?  
 

 

Whoever wants to be pissed off by it.  That’s clearly the game at this point.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, MIguy said:

ruling as to whether the bible is to be taken literally or if it's a book of fairy tales?  

the problem with that formulation is that neither is particularly close to the mark. The OT is a national historical chronicle of the Hebrews. It's  a series of records of how the those people understood their own history and beliefs. We need not take it literally but neither did the writers write it to be fairly tale. Much the same is true of the NT but the gospels are much closer to being personal eyewitness accounts than anything in the OT probably is. The letters in the NT are real letters that real people wrote to other real people - some of whose identities we are pretty sure of, other not so much. Again, how you view the writers' credibility is up to the reader. Contrary to popular perception, with a single exception I would argue that none of the writers of the NT make any claims as to their own infallibility, in contrast for instance to the claim in Islam that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed directly in Arabic by Angel Gabriel and therefore most properly its absolute truth is best not to be compromised even by translation to other languages.

[MIguy]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

Then you don’t understand religion so I would advise not to try to mock something you dont understand because the only result is you look foolish. 
 

Oh I understand religion just fine.  The only thing keeping religion alive is the fact that most believers are indoctrinated from a young age.  If children were left alone to figure things out for themselves, most religions would have died out long ago.

Question for you.  Take a look at the picture below.  He's someone else who claimed to be the son of god and had a following, just like the dude the bible talks about.  What makes his claims any less valid than the other guy?  What proof can you offer that a terrible mistake hasn't been made and that the real son of god perished in Waco Texas in 1993? 

 

[chasfh]

19 hours ago, oblong said:

Catholics don’t have a beef with evolution though. 
 

 

I went to Catholic school for nine years, from fourth grade to HS graduation, and at no point was the theory of evolution ever rejected in any class I ever had. I do remember hearing more than once from teachers, some of them nuns, that the bible's explanation of the creation story was a way to explain to primitive people how the earth was created. (Although I don't recall them saying the explainers of that time were similarly primitive, although they had to be if they didn't know about evolution!) But yeah, at no time was evolution ever questioned, let alone rejected, during science class in Catholic school of the 1970s.

18 hours ago, MIguy said:

There are plenty of Catholics who reject evolution. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/

 

I would suspect that the 26% figure in this poll from eleven years ago reflected an increase from the 1970s due to the rise of muscular Christian politics that started within the previous couple of decades. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the number of Catholics who would answer as such in a poll taken today would be higher, maybe even a third or better. I would bet money, though, that the percent of Catholics in the 1970s who would answer that they believe this would be more like the 15% copped to by mainline Protestants in that 2013 poll.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, casimir said:

... and unwaveringly ignorant.

Again, show examples of "unwaveringly ignorant".

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

I went to Catholic school for nine years, from fourth grade to HS graduation, and at no point was the theory of evolution ever rejected in any class I ever had. ....

The Jesuits have been a big driver in the Catholic education movement and whatever else you may say about them, they are relatively dedicated to the value of knowledge and intellectual rigor, ergo Catholic education has generally not been adversarial to science in the way some Protestant fundamentalists have become.

[1984Echoes]

15 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Oh I understand religion just fine.  The only thing keeping religion alive is the fact that most believers are indoctrinated from a young age.  If children were left alone to figure things out for themselves, most religions would have died out long ago.

Question for you.  Take a look at the picture below.  He's someone else who claimed to be the son of god and...

Here is the first Greek Jesus:

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

Synopsis:

"Apollonius of Tyana was a first-century Greek philosopher and religious leader from the town of Tyana, Cappadocia in Roman Anatolia, who spent his life travelling and teaching in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. He is a central figure in Neopythagoreanism and was one of the most famous "miracle workers" of his day.

His exceptional personality and his mystical way of life, which was regarded as exemplary, impressed his contemporaries and had a lasting cultural influence. Numerous legends surrounding him and accounts of his life are contained in the extensive Life of Apollonius, which collects a large part of the legendary material about Apollonius' life and work. A large part of the ancient legends of Apollonius consist of numerous reports about miracles that he was said to have performed as a wandering sage with his lifelong companion Damis.

He was tried for allegedly having used magic as a means of conspiring against the emperor; after his conviction and subsequent death-penalty, his followers believed he underwent heavenly ascension. Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Apollonius existed historically..."

 

It didn't take. Certainly, obviously, not as well as Paul's interpretation of Hebrew Yeshua.

Edited December 2, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Oh I understand religion just fine.  The only thing keeping religion alive is the fact that most believers are indoctrinated from a young age.  If children were left alone to figure things out for themselves, most religions would have died out long ago.

Question for you.  Take a look at the picture below.  He's someone else who claimed to be the son of god and had a following, just like the dude the bible talks about.  What makes his claims any less valid than the other guy?  What proof can you offer that a terrible mistake hasn't been made and that the real son of god perished in Waco Texas in 1993? 

 

You'd like the be able to say a counter example proves the negative, but the logic doesn't actually work. There are a ton of bad investments out there being hawked as good ones, doesn't prove that  good ones don't exist.

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

... I just don't think you should call people "asinine" who disagree with you...

YOU offered an asinine comment, and then tried to pass it off as a "joke".

Just like Trump.

I don't think that I am the problem in this instance.

[MIguy]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

You'd like the be able to say a counter example proves the negative, but the logic doesn't actually work. There are a ton of bad investments out there being hawked as good ones, doesn't prove that  good ones don't exist.

The logic works just fine, unless you can present DNA evidence of Jesus being the son of God, or perhaps a birth certificate, there is exactly as much evidence available to suggest that David Koresh was actually the one true savior. 

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, MIguy said:

unless you can present DNA evidence of Jesus being the son of God,

What kind of PCR would one expect? To see tiny Angels dancing on the Western Blot?

[MIguy]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

What kind of PCR would one expect? To see tiny Angels dancing on the Western Blot?

Just imagine looking through the microscope and seeing one of these.

 

[casimir]

29 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Again, show examples of "unwaveringly ignorant".

Your never ending defense of Al Avila.

[Tiger337]

39 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Oh I understand religion just fine.  The only thing keeping religion alive is the fact that most believers are indoctrinated from a young age.  If children were left alone to figure things out for themselves, most religions would have died out long ago.

 

That may be true to an extent, but new religions would spring up in their place for similar reasons why the traditional religions were created.  I think most people have a natural curiousity which makes them wonder about the origins and meaning of life.   Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here

[1984Echoes]

9 minutes ago, casimir said:

Your never ending defense of Al Avila.

What an infantile comment. That has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance.

[1984Echoes]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

....   Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here

Don't make the assumption that atheism or secularism = not questioning.

That's a pretty bold and false assumption.

There are those who are actually able to question, and find real answers not rooted in myth.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, 1984Echoes said:

Don't make the assumption that atheism or secularism = not questioning.

That's a pretty bold and false assumption.

There are those who are actually able to question, and find real answers not rooted in myth.

Do you think that religious people never question their beliefs?  

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Do you think that religious people never question their beliefs?  

I never said that.

YOU stated "most people have a natural curiosity which makes them wonder about the origins and meaning of life. Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here."

Who exactly are YOU referring to here, as "not questioning"?

[casimir]

8 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

What an infantile comment. That has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance.

It doesn’t?  Your inability to listen to others and instead shooting down with your tsk tsk tsk type commentary?

Adhenece to straight ticket party voting is ignorant.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I never said that.

YOU stated "most people have a natural curiosity which makes them wonder about the origins and meaning of life. Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here."

Who exactly are YOU referring to here, as "not questioning"?

I am referring to anyone that goes through life not questioning!

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

I am referring to anyone that goes through life not questioning!

Which makes my follow up comments valid, I believe.

But... to answer your question... I KNOW religious people question their beliefs. I have definitely challenged a lot of my friends with difficult questions....

😉

[1984Echoes]

4 minutes ago, casimir said:

It doesn’t?  Your inability to listen to others and instead shooting down with your tsk tsk tsk type commentary?

Adhenece to ...

Well...

That's because I know EVERYTHING.

And I am ALWAYS RIGHT.

[MIguy]

21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That may be true to an extent, but new religions would spring up in their place for similar reasons why the traditional religions were created.  I think most people have a natural curiousity which makes them wonder about the origins and meaning of life.   Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here

Your average atheist is going to spend a lot more time questioning the origin of everything than a religious person.  

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, MIguy said:

Your average atheist is going to spend a lot more time questioning the origin of everything than a religious person.  

Your average agnostic probably would.  Not sure about the average atheist.  I mean right off the bat, they are rejecting the notion of the existence of a god.  They have no evidence that a god does not exist.  I certainly understand the idea of starting with the null hypothesis, but when the majority of the world believes in a god, doesn't that become the null?