you have religions to examine, so then what is the scientific reason they exist? that is the irony, you claim that there is nothing, but that's not true. You have billions of people for thousands of years believing in gods. Darwin observed that life adapts to its environment. What proof do you guys have that darwin got it wrong?
Tracie pegged it exactly; you either have something that manifesting or you dont. And if it manifest you have something to examine. And if its not manifesting you have nothing. There is either nothing there or there is something there. If there is something there you can examine it, and if you have nothing to examine then that is nothing. ;O)
If you have an issue with religion then I guess it makes sense to use science or any means to criticise and debunk it don't you think; whether justified or not. There is no conflict between religion (the ones that I know) and science ...unless you desire it to be so.
as long as the interpretations of religious texts keep getting updated to accomodate for what science keeps discovering then it can be artificially made compatible(the four corners of the earth come to mind, as do the pillars of the earth)
it's interesting when the interpretation people choose to give the holy texts just changes. it's like "you're taking it out of context". but there are things that simply cannot be justified, even in ancient times(rape,slavery,mass murder, genocide). those things are still in the holy book, and some are written as laws. so these holy laws just lose validity over time?
@sabin97 I would suggest there is an element of that being natural in a personal sense; people generally come to know more by experience, change over time, have you ever read a book 4 or 5 times and read or understood something new each time? But there must be an eternal truth contained therein; I never read the Bible in the sense of God killing, but man killing in the name of God; mistaken of course but it still goes on today, every US president has sent his army to war with God Bless America
i highly recommend you read the old testament. there are detailed accounts of YHWH killing individuals as well as whole cities. YHWH directly ordered the protojews to kill every man woman child beast and plant in a certain city. YHWH made the sun stop its orbit around earth(bible physics are awesome) to give the armies more time to kill and pillage. YHWH gives clear and precise instructions on how to murder,rape, pillage, also the rules about slavery are very very clear.....
@sabin97 I've read it, I suggest you re-read it and substitute Law for Lord, and remember also that it is about man's relationship with God as much as much as God's relationship with man. Not only that, you must read the whole thing in context, to take one bit our of the overall message is not correct, and isn't man still killing like this today even though the churches argue against it?
@sabin97 In context meant the idea of salvation of mankind, also I said about the man/god/man relationship, this is where (now as then) we think God is on our side and nobody else's, hence God Bless US everytime they go to war. You can't accept the teaching of Jesus at the same time as the literal old testament; the beatitudes were the new 10 commandments, no killing, only helping and loving others. If you read the 1st part as mans attempt to know God and the NT as how it should be done
@sabin97 You will already know about things like the 2 Genesis creation stories which differ, 2 differeing views or 2 ways to look at creation? Yet the idea of genesis is to create order out of chaos; how many could do with that in their lives? Could we not do with order in our world now? Also the differing accounts about e.g. the woman bleeding, again differing views, but exactly what happens today when we all see something and are asked about it afterwards.
@sabin97 I was never taught and never ever took God as a killer, rapist or murder promoter; it is totally against the whole concept of a loving god creating good and wanting the best for humanity, so the faith and reason is very relevant in that we are coming to know god in this way.
your problem is not with my positions but with the bible. even jesus says that the laws of the old testament still hold.
and actually my problem is not with god(we're cool, god and i). my problem is the grotesque caricature the bible paints, it reduces god to a dumb, childish, brutal, blood-thirsty tyrant that gives you two choices: either believe what the bible says or go fry in hell forever(but he somehow loves us? and we have freewill??)
@sabin97 I agree about the caricature; it is evident in some extreme fundies on the relgious side and people like Dawkins on the other, but if there is an investigation into scripture along the lines of Aquinas in the Summa's, there is a great deal of enlightenment about the Bible and it's meaning and it's relation with us, irrespective of whether you are religious or not it can constitute a good read with a happy ending
@sabin97 Never mind the relative message eh ...just go for the massage ? But of course it wasn't a "jew fairy tale"; the opposite in many ways if you think about it
in many ways except a jew book, and fairy tales.......it's a pretty twisted, perverse one at that. did you read the parts about YHWH telling them how to murder pillage rape and enslave?
@sabin97 I´am afraid Clarence Darrow would say that is all in the mind of the reader as opposed to the book, are there no good messages at all contained therein ?
you guessed wrong. so i'll try to make it simpler this time. there ARE good messages, of course. even childrens fairy tales have good messages. does that mean childrens fairy tales are the word of god?
the main difference is taht childrens fairy tales dont contain all the horrific things you find in the bible(both new and old testament), and childrens fairy tales tend not to be blasphemous, they dont paint an image of a petty, jealous, genocidal, vengeful god.
@sabin97 But this is all down to interpretation and linguistics, this subject was well covered by the early church and there is a difference between fairy tales for children and the bible for adults. That argument is a childish one you put forward. how about the wicked queen in snow white feeding little girls poisoned apples, is she a god role model ?
the wicked queen is presented as an evil character, not as the infinitely loving creator of the universe who takes pleasure in destroying people....and all the horrible qualities attributed by the bible(both new and old testament)
just to make it clear, i have no problems with god, it(god needs no gender) and i are cool. my problem is with the bible and the fact that so many people choose to believe it.
@sabin97 But you are still down to interpretation; either way you present it you are back to this position. That´s why I referred to Clarence Darrow, a great atheist lawyer from the Scope Monkey Trial, who would say that the issue of a nasty God is in your view, in your mind, in how we relate stories. How do we as humans interact; how do we explain what is beyond explanation? How do we describe what is indescribable? There are no words, so we use analogies and stories
your reply is also to an interpretation of my previous statement
EVERYTHING is interpreted, that's how our brain works....
even your understanding of god is your INTERPRETATION of what you've heard/read from others
and yes i interpret that depiction of god being repulsive and barbaric. accoding to the old testament, god commanded that if you have a disobedient child you shall stone them to death at the gates of the city, amongs other many barbaric tyranical acts.
@sabin97 I absolutely agree that murder is wrong and we now agree that it is down to interpretation. Given that, my view is that JC gave us the parables of the adulterous woman, the good samaritan and the samaritan woman at the well. These contradict the idea of a vengeful God I suggest, and are good news by any standards, eqaulity for women and all that. JC was at odds with the San Hedrin for proposing the "real interpretations" of how mankind should obey the laws of nature. Thats how I see it
@sabin97 Exactly, this issue has been discussed for many years within and without the church with theologians and philosophers. The idea of a wrathful God isn´t reflective of his nature as I understand it.
now i'm a bit flabberghasted....are you saying the bible lies? or are you saying that when they talk of the wrath of god and they describe god telling them to rape, pillaje and enslave, and when god destroys entire cities.....they really mean he just tickled them and smooched them with infinite love?
@sabin97 I did say earlier there are messages in the Bible, your interpretation suggests you get the wrong message in my view, this is contradictory to my understanding, which is based on Faith and Reason. The Faith and Reason part requires a questioning of the messages contained therein, just like we need to read the instructions on medicine before we take it. The OT contains mountains of social material; love and hate, sex and war, killing and rebirth are all depicted
most story-telling books have plenty of social material, you can read otello, don quijote, a brave new world, and many more. having social content doesnt mean they are "the word of god"
now let me gather just a few passages that paint the wrath of YHWH, and all that juicy abrahamic-religion violence.
@sabin97 You are not misunderstanding the passages, but taking them out of context is different. One might read it as in terms of the overwhelming nature of God´s power in it´s totality...if this is possible..... but that is only illustrative. All I can say is I have no problem in reading these passages, it makes sure I ask and look at what goes on around me in our society today and the injustices prevalent.
@sabin97 And..they are all relevant today; we as humans are stilll killing and murdering, raping and pillaging and enslaving people and abusing human rights, but to raed one part of the book, or any book without the whole story or picture or message is taking the whole thing out of context. There are passages in the NT referring to the OT and vice versa, and you still seem to insist on my reading-interpretating the Bible through your eyes, when we should know as adults that doesn´t work
@sabin97 They are relevant today in that they still exist in our societies, so mankind is fallen in that sense would you not agree? In reading the bible we have to take out the historical social comment of the day; we might still say slavery is allowed today ( it shouldn´t be of course) by the way our "free markets work"; children making clothes in the far east so we get them at 50% discount etc. This is where the bible makes a historical statement, but mans action contradicts the commandments
@sabin97 I have to say that when I read those passages so many years ago, I had gone to the end of the book for the happy ending first, so I knew this book was going to have a change which it did. The xplanation for me is that people misuse and abuse the "Word of God" power bit; hence reading in context. I wouldn´t read anything that promoted slavery and believe it to be just, but question the whole thing and want to treat my neighbour as myself. This is the context I apply
does YHWH endorse slavery to this day(as the bible doesnt say a single thing against slavery but both the old and new testament endorse slavery)? or did he suddenly come to the moral epiphany that slavery is wrong sometime after all the books in the bible were written?
also i've read most of the old testament(up to page 740 of about 1200 in total) and parts of the new testament.
@sabin97 Not in my reading of it, but man does, this is exactly why JC was here to advise of the correct meaning and application if you like. But in social historical issues these passages are relevant in that they depict the law of man at the time; Aristotle and the great Philosophers just accepted slavery as part of life at the time even though they discussed equality for women and social structures of their society.
@sabin97 We don´t disagree that these passage state what they do, but what is meant and what they allude to or point at. This is where we part company. I don´t read it as literal in that sense. I see it in the context of mankind having the wrong idea of "A God" if such a being exists...even "being" is incorrect as a descriptive term. This wrong idea or view still exists in many quarters today and is rife in areas like You Tube in my opinion.
@sabin97 The best analogy I can use to explain it is when two people look at an optical illusion; sometimes we see different things in the same image, now is that caused by our looking incorrectly or how our mind is structured?
are you saying that the bible is the word of man and not the word of god?
if you are then we have no disagreement for i too believe the bible to be the creation of primitive, self-important people who made up YHWH as their god(of them and of noone else). a god that loves only the people of israel and uses the other nations to punsh them but cares not a bit about the other nations.
@sabin97 Lol, is that because I don´t say what you would like me to say? The Bible is obviously written by men but is what I understand to be God inspired, but that demands even more questions just as you state, and doesn´t life ask these questions anyway ? I´ve never understood the Bible message to be only for the Jewish people; if so it would be bad would it not? I disagree about the peoples being primitive; in every sense we had the birth of philosophy long before Jesus,and....
from the old testamend i would say it's very bad not to be a jew. YHWH kept smiting the other people and guiding the jews to conquer them(unfair advantage anyone?)
"if so it would be bad would it not?" i do believe it to be mostly bad
with a few good pieces of advice and a few messages of peace and love, but mostly it's the story of a god with favourites,tantrums,jealousy, a mischievous, self-centered, most-powerful bully.
@sabin97 Yes but he also lead them out of slavery from Egypt didn´t he? So they were enslaved for many yeears and suffered many hardships even though they were God´s "chosen" people. We are in agreement in that I also feel it doesn´t depict any kind of God I am aware off, perhaps a mans image of God at that time (and now I suggest in many situations) but this was altered in the NT
did you read the mass child murder YHWH commited against the children of egypt just because of a decision by the(for some reason the bible doesnt refer to him as "the") faraoh? and also using the neighboring nations to murder thousands of proto-jews......and many other wrongs....which when added together, at least to my own moral standards, dont make a right....
@sabin97 But that comment falls into the same category as the other ones; it is only relevant if you believe in this God you propose. Theologians have for hundreds of years taught against this idea of a vengeful, hateful God; this isn't the way the Bible should be read I suggest.
the bible portrays a vengeful, hateful, petty, jealous,murderous god
why do some theologians still consider the bible to be the word of god?
i refuse to believe god is even worse than me
people i've killed 0
people that YHWH has killed, entire cities(including innocent children, and virgin women(the bible is virgin-obscessed)), and also individuals, for even the most minor provocations, even well intentioned people who broke a stupid archaic rule in order to protect a sacred item.
@sabin97 But that again is down to your mis-interpretation I suggest, it is an issue common today as well as in the Bible...where was God at the holocaust, at the Tsunami, at 9-11, at Darfur..... why does God "allow" evil is another big theological disputation.The constant repetition of your view or (mis) reading of the Bible doesn't alter my view or make my proposition any less valid. Your stance also aligns with some literalist fundamentalists
when the bible says YHWH killed a guy(i dont remember his name) for not impregnating his brothers widow....
what exactly does it mean?? because the only thing that comes to my mind is that YHWH killed the guy for not impregnating his brothers widow..... how exactly am i misinterpreting that?
@sabin97 Well it could be we are interpreting man's view of God's power or dominion over the earth or more likely his idea that God is on his side alone; mankind does this today, whenever the US goes to war, the President does so with the final words "God save America". Would you not agree there is a similiarity here?
so please explain it to me, what does the bible mean when it says YHWH killed a man because he wouldnt impgregnate his brothers widow?
does it mean YHWH killed him because he wouldnt impregnate his brothers widow?
or am i too stupid to grasp the true meaning of those words? what exactly do they mean?did YHWH really kill him? was it really because he wouldnt impregnate his brothers widow? why would the protojews make up such a horrible lie?
@sabin97 For me, I would read that as a misrepresentation of what God really wants; just like when the US President say's God Bless America when they go to war; I'm not so sure that a God would take sides, what about you? If whoever wrote that piece you refer to wanted to portray God as being on his side, then that is the view he took, kinda like God being there when we want him. They wouldn't look on it as a lie I suggest, just like today in Palestine.
@sabin97 But of course we get the true meaning of what God wants later in the story don't we; love thy neighbour as thyself, the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Samaritian woman at the well. There is equality of the sexes for you, and she is often portrayed as the first disciple don't you know.
my question was specifically about the guy whom the bible says god killed for not impregnating his brothers widow. how do you interpret that? since i'm obviously misinterpreting it as god killing him for not impregnating his brothers widow.
if you're gonna jump around and say "but look at the whole thing" then we might also conclude that the 10 commandments are not really valid. and also what does god really want? how do YOU know?is that your interpretation or the real thing?
@sabin97 I answered that question in the 1st reply, and gave a modern day comparison in my view where God is mis-used. You may take the view that it is all invalid, but to "jump around" as you infer was putting the story in context of the book as there is a contradiction between the God displayed in one part and how he is portrayed in the other.
@sabin97 The first line in my initial response is very clear I would say..."For me, I would read that as a misrepresentation of what God really wants; just like when the US President say's God Bless America when they go to war; I'm not so sure that a God would take sides, what about you? "..I think that is clear enough, but if you want to tell me where that passage is in the Bible I will read it and give you my view.
actually you elaborated about a lot of things, but not about what i asked....so it was very clear, just not answering that specific question, or like a computer engineering professor used to say "the right answer to a different question",
genesis 38:1-20
my doubt is simple...did or didnt YHWH kill the guy? and if so what was the reason for the murder? was it because he refused to impregnate his brothers widow? or is that all a jew lie, like so many jew lies in the bible?
@sabin97 I did elaborate but also answered the question; it is very clear I reject the idea that God killed the man in the story for not impregnating his brother's widow and it is a misreading or misrepresentation. I will read the part you gave me and respond.
@sabin97 Just a wealth of information and social history in that passage isn't there, I ended up reading a bit further than 20;in one aspect it is about relationships and love and morality etc. On the god killing thing, this isn't for me as I've stated and would appear to me to be about true love as opposed to an arranged marriage decreed by someone else.We might say it could reflect the true church as opposed to man's church perhaps; just like the good samaritan parable.
@sabin97 You can read the passage whatever way you wish and obviously do; I don't read it that way. I stated a number of times that Big G didn't kill the guy or the brother, but is portrayed that way to suit a view, an abuse and misuse of God; just like the US presidents as I've said, and a misuse of religious adherance as in Good Samaritan parable ... or maybe you agree with arranged marriages....do you ?
@sabin97 My understanding is that you read the Bible in context; this means socially and historically and chronologically. There was a time (and still is) when people viewed death as God's revenge for being bad; therefore if someone died of an illness there would be an attempt to rationalise it perhaps. In this passage the elder brother is apparently put to death by the lord because he "is bad" also, so you get the idea; living is good, death is punishment.
i guess what you meant to say is "yes it says so, but it's because it's the word of ignorant people who attributed natural things(good and bad) to god"
@sabin97 I wouldn't want to imply that All people were ignorant; if so the same applies today I suggest. Philosophy in Greece and language exchange all went on then as today; Rome conquered the world in a way the US can't today, gave us roads and acqueducts and astronomy from ancient Egypt, so I hesitate to call them ignorant. The allegorical nature of the Bible was recognised hundreds of years ago, and was elucidated by theologians in the middle ages and earlier.
@sabin97 There is a whole wealth of religious symbolism in the OT, and it is dependent on how you read it, that is my view, and there you are, I've never been sarcastic once
@sabin97 I think maybe you were right with the self deprecation after all;I said they were wrong to blame God for killing him, he died for whatever reason as people do today, but I suggest God didn't kill him. It suited the purpose of the elders at that time to misuse the law; hence my referral to the Good Samaritan etc. The symbolism is the Old law and the New law contained in the whole passage you refer to; this bit was the Old law
my bad, but your previous post about all the "religious symbolism" sounded like you were making up excuses for the authors of the bible(or as some call it, "the word of god") telling deliberate lies. so we're back on track
the authors lied in those passages we were discussing. is it possible they lied in other parts? also jesus says the law(or as you call it, "the old law") is still valid, so whom should you believe?
@sabin97 No it didn't, that the guy died is most likely true, that God did it for not impregating the woman, no chance, but that this was misused; undoubtedly, that it happesn today, definately, God bless the US going to war is exactly the same...get that ? The symbolism is about one part of reading the bible; it is full of parables and images and symbolism. This has been known for centuries. I will give you an example......
@sabin97 ......eg: Old law = old test, new law = new test, future glory = heaven. Allegorical sense would be Moses (sym of JC) leads Hebrews (sym of church; christ's body) through the exodus (sym of salvation) from slavery (sym of sin) to Pharoah (sym of satan (?) ruler of egypt (sym of fallen world) across red sea (sym of death) through wilderness (sym of purgatory) to the promised land (sym of heaven) .....
@sabin97.... an example of the moral sense would be christ's washing of disciples feet symbolizing our obligation to serve our neighbours humbly....anagogical sense would be christs's healing of the blind to symbolise his complete healing of our spiritual blindness in heaven's beatific vision. These are just some examples of syombolism in the bible and the church today, but this symbolism is alive and well and accepted in our modern society of course
@sabin97 And by modern symbolism I don't mean just in the church but in everyday life; just as I've stated about US going to war; God Bless America when sending the troops to foreign lands to kill is exactly that, and if you object or query it, you are a traitor. This symbolism is all around us in society; ghost writers are accepted for film stars and celebrities who can't write their own "autobiography"....have a thought about that
how dare those proto-jews falsely accuse god of murder,genocide,homophobia,encouragement of slavery,encouragement of rape, and all those horrible things in the old testament and the new testament???!
@sabin97 By the way sabin, why the self deprecating comments? I never made any accusation about your intelligence ? Also, you never reply to my questions, but I've always answered yours.
@sabin97 No it didn't, I answered all your questions right away and never dodged an issue, I stated early on God wasn't a killer in the sense you portrayed when you asked that question. I also used a modern day analogy to make it easier to understand that this type of misuse goes on today in modern society, but I guess you don't want to see that anyway, which is what I said in my initial post
@sabin97 The Romans conquered the "world" in a way we can´t today, and they left an indelible mark on society which we still use, just think of the US Senate etc, so this idea of a primitive ignorant people is wrong I suggest. If you start from that base, you will undoubtedly not see any good in antiquity
@sabin97 But this post is about Religion and Science being in conflict; I don´t agree there is any conflict, that is my contention, just like the Scopes Monkey Trial was a big issue in US and still appears to be today, it wasn´t so much of an issue in UK or Europe. If we discover men on mars it won´t alter the Church (and by this I mean the RC Church) in it´s view of creation or mankind or God or humanity and it´s objective
@sabin97 I have no problem in discussing what any particular passage may reflect or mean or point to, but don´t paint me with some literalist fundamentalist image, when the philosophy of the bible and church states none of these. When the Scope Monkey Trial took place in US, it was big news, it never caused a ripple in Europe from the theological and educational sense. If we discover men on mars tomorrow it doesn´t affect the basic stance of the church in terms of creation.
am i misunderstanding those passages? or does the bible mean something different when it says slaves? and when it seas beat them with a stick does it mean literally that? is there a hidden meaning i'm missing?
will provide more after you clarify those 3 to me, and help me see the error in my interpretation. to me they read as endorsement to slavery, but i'm obviously wrong.
and the new testament says homosexuals deserve to die(it doesnt say "kill them" but it subtly hints that way)
it also says that if you look at a woman and you desire her you are best off losing your eyes. did you read the part about jesus placing a curse on a fig tree? i kid you not, just read your bible....seek and ye shall findeth
@sabin97 This post was originally about religion and science, but you are now down the route of literal interpretation and (mis) understanding I suggest. This way of acting still goes on today; people (mis) use God all the time, it appears you are still in the realms of the Scope Monkey Trial here with reductive literalism. The US/UK invaded Iraq with "Shock and Awe"...does that sound inviting and friendly ?
The biggest thing I have realized and learned about Religion is how easily people can be Controlled mentally.Its shocking and alittle scary when your talking to them face to face.Its like their under some kind of hypnotic trance.
What theists dont get is that its not enough to have a scientist who agree with you. He/she also has to have his/hears ideas accepted by the scientific comunity.
@gulbirk More accurately doesn't matter what the fuck a scientist says or what a group of people accept. If what someone says doesn't match with reality, then what they are saying is bullshit. Can believe in bullshit, because there are animals commonly called bulls who are able to defecate, but believing bullshit is just wrong. Just nitpicking because your statement comes off more like an argument from numbers/authority, even though i doubt that you meant it that way.
@mistereveready What I meant was that any scientific idea must be prer reviewed and accepted by the scientific comunity. That means it must be demonstrably true, or at least true to the extent that you can prove it some way. Having a scientists claim something is not worth anything more than having me claim something.
Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because the former demands inquiry and thorough observation, the latter demands faith, even in face of evidence to the contrary. Religion knows because it knows, science knows because it has investigated and observed stuff happening. Religion claims absolute truths without any evidence, science always leaves an option to discredit if evidence is sufficient. If all that isn't a clear sign of incompatibility, then yeah, they are compatible...
A paleontologist says that if evolution started all over again human intelligence would develop in the same way as it has? WTFFFFFFFFFFF?? This guy is thinking evolution starting again from where? Just a few hundred thousands years ago? 3 billion years ago. If it's the later, either I don't understand evolution AT ALL, or that quote is wrong, or this guy should have his position at Cambridge removed.
from the confusions of other people and the confusiong nature the universe has at first glance. The reasons the religions had there "rules" was not because the sins were inherently evil, but because they can lead you into this cycle of confusion and disfunction, preventing progress, religion is simply a tool, and must be improved over time like all other technology or it will become the very hinderence it was originally created to prevent. If you wish to talk to me then feel free to message me
No sorry, you don't get you appeal to us by trying to claim you have deducted this through calm reasoning. Logically, from what you stated you should not believe in a god. Just feeling empty when not believing in a god, even if that was proof of god which it is not as it is an emotion that is very well understood when trying to come to grips with any hard decision and you picked the one that feels more comfortable. See how I said picked?
You just don't get it, you are just as delusional. Even if any god physically came down and told you it exists. That still does not prove god to you. Your first impression in any scenario that pertains to personal experience should be "I probably just had a delusional experience or something I may be mis interpreting, it is silly to believe personal belief especially since the nature of the mind is to cater to things that make the individual feel good and may have misfired."
The rational thing to do is to look for corroborating evidence. I'm sorry, but all these people with personal evidence is fucking useless, even for them. It's still faith, believing something even though there is no supporting evidence.
Also, you are a scientific christian buddhist? Do you know buddhists do not believe in a god right and they are atheists? Science and christianity are in direct conflict, in fact all your descriptions are.
You can not claim to believe in Christianity and science without making special pleeding, and when you move to buddhism you are just going to sound like a complete retard trying to justify being all 3.
Anyway, the point is this. You are not rational, you are faith based with a very basic "proof" of god that in no way validates it/him and can not be demonstrated to another and basically a useless proof if it was a proof which it's not. So again, you have no reason for belief.
Again, the only proof you are aloud to submit is ACTUAL proof, you know, repeatable observable demonstrable tests that are peer reviewed and point towards some conclusion.
Also, we have a very good understanding on the purpose of religion, and we understand the reason that moral structures are even in religion, as religions with no moral law are less followed as no one has a reason to believe.
When you introduce a system of immoral actions into a religion more people start to believe out of fear what others tell them, and guilt keeps them hooked. The guilt never happens with any morals like do not kill(well guilt happens but not in the same way), we see guilt with the moral laws of sex and laws we find to be silly. The reason is, we know it's silly and do it anyway, then feel guilty as we know it's "wrong" as per some "god".
name which fairly accurately describes my belief system. I am a Scientific Christian Buddhist. I believe in science and none of my belief conflict or will ever conflict with science for they are based on a scientific way of thinking, I believe Jesus Christ is my savior, and i belief in trying to reach a state of mental balance and freeing your self of the cycle of confusion or "sin" or "karma" as some might call it as to obtain a level of thinking that is clear and logical without hinderences
that Humanities destiny as the "children of God" is to grow up and become like him and maybe even better than him, via science and technology.Were not even close. watch "Symphony of Science - A Wave of Reason" and there other videos especially "Symphony of Science - 'The Case for Mars' (ft. Zubrin, Sagan, Cox & Boston)" So you ask what's the name of what my belief system is,(i have reveiled only a portion of what i believe, which i believe via logical deduction and correlation) i cam up with a
I deducted it because when i denounce God i feel this feeling of emptiness and when it accept him I don't feel that emptiness. I NEVER believe just because it is taught to me or it says so in some book. It has to make sense to me. I create a theory on existence and alter it as i learn more just as any scientist does. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD IS, HOW HE IS THERE, WHAT HE DOES, OR IF HE EXIST IN ANY WAY THAT I COULD POSSIBLE COMPREHEND!!!!! i simply belive he is there somehow someway and
does not replace my beliefs in God but simply add to it. I view it as learning the mind of God. GOD IS NOT A MAN SITTING UP IN THE CLOUDS AND JUDGING US ANTS AND SENDING THE SINNERS TO HELL!!!! The only reason i believe in God is the feeling i get when i don't. Before anyone says that is unscientific it is sensory data which i am making a logical deduction from based on the knowledge i have thenceforth it is just as justifiable as any scientific theory that doesn't have physical scientific proof
You are assuming scientific theories do not have physical proof which is incorrect. All scientific theories are held to the academic peer review. What is this? Well it means when someone asserts something, or makes a claim, or presents proof, or presents tests to demostrate something is true, science does not end there, peer review starts. Where hundreds, to thousands of scientists take the same tests, repeat and verify. This allows us to *continued*
get rid of bias scientists, the scientists that may have made a mistake. We make damn sure our findings are vetted by the absolute best and verified thousands of times before asserting them as true. Right now there is 216,000~ peer reviewed articles on evolution. There are 650,000 examples of physical evidence be it fossils to genetics, that are all repeatable and verifiable.
Yet you keep telling people to read a certain book, by someone who has not entered it into the peer review arena. He would not dare, it would be torn apart. No real scientist would not enter peer review. Scientists love when their findings are proven wrong, because even if they made the wrong claim, at least they got the correct result in the end. You are trying to state that you are somehow above this.
@HolyReaperX01 You somehow just know more then the collective scientific community with discredited authors, and arguments from ignorance. You have this special veil over what you believe, so if anyone puts forth evidence of it you cling to it, what you fail to understand is people can twist words, and twist findings to meet almost any result. It takes a true scientist, and one should only take it seriously, if it survives peer reviewed. It is a never ending machine calling all bluffs.
@JamesCizuz I never said read the bible i believe a huge portion of it is bullshit, and i specifically said scientific theories that do not have physical proof, therefore i am admitting my believe in such a thing is less credible than peer reviewed science, I fully accept scientific findings when presented to me by credible sources. you assumed im an average christian. im not. i dont preach my faiths, only what i know is fact, which happens to be science. i am willing to discuss however...
@JamesCizuz my philisophical theories under the pretense that i have no empirical evidence to support them and that they may very well be wrong...see unlike most people i dont believe that what i believe is the absolute truth but simply it is the closest thing to the truth based on what i personally know but i am perfectly willing to accept new ideas and my own opinions change all the time in fact i dont even think i fully agree with my original posts here anymore now that i am even more...
@JamesCizuz knowledgeable than i was before...so please, please, PLEASE!!! don't mistake me for one of those retarted fucks trying to force a book or religion down your throat cuz i hate em just as much a you do. I respect an atheist and a googlist more than i respect the average religious person. I think only science should be preached on mass and other subjects such as religious ideas or views should be on an individual or small private group basis. And don't even get me started on...
@JamesCizuz pseudoscience......that just puisses me off....my entire point basically was that i believe that some sort of spiritual belief does not necessarily conflict with science if ones spirituality is structured for the purpose of being compatible with science, and i doesnt even require the belief in God or spirits or whatever. It can really take any form, even as just another form of processing imaginary information that has a real effect on the world. If you do not understand my example..
@JamesCizuz then another example of such a process is the economy. a $100 bill and a $1 bill have roughly the same physical value, yet we have assigned the $100 bill 100 times more value, so we process this imaginary data when making transactions with our money, and therefore this imaginary information has a real effect on physical information (aka energy and matter). Spirituality on the other hand instead of representing physical values could potentially represent moral values or ...
@JamesCizuz or psychological values ect. and therefore influence the soundness or attitude etc. of an individual and then transversally a society therefore affecting physical information whilst also affecting all other forms of imaginary information such as the economy therefore affecting the physical world even more and so on. so theoretically if a persons spirituality was focused on the betterment of society and the pursuit of scientific knowledge then it could be completely compatible...
@JamesCizuz with science. So on side note yes i believe traditional religion is in conflict with science because i see it as an equivalent of people telling astronauts that they are sinners if they don't were ancient anointed armor for their protection. The armor was once the best they had at the time but blacksmiths had no rules saying they couldn't improve upon their designs and eventually the trade of making protective clothing led to the creation of space suits for astronauts...
@JamesCizuz in this metaphor i see the astronauts as the equivalent of the scientific community and the blacksmiths as the priests...now theres nothing preventing an astronaut from wearing battle armor were appropriate but space is not such a place...but no doubt if space suits were ever designed for battle some elementary concepts would be shared with the ancient battle suits. i could go on and one with this but i think you get the point by now.
via a means we do not or are just starting to understand(read physics of the soul by Amit Goswami) and that he is a natural phenomenon beyond our current scientific understanding. i do not even believe he is an entity in the way that we think of entities.(claiming God is a person is just for ease of understanding) but he is more like a state of being or just something completely out of our understanding and that all our current explanations are inaccurate. Therefore any scientific discovery
im just saying that it is possible, and there so much in the scientific realm that has remained undiscovered that it is ignorant to state that a God is impossible...we as the human race probable know <1% of all scientific discoveries there are to be made. Already in the realms of quantum mechanics there have been discoveries that defy common sense or logical thinking. So am i filling in the holes with God. ABSOLUTELY NOT! i am simply stating i believe there is a god who is somehow connected to
you can have a belief in God that isn't a "God plus" and still have an unhindered scientific belief so long as you believe that any God there may be is incomprehensible to science and will remain so for say hundreds or thousands of years most likely and that he does not break the laws of science so any affect he has on the world isn't a direct physical interaction. This is possible through quantum entanglement with his followers, not saying that is how i believe he does it just stating...
Science and religion are in themselves, not compatible. Science can exist with the notion of a 'god' per se, but the problem stems more so from the dogma inherent to most religions and the fact that most claims made by religion have been or are likely to be refuted by science.
Most need to remember that religion's origins stemmed from the need to explain that which could not be explained. Which is why most gods were archetypes of various natural phenomenon, like lightning or earthquakes.
My father has a Masters degree in Physics and is also a Minister in the Church of England. So... yes I believe that science and religion are compatible. A lot of Americans can't seem to understand that.
@Armageddon2077 without stating which side of the issue I'm on, how are they compatible? it seems like he managed to do exactly what was said in the video a science plus thing.
@electorg their science plus argument is just down playing the fact that science and religion (any religion) is compatible. Did you know that the word algebra come from the middle east? and was devised at a time when baghdad was a cultural centre of learning?
no... what...? what the fuck are you on about? when did i say... even imply... that because someone is ahead in science their god becomes true? all i said that you can believe in god and study, teach, research and write about scientific findings (in any culture) and believe in any god. showing that science and religion is compatible. if you want to call it 'science plus' go ahead... you could just as easily call it 'religion plus'... fuck 'muffins'... and still no one would give a shit
@Armageddon2077 somebody can be smart,and have no goddamned sense at the same time. there are a lot of people who are brilliant,and just cant cope with not having all the answers,so they need something to fill the gaps..aka,God
@Armageddon2077 further,working as a scientist,doesnt mean someone applies scientific logic to all of their problems,and anyone who believes in any god,is directly in conflict with science,they are not compatible,some people are just to afraid to face a world without all the answers,so they make them up
Hi.'Conflict'? Freethinkers? ..lulz! The God, WHO IS , is THE CHIEF SCIENTIST of all being , WHO HAS INFINITE INTELLIGENCE! not a finite anthropomorphised fantasy creature in a Youtuber's fantasy with a goatee beard speculating,on false subjective premises about reality and real knowledge. It is you who imagines there is a conflict; and God is finite mortal like you, rather. God KNOWS, but you sit and sputter nonsensical, illogical specualations as if they were infallible reasoning! : )
@UnderlordZ The whole Universe is ample evidence God is. Nature is like a book; learn to read inbetween the lines, and also think and feel about this for yourself; not just posing to be a 'free' 'thinker' as some do, but are not, in fact, but slave-thinkers to some fanatical atheistic fundie cult. God is not silent, God has spoken, and God has defined God as being identical to LOVE thus; "God is Love;" I will not attempt to 'define' God; much better to let God define God!
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Anything physical is only evidence of itself. The Universe only proves the Universe. You have it ENTIRELY. FUCKING. BACKWARDS. YOU. MORON.
Love is defined as the emotion of strong affection and personal attachment. That tells me absolutely NOTHING about your god!
You, like many before you, have again FAILED to provide any actual arguments for your position.
@UnderlordZ My my, all those capitalized words and explicatives. Now, calm down, we wouldn't want any EMOTIONS to have any distorting effect on you high degree of scientific critical thinking and logical philosphical reasoning, of such blindlingly bright light! ; )
No my thinking only APPEARS backwards to those who are already thinking and seeing reality backwards. Moron, moi? Yes, I am a complete idiot! ( next to God.)
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Again I ask, what is your evidence that your god exists? You've yet to provide any, and until you do, you're basing everything you're saying on an assumption; one that, by the way, has yet to be proven true in well over 2,000 years.
@UnderlordZ Evidence? Look in the mirror; do you see a human being with a free will who is really a free thinking 'free-thinker', or do 'you' see a robot, with no free will to think what he/she wishes and willls, and who's 'thoughts' are but electrical spark patterns with no meaning of any essential qualtive importance and value? No soul? How much does this thought weigh then if it is material: "apple?" Pray tell; what is it's size and dimension, if it is merely material? WutDuzDNAXpress?
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Well if your bible is to be believed, then looking in a mirror WOULD show a meat-sack meant for nothing else but to worship your god. Fortunately, I've accepted reality as it is; finite time is what truly gives infinite value. If you truly believe there's an eternal afterlife once you're dead, do us all a favor and just go kill yourself. Oh wait, religion's convinced you that if you do, you don't get to go to HappyLand. Newsflash: you're an idiot for believing any of that.
@UnderlordZ Who are...'all of us" ..? "Underlord" ?...who are they? Gay satanist followers of anton la vay, who can't stand the the thought of there being a God, who live in denial 24/7/360/365, of God and God's Mercy......so, they don't have to even think about any sense of moral accountability for their lives towards The Creator, Who's sovereignity the like to deny? "Inifinite value" ? Where in culture, if U r a materialist did U get that concept ? Srssly,..U claim to have superiour logic! :)
Why doesn't this universe building omnipotent being pop up in a beaker to help human mankind with their struggle to understand reallity, then? Freakin' asshole if you ask me, just stopped talking to us since hafway through the old testament. Or did the religious think tanks of the day eventually figuring out that they can't make people believe the the most naïve fairytales anymore so they'd better move this god thing a bit further back into the smokescreens, or there would be too many questions?
If you delve into science and work with it, you will never run into God. God, being a non-existent entity, will never insert himself into any field of scientific study. So the conflict will never happen UNLESS you insert God yourself. So science and religion can co-exist unless YOU muck it up.
two things that dont and wont ever fit in together because people are over opinionated and wont take the time to listen to each other.. well actually i think it depends on how and who your dealing with when it comes to the subjects. i have tw friends. ones religious and the other isnt, they get along fine idk how but when they talk on these subjects they some how find a middle ground. so maybe theres a missing link between these two subjects.
you have religions to examine, so then what is the scientific reason they exist? that is the irony, you claim that there is nothing, but that's not true. You have billions of people for thousands of years believing in gods. Darwin observed that life adapts to its environment. What proof do you guys have that darwin got it wrong?
(facts are a bitch)
romney27 4 months ago
worship the couch monster
m2ger8 4 months ago
Someone farts at 3:18 lol
MarcoArsenault 6 months ago
Tracie pegged it exactly; you either have something that manifesting or you dont. And if it manifest you have something to examine. And if its not manifesting you have nothing. There is either nothing there or there is something there. If there is something there you can examine it, and if you have nothing to examine then that is nothing. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 6 months ago
If you have an issue with religion then I guess it makes sense to use science or any means to criticise and debunk it don't you think; whether justified or not. There is no conflict between religion (the ones that I know) and science ...unless you desire it to be so.
no1hoopsman 8 months ago
@no1hoopsman
as long as the interpretations of religious texts keep getting updated to accomodate for what science keeps discovering then it can be artificially made compatible(the four corners of the earth come to mind, as do the pillars of the earth)
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Of course, that applies to science and life in general don't you think? We grow and learn all the time
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
it's interesting when the interpretation people choose to give the holy texts just changes. it's like "you're taking it out of context". but there are things that simply cannot be justified, even in ancient times(rape,slavery,mass murder, genocide). those things are still in the holy book, and some are written as laws. so these holy laws just lose validity over time?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I would suggest there is an element of that being natural in a personal sense; people generally come to know more by experience, change over time, have you ever read a book 4 or 5 times and read or understood something new each time? But there must be an eternal truth contained therein; I never read the Bible in the sense of God killing, but man killing in the name of God; mistaken of course but it still goes on today, every US president has sent his army to war with God Bless America
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
i highly recommend you read the old testament. there are detailed accounts of YHWH killing individuals as well as whole cities. YHWH directly ordered the protojews to kill every man woman child beast and plant in a certain city. YHWH made the sun stop its orbit around earth(bible physics are awesome) to give the armies more time to kill and pillage. YHWH gives clear and precise instructions on how to murder,rape, pillage, also the rules about slavery are very very clear.....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I've read it, I suggest you re-read it and substitute Law for Lord, and remember also that it is about man's relationship with God as much as much as God's relationship with man. Not only that, you must read the whole thing in context, to take one bit our of the overall message is not correct, and isn't man still killing like this today even though the churches argue against it?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
"you must read the whole thing in context"
i thought i did, but apparently not. would you please tell me in what possible context is it moral to rape, pillage and enslave?
i cannot think of anything that would justify those actions.
i'm pro peace. i condemn wars and murders. we agree in the part about killing is morally wrong
where we disagree is that i say killing,raping, pillaging, enslaving in the past was ALSO morally wrong....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 In context meant the idea of salvation of mankind, also I said about the man/god/man relationship, this is where (now as then) we think God is on our side and nobody else's, hence God Bless US everytime they go to war. You can't accept the teaching of Jesus at the same time as the literal old testament; the beatitudes were the new 10 commandments, no killing, only helping and loving others. If you read the 1st part as mans attempt to know God and the NT as how it should be done
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 You will already know about things like the 2 Genesis creation stories which differ, 2 differeing views or 2 ways to look at creation? Yet the idea of genesis is to create order out of chaos; how many could do with that in their lives? Could we not do with order in our world now? Also the differing accounts about e.g. the woman bleeding, again differing views, but exactly what happens today when we all see something and are asked about it afterwards.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 I was never taught and never ever took God as a killer, rapist or murder promoter; it is totally against the whole concept of a loving god creating good and wanting the best for humanity, so the faith and reason is very relevant in that we are coming to know god in this way.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
your problem is not with my positions but with the bible. even jesus says that the laws of the old testament still hold.
and actually my problem is not with god(we're cool, god and i). my problem is the grotesque caricature the bible paints, it reduces god to a dumb, childish, brutal, blood-thirsty tyrant that gives you two choices: either believe what the bible says or go fry in hell forever(but he somehow loves us? and we have freewill??)
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I agree about the caricature; it is evident in some extreme fundies on the relgious side and people like Dawkins on the other, but if there is an investigation into scripture along the lines of Aquinas in the Summa's, there is a great deal of enlightenment about the Bible and it's meaning and it's relation with us, irrespective of whether you are religious or not it can constitute a good read with a happy ending
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
i'd rather have a massage with a happy ending than a jew fairy tale with a happy ending.....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Never mind the relative message eh ...just go for the massage ? But of course it wasn't a "jew fairy tale"; the opposite in many ways if you think about it
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
in many ways except a jew book, and fairy tales.......it's a pretty twisted, perverse one at that. did you read the parts about YHWH telling them how to murder pillage rape and enslave?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I´am afraid Clarence Darrow would say that is all in the mind of the reader as opposed to the book, are there no good messages at all contained therein ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
indeed there are. once a year you are to feed the widow and the orphan(the rest of the year they can suck it).
you are not to kill your slaves(but you can brutally beat them)
love is a beautiful thing(unless it's between people of the same gender, then it's a terrible abomination and they deserve to die for it)
god has infinite love for you, but if you dont accept the bible as his word, then he'll send you to be tortured FOREVER
and so on and so forth
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I guess what you meant to say is you don't see or recognise any good messages then, I was right with the Clarence Darrow bit then
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
you guessed wrong. so i'll try to make it simpler this time. there ARE good messages, of course. even childrens fairy tales have good messages. does that mean childrens fairy tales are the word of god?
the main difference is taht childrens fairy tales dont contain all the horrific things you find in the bible(both new and old testament), and childrens fairy tales tend not to be blasphemous, they dont paint an image of a petty, jealous, genocidal, vengeful god.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 But this is all down to interpretation and linguistics, this subject was well covered by the early church and there is a difference between fairy tales for children and the bible for adults. That argument is a childish one you put forward. how about the wicked queen in snow white feeding little girls poisoned apples, is she a god role model ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
the wicked queen is presented as an evil character, not as the infinitely loving creator of the universe who takes pleasure in destroying people....and all the horrible qualities attributed by the bible(both new and old testament)
just to make it clear, i have no problems with god, it(god needs no gender) and i are cool. my problem is with the bible and the fact that so many people choose to believe it.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 But you are still down to interpretation; either way you present it you are back to this position. That´s why I referred to Clarence Darrow, a great atheist lawyer from the Scope Monkey Trial, who would say that the issue of a nasty God is in your view, in your mind, in how we relate stories. How do we as humans interact; how do we explain what is beyond explanation? How do we describe what is indescribable? There are no words, so we use analogies and stories
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
your reply is also to an interpretation of my previous statement
EVERYTHING is interpreted, that's how our brain works....
even your understanding of god is your INTERPRETATION of what you've heard/read from others
and yes i interpret that depiction of god being repulsive and barbaric. accoding to the old testament, god commanded that if you have a disobedient child you shall stone them to death at the gates of the city, amongs other many barbaric tyranical acts.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I absolutely agree that murder is wrong and we now agree that it is down to interpretation. Given that, my view is that JC gave us the parables of the adulterous woman, the good samaritan and the samaritan woman at the well. These contradict the idea of a vengeful God I suggest, and are good news by any standards, eqaulity for women and all that. JC was at odds with the San Hedrin for proposing the "real interpretations" of how mankind should obey the laws of nature. Thats how I see it
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
that's how you interpret it to be....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Exactly, this issue has been discussed for many years within and without the church with theologians and philosophers. The idea of a wrathful God isn´t reflective of his nature as I understand it.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
now i'm a bit flabberghasted....are you saying the bible lies? or are you saying that when they talk of the wrath of god and they describe god telling them to rape, pillaje and enslave, and when god destroys entire cities.....they really mean he just tickled them and smooched them with infinite love?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 I did say earlier there are messages in the Bible, your interpretation suggests you get the wrong message in my view, this is contradictory to my understanding, which is based on Faith and Reason. The Faith and Reason part requires a questioning of the messages contained therein, just like we need to read the instructions on medicine before we take it. The OT contains mountains of social material; love and hate, sex and war, killing and rebirth are all depicted
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
most story-telling books have plenty of social material, you can read otello, don quijote, a brave new world, and many more. having social content doesnt mean they are "the word of god"
now let me gather just a few passages that paint the wrath of YHWH, and all that juicy abrahamic-religion violence.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 You are not misunderstanding the passages, but taking them out of context is different. One might read it as in terms of the overwhelming nature of God´s power in it´s totality...if this is possible..... but that is only illustrative. All I can say is I have no problem in reading these passages, it makes sure I ask and look at what goes on around me in our society today and the injustices prevalent.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 And..they are all relevant today; we as humans are stilll killing and murdering, raping and pillaging and enslaving people and abusing human rights, but to raed one part of the book, or any book without the whole story or picture or message is taking the whole thing out of context. There are passages in the NT referring to the OT and vice versa, and you still seem to insist on my reading-interpretating the Bible through your eyes, when we should know as adults that doesn´t work
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
you are right that people are still killing in the name of YHWH(the iraq wars? suicide bombers?)
and pillaging, and raping,
"And..they are all relevant today" what exactly are "they" that are relevant?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 They are relevant today in that they still exist in our societies, so mankind is fallen in that sense would you not agree? In reading the bible we have to take out the historical social comment of the day; we might still say slavery is allowed today ( it shouldn´t be of course) by the way our "free markets work"; children making clothes in the far east so we get them at 50% discount etc. This is where the bible makes a historical statement, but mans action contradicts the commandments
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 I have to say that when I read those passages so many years ago, I had gone to the end of the book for the happy ending first, so I knew this book was going to have a change which it did. The xplanation for me is that people misuse and abuse the "Word of God" power bit; hence reading in context. I wouldn´t read anything that promoted slavery and believe it to be just, but question the whole thing and want to treat my neighbour as myself. This is the context I apply
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
so what do you make of those passages?
does YHWH endorse slavery to this day(as the bible doesnt say a single thing against slavery but both the old and new testament endorse slavery)? or did he suddenly come to the moral epiphany that slavery is wrong sometime after all the books in the bible were written?
also i've read most of the old testament(up to page 740 of about 1200 in total) and parts of the new testament.
i always look for context.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Not in my reading of it, but man does, this is exactly why JC was here to advise of the correct meaning and application if you like. But in social historical issues these passages are relevant in that they depict the law of man at the time; Aristotle and the great Philosophers just accepted slavery as part of life at the time even though they discussed equality for women and social structures of their society.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 We don´t disagree that these passage state what they do, but what is meant and what they allude to or point at. This is where we part company. I don´t read it as literal in that sense. I see it in the context of mankind having the wrong idea of "A God" if such a being exists...even "being" is incorrect as a descriptive term. This wrong idea or view still exists in many quarters today and is rife in areas like You Tube in my opinion.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 The best analogy I can use to explain it is when two people look at an optical illusion; sometimes we see different things in the same image, now is that caused by our looking incorrectly or how our mind is structured?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
wow you could be very successful in politics....
your answer only demands even more questions..
are you saying that the bible is the word of man and not the word of god?
if you are then we have no disagreement for i too believe the bible to be the creation of primitive, self-important people who made up YHWH as their god(of them and of noone else). a god that loves only the people of israel and uses the other nations to punsh them but cares not a bit about the other nations.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Lol, is that because I don´t say what you would like me to say? The Bible is obviously written by men but is what I understand to be God inspired, but that demands even more questions just as you state, and doesn´t life ask these questions anyway ? I´ve never understood the Bible message to be only for the Jewish people; if so it would be bad would it not? I disagree about the peoples being primitive; in every sense we had the birth of philosophy long before Jesus,and....
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
from the old testamend i would say it's very bad not to be a jew. YHWH kept smiting the other people and guiding the jews to conquer them(unfair advantage anyone?)
"if so it would be bad would it not?" i do believe it to be mostly bad
with a few good pieces of advice and a few messages of peace and love, but mostly it's the story of a god with favourites,tantrums,jealousy, a mischievous, self-centered, most-powerful bully.
i refuse to believe it depics god in any way.....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Yes but he also lead them out of slavery from Egypt didn´t he? So they were enslaved for many yeears and suffered many hardships even though they were God´s "chosen" people. We are in agreement in that I also feel it doesn´t depict any kind of God I am aware off, perhaps a mans image of God at that time (and now I suggest in many situations) but this was altered in the NT
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
so you're saying that two wrongs make a right?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 What wrongs are you talking about?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
did you read the mass child murder YHWH commited against the children of egypt just because of a decision by the(for some reason the bible doesnt refer to him as "the") faraoh? and also using the neighboring nations to murder thousands of proto-jews......and many other wrongs....which when added together, at least to my own moral standards, dont make a right....
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 But that comment falls into the same category as the other ones; it is only relevant if you believe in this God you propose. Theologians have for hundreds of years taught against this idea of a vengeful, hateful God; this isn't the way the Bible should be read I suggest.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
the bible portrays a vengeful, hateful, petty, jealous,murderous god
why do some theologians still consider the bible to be the word of god?
i refuse to believe god is even worse than me
people i've killed 0
people that YHWH has killed, entire cities(including innocent children, and virgin women(the bible is virgin-obscessed)), and also individuals, for even the most minor provocations, even well intentioned people who broke a stupid archaic rule in order to protect a sacred item.
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 But that again is down to your mis-interpretation I suggest, it is an issue common today as well as in the Bible...where was God at the holocaust, at the Tsunami, at 9-11, at Darfur..... why does God "allow" evil is another big theological disputation.The constant repetition of your view or (mis) reading of the Bible doesn't alter my view or make my proposition any less valid. Your stance also aligns with some literalist fundamentalists
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
wow then i must be dumber than a rock....
when the bible says YHWH killed a guy(i dont remember his name) for not impregnating his brothers widow....
what exactly does it mean?? because the only thing that comes to my mind is that YHWH killed the guy for not impregnating his brothers widow..... how exactly am i misinterpreting that?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 Well it could be we are interpreting man's view of God's power or dominion over the earth or more likely his idea that God is on his side alone; mankind does this today, whenever the US goes to war, the President does so with the final words "God save America". Would you not agree there is a similiarity here?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
so please explain it to me, what does the bible mean when it says YHWH killed a man because he wouldnt impgregnate his brothers widow?
does it mean YHWH killed him because he wouldnt impregnate his brothers widow?
or am i too stupid to grasp the true meaning of those words? what exactly do they mean?did YHWH really kill him? was it really because he wouldnt impregnate his brothers widow? why would the protojews make up such a horrible lie?
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 For me, I would read that as a misrepresentation of what God really wants; just like when the US President say's God Bless America when they go to war; I'm not so sure that a God would take sides, what about you? If whoever wrote that piece you refer to wanted to portray God as being on his side, then that is the view he took, kinda like God being there when we want him. They wouldn't look on it as a lie I suggest, just like today in Palestine.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 But of course we get the true meaning of what God wants later in the story don't we; love thy neighbour as thyself, the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Samaritian woman at the well. There is equality of the sexes for you, and she is often portrayed as the first disciple don't you know.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
my question was specifically about the guy whom the bible says god killed for not impregnating his brothers widow. how do you interpret that? since i'm obviously misinterpreting it as god killing him for not impregnating his brothers widow.
if you're gonna jump around and say "but look at the whole thing" then we might also conclude that the 10 commandments are not really valid. and also what does god really want? how do YOU know?is that your interpretation or the real thing?
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 I answered that question in the 1st reply, and gave a modern day comparison in my view where God is mis-used. You may take the view that it is all invalid, but to "jump around" as you infer was putting the story in context of the book as there is a contradiction between the God displayed in one part and how he is portrayed in the other.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
so when it says YHWH killed a man because the man chose not to impregnate his brothers widow
did it or didnt it mean that YHWH killed him for choosing not to impregnate his brothers widow?
i read both of your posts but was unable to tell if that is or isnt what the bible means to say....
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 The first line in my initial response is very clear I would say..."For me, I would read that as a misrepresentation of what God really wants; just like when the US President say's God Bless America when they go to war; I'm not so sure that a God would take sides, what about you? "..I think that is clear enough, but if you want to tell me where that passage is in the Bible I will read it and give you my view.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
actually you elaborated about a lot of things, but not about what i asked....so it was very clear, just not answering that specific question, or like a computer engineering professor used to say "the right answer to a different question",
genesis 38:1-20
my doubt is simple...did or didnt YHWH kill the guy? and if so what was the reason for the murder? was it because he refused to impregnate his brothers widow? or is that all a jew lie, like so many jew lies in the bible?
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 I did elaborate but also answered the question; it is very clear I reject the idea that God killed the man in the story for not impregnating his brother's widow and it is a misreading or misrepresentation. I will read the part you gave me and respond.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 Just a wealth of information and social history in that passage isn't there, I ended up reading a bit further than 20;in one aspect it is about relationships and love and morality etc. On the god killing thing, this isn't for me as I've stated and would appear to me to be about true love as opposed to an arranged marriage decreed by someone else.We might say it could reflect the true church as opposed to man's church perhaps; just like the good samaritan parable.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
so to sum up
that passage means YHWH killed the guy for not impregnating his brothers widow? or am i grossly mistaken in reading it that way?
what does it mean when it says YHWH killed him for not impregnating his brothers widow? or perhaps it's a mistranslation?
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 You can read the passage whatever way you wish and obviously do; I don't read it that way. I stated a number of times that Big G didn't kill the guy or the brother, but is portrayed that way to suit a view, an abuse and misuse of God; just like the US presidents as I've said, and a misuse of religious adherance as in Good Samaritan parable ... or maybe you agree with arranged marriages....do you ?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
"And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. "
how exactly do you interpret "he slew him"? i've search in several versions in several languages and they all say the same thing.
in my limited, unintelligent interpretation the words "he slew him" mean he killed him....
so what does the bible mean when it says "he killed him"?
please enlighten me
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 My understanding is that you read the Bible in context; this means socially and historically and chronologically. There was a time (and still is) when people viewed death as God's revenge for being bad; therefore if someone died of an illness there would be an attempt to rationalise it perhaps. In this passage the elder brother is apparently put to death by the lord because he "is bad" also, so you get the idea; living is good, death is punishment.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
FINALLY an answer
i guess what you meant to say is "yes it says so, but it's because it's the word of ignorant people who attributed natural things(good and bad) to god"
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 I wouldn't want to imply that All people were ignorant; if so the same applies today I suggest. Philosophy in Greece and language exchange all went on then as today; Rome conquered the world in a way the US can't today, gave us roads and acqueducts and astronomy from ancient Egypt, so I hesitate to call them ignorant. The allegorical nature of the Bible was recognised hundreds of years ago, and was elucidated by theologians in the middle ages and earlier.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 There is a whole wealth of religious symbolism in the OT, and it is dependent on how you read it, that is my view, and there you are, I've never been sarcastic once
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
ok so we're back at the begining
what exactly is the symbolism of "YHWH killed him because he refused to impregnate his brothers widow"?
from a previous post i thought you said they did mean it but they were wrong....now it's religious symbolism....
so when they say "YHWH killed him" they dont mean that YHWH killed him...what exactly do they mean then?
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 I think maybe you were right with the self deprecation after all;I said they were wrong to blame God for killing him, he died for whatever reason as people do today, but I suggest God didn't kill him. It suited the purpose of the elders at that time to misuse the law; hence my referral to the Good Samaritan etc. The symbolism is the Old law and the New law contained in the whole passage you refer to; this bit was the Old law
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
my bad, but your previous post about all the "religious symbolism" sounded like you were making up excuses for the authors of the bible(or as some call it, "the word of god") telling deliberate lies. so we're back on track
the authors lied in those passages we were discussing. is it possible they lied in other parts? also jesus says the law(or as you call it, "the old law") is still valid, so whom should you believe?
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 No it didn't, that the guy died is most likely true, that God did it for not impregating the woman, no chance, but that this was misused; undoubtedly, that it happesn today, definately, God bless the US going to war is exactly the same...get that ? The symbolism is about one part of reading the bible; it is full of parables and images and symbolism. This has been known for centuries. I will give you an example......
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 ......eg: Old law = old test, new law = new test, future glory = heaven. Allegorical sense would be Moses (sym of JC) leads Hebrews (sym of church; christ's body) through the exodus (sym of salvation) from slavery (sym of sin) to Pharoah (sym of satan (?) ruler of egypt (sym of fallen world) across red sea (sym of death) through wilderness (sym of purgatory) to the promised land (sym of heaven) .....
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97.... an example of the moral sense would be christ's washing of disciples feet symbolizing our obligation to serve our neighbours humbly....anagogical sense would be christs's healing of the blind to symbolise his complete healing of our spiritual blindness in heaven's beatific vision. These are just some examples of syombolism in the bible and the church today, but this symbolism is alive and well and accepted in our modern society of course
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 And by modern symbolism I don't mean just in the church but in everyday life; just as I've stated about US going to war; God Bless America when sending the troops to foreign lands to kill is exactly that, and if you object or query it, you are a traitor. This symbolism is all around us in society; ghost writers are accepted for film stars and celebrities who can't write their own "autobiography"....have a thought about that
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@no1hoopsman
how dare those proto-jews falsely accuse god of murder,genocide,homophobia,encouragement of slavery,encouragement of rape, and all those horrible things in the old testament and the new testament???!
and why do christians believe them???
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 By the way sabin, why the self deprecating comments? I never made any accusation about your intelligence ? Also, you never reply to my questions, but I've always answered yours.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
oh the self-deprecation was sarcasm....
i didnt answer because that would shift the focus of the thread. it took like a week to get just one straight answer....
sabin97 6 months ago
@sabin97 No it didn't, I answered all your questions right away and never dodged an issue, I stated early on God wasn't a killer in the sense you portrayed when you asked that question. I also used a modern day analogy to make it easier to understand that this type of misuse goes on today in modern society, but I guess you don't want to see that anyway, which is what I said in my initial post
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@sabin97 The Romans conquered the "world" in a way we can´t today, and they left an indelible mark on society which we still use, just think of the US Senate etc, so this idea of a primitive ignorant people is wrong I suggest. If you start from that base, you will undoubtedly not see any good in antiquity
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 But this post is about Religion and Science being in conflict; I don´t agree there is any conflict, that is my contention, just like the Scopes Monkey Trial was a big issue in US and still appears to be today, it wasn´t so much of an issue in UK or Europe. If we discover men on mars it won´t alter the Church (and by this I mean the RC Church) in it´s view of creation or mankind or God or humanity and it´s objective
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@sabin97 I have no problem in discussing what any particular passage may reflect or mean or point to, but don´t paint me with some literalist fundamentalist image, when the philosophy of the bible and church states none of these. When the Scope Monkey Trial took place in US, it was big news, it never caused a ripple in Europe from the theological and educational sense. If we discover men on mars tomorrow it doesn´t affect the basic stance of the church in terms of creation.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
leviticus 25:44-46 slavery
exodus 21:2-6 proto-jew slaves
exodus 21:20-21 more on slavery
am i misunderstanding those passages? or does the bible mean something different when it says slaves? and when it seas beat them with a stick does it mean literally that? is there a hidden meaning i'm missing?
will provide more after you clarify those 3 to me, and help me see the error in my interpretation. to me they read as endorsement to slavery, but i'm obviously wrong.
sabin97 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
and i admit it might be just my interpretation of murdering your child for being disobedient is barbaric.
do you also interpret murdering your child as a barbaric act?
sabin97 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman
and the new testament says homosexuals deserve to die(it doesnt say "kill them" but it subtly hints that way)
it also says that if you look at a woman and you desire her you are best off losing your eyes. did you read the part about jesus placing a curse on a fig tree? i kid you not, just read your bible....seek and ye shall findeth
sabin97 7 months ago
@sabin97 This post was originally about religion and science, but you are now down the route of literal interpretation and (mis) understanding I suggest. This way of acting still goes on today; people (mis) use God all the time, it appears you are still in the realms of the Scope Monkey Trial here with reductive literalism. The US/UK invaded Iraq with "Shock and Awe"...does that sound inviting and friendly ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
The biggest thing I have realized and learned about Religion is how easily people can be Controlled mentally.Its shocking and alittle scary when your talking to them face to face.Its like their under some kind of hypnotic trance.
eoo8 8 months ago
What theists dont get is that its not enough to have a scientist who agree with you. He/she also has to have his/hears ideas accepted by the scientific comunity.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk More accurately doesn't matter what the fuck a scientist says or what a group of people accept. If what someone says doesn't match with reality, then what they are saying is bullshit. Can believe in bullshit, because there are animals commonly called bulls who are able to defecate, but believing bullshit is just wrong. Just nitpicking because your statement comes off more like an argument from numbers/authority, even though i doubt that you meant it that way.
mistereveready 9 months ago
@mistereveready What I meant was that any scientific idea must be prer reviewed and accepted by the scientific comunity. That means it must be demonstrably true, or at least true to the extent that you can prove it some way. Having a scientists claim something is not worth anything more than having me claim something.
gulbirk 9 months ago
Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because the former demands inquiry and thorough observation, the latter demands faith, even in face of evidence to the contrary. Religion knows because it knows, science knows because it has investigated and observed stuff happening. Religion claims absolute truths without any evidence, science always leaves an option to discredit if evidence is sufficient. If all that isn't a clear sign of incompatibility, then yeah, they are compatible...
hellhammerz666 10 months ago
But how does the acorn turn into the oak tree? You're missing the transitional fossils! ;P
Philosification 10 months ago
A paleontologist says that if evolution started all over again human intelligence would develop in the same way as it has? WTFFFFFFFFFFF?? This guy is thinking evolution starting again from where? Just a few hundred thousands years ago? 3 billion years ago. If it's the later, either I don't understand evolution AT ALL, or that quote is wrong, or this guy should have his position at Cambridge removed.
cristianfcao 1 year ago
How can an atheist and proponent of critical thinking (Tracie) be scared of a "couch monster" that eats pens and small coins?
It's just a hole, and if you open the bottom of the couch, you'll find your pen again...
;-)
tovadaq 1 year ago
The God of Science (ft. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, & Arthur C. Clarke)
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
=)
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
from the confusions of other people and the confusiong nature the universe has at first glance. The reasons the religions had there "rules" was not because the sins were inherently evil, but because they can lead you into this cycle of confusion and disfunction, preventing progress, religion is simply a tool, and must be improved over time like all other technology or it will become the very hinderence it was originally created to prevent. If you wish to talk to me then feel free to message me
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
@HolyReaperX01
No sorry, you don't get you appeal to us by trying to claim you have deducted this through calm reasoning. Logically, from what you stated you should not believe in a god. Just feeling empty when not believing in a god, even if that was proof of god which it is not as it is an emotion that is very well understood when trying to come to grips with any hard decision and you picked the one that feels more comfortable. See how I said picked?
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
You just don't get it, you are just as delusional. Even if any god physically came down and told you it exists. That still does not prove god to you. Your first impression in any scenario that pertains to personal experience should be "I probably just had a delusional experience or something I may be mis interpreting, it is silly to believe personal belief especially since the nature of the mind is to cater to things that make the individual feel good and may have misfired."
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
The rational thing to do is to look for corroborating evidence. I'm sorry, but all these people with personal evidence is fucking useless, even for them. It's still faith, believing something even though there is no supporting evidence.
Also, you are a scientific christian buddhist? Do you know buddhists do not believe in a god right and they are atheists? Science and christianity are in direct conflict, in fact all your descriptions are.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
You can not claim to believe in Christianity and science without making special pleeding, and when you move to buddhism you are just going to sound like a complete retard trying to justify being all 3.
Anyway, the point is this. You are not rational, you are faith based with a very basic "proof" of god that in no way validates it/him and can not be demonstrated to another and basically a useless proof if it was a proof which it's not. So again, you have no reason for belief.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
Again, the only proof you are aloud to submit is ACTUAL proof, you know, repeatable observable demonstrable tests that are peer reviewed and point towards some conclusion.
Also, we have a very good understanding on the purpose of religion, and we understand the reason that moral structures are even in religion, as religions with no moral law are less followed as no one has a reason to believe.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
When you introduce a system of immoral actions into a religion more people start to believe out of fear what others tell them, and guilt keeps them hooked. The guilt never happens with any morals like do not kill(well guilt happens but not in the same way), we see guilt with the moral laws of sex and laws we find to be silly. The reason is, we know it's silly and do it anyway, then feel guilty as we know it's "wrong" as per some "god".
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
name which fairly accurately describes my belief system. I am a Scientific Christian Buddhist. I believe in science and none of my belief conflict or will ever conflict with science for they are based on a scientific way of thinking, I believe Jesus Christ is my savior, and i belief in trying to reach a state of mental balance and freeing your self of the cycle of confusion or "sin" or "karma" as some might call it as to obtain a level of thinking that is clear and logical without hinderences
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
that Humanities destiny as the "children of God" is to grow up and become like him and maybe even better than him, via science and technology.Were not even close. watch "Symphony of Science - A Wave of Reason" and there other videos especially "Symphony of Science - 'The Case for Mars' (ft. Zubrin, Sagan, Cox & Boston)" So you ask what's the name of what my belief system is,(i have reveiled only a portion of what i believe, which i believe via logical deduction and correlation) i cam up with a
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
I deducted it because when i denounce God i feel this feeling of emptiness and when it accept him I don't feel that emptiness. I NEVER believe just because it is taught to me or it says so in some book. It has to make sense to me. I create a theory on existence and alter it as i learn more just as any scientist does. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD IS, HOW HE IS THERE, WHAT HE DOES, OR IF HE EXIST IN ANY WAY THAT I COULD POSSIBLE COMPREHEND!!!!! i simply belive he is there somehow someway and
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
does not replace my beliefs in God but simply add to it. I view it as learning the mind of God. GOD IS NOT A MAN SITTING UP IN THE CLOUDS AND JUDGING US ANTS AND SENDING THE SINNERS TO HELL!!!! The only reason i believe in God is the feeling i get when i don't. Before anyone says that is unscientific it is sensory data which i am making a logical deduction from based on the knowledge i have thenceforth it is just as justifiable as any scientific theory that doesn't have physical scientific proof
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
@HolyReaperX01
You are assuming scientific theories do not have physical proof which is incorrect. All scientific theories are held to the academic peer review. What is this? Well it means when someone asserts something, or makes a claim, or presents proof, or presents tests to demostrate something is true, science does not end there, peer review starts. Where hundreds, to thousands of scientists take the same tests, repeat and verify. This allows us to *continued*
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
get rid of bias scientists, the scientists that may have made a mistake. We make damn sure our findings are vetted by the absolute best and verified thousands of times before asserting them as true. Right now there is 216,000~ peer reviewed articles on evolution. There are 650,000 examples of physical evidence be it fossils to genetics, that are all repeatable and verifiable.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01
Yet you keep telling people to read a certain book, by someone who has not entered it into the peer review arena. He would not dare, it would be torn apart. No real scientist would not enter peer review. Scientists love when their findings are proven wrong, because even if they made the wrong claim, at least they got the correct result in the end. You are trying to state that you are somehow above this.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@HolyReaperX01 You somehow just know more then the collective scientific community with discredited authors, and arguments from ignorance. You have this special veil over what you believe, so if anyone puts forth evidence of it you cling to it, what you fail to understand is people can twist words, and twist findings to meet almost any result. It takes a true scientist, and one should only take it seriously, if it survives peer reviewed. It is a never ending machine calling all bluffs.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I never said read the bible i believe a huge portion of it is bullshit, and i specifically said scientific theories that do not have physical proof, therefore i am admitting my believe in such a thing is less credible than peer reviewed science, I fully accept scientific findings when presented to me by credible sources. you assumed im an average christian. im not. i dont preach my faiths, only what i know is fact, which happens to be science. i am willing to discuss however...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz my philisophical theories under the pretense that i have no empirical evidence to support them and that they may very well be wrong...see unlike most people i dont believe that what i believe is the absolute truth but simply it is the closest thing to the truth based on what i personally know but i am perfectly willing to accept new ideas and my own opinions change all the time in fact i dont even think i fully agree with my original posts here anymore now that i am even more...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz knowledgeable than i was before...so please, please, PLEASE!!! don't mistake me for one of those retarted fucks trying to force a book or religion down your throat cuz i hate em just as much a you do. I respect an atheist and a googlist more than i respect the average religious person. I think only science should be preached on mass and other subjects such as religious ideas or views should be on an individual or small private group basis. And don't even get me started on...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz pseudoscience......that just puisses me off....my entire point basically was that i believe that some sort of spiritual belief does not necessarily conflict with science if ones spirituality is structured for the purpose of being compatible with science, and i doesnt even require the belief in God or spirits or whatever. It can really take any form, even as just another form of processing imaginary information that has a real effect on the world. If you do not understand my example..
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz then another example of such a process is the economy. a $100 bill and a $1 bill have roughly the same physical value, yet we have assigned the $100 bill 100 times more value, so we process this imaginary data when making transactions with our money, and therefore this imaginary information has a real effect on physical information (aka energy and matter). Spirituality on the other hand instead of representing physical values could potentially represent moral values or ...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz or psychological values ect. and therefore influence the soundness or attitude etc. of an individual and then transversally a society therefore affecting physical information whilst also affecting all other forms of imaginary information such as the economy therefore affecting the physical world even more and so on. so theoretically if a persons spirituality was focused on the betterment of society and the pursuit of scientific knowledge then it could be completely compatible...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz with science. So on side note yes i believe traditional religion is in conflict with science because i see it as an equivalent of people telling astronauts that they are sinners if they don't were ancient anointed armor for their protection. The armor was once the best they had at the time but blacksmiths had no rules saying they couldn't improve upon their designs and eventually the trade of making protective clothing led to the creation of space suits for astronauts...
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz in this metaphor i see the astronauts as the equivalent of the scientific community and the blacksmiths as the priests...now theres nothing preventing an astronaut from wearing battle armor were appropriate but space is not such a place...but no doubt if space suits were ever designed for battle some elementary concepts would be shared with the ancient battle suits. i could go on and one with this but i think you get the point by now.
HolyReaperX01 10 months ago
via a means we do not or are just starting to understand(read physics of the soul by Amit Goswami) and that he is a natural phenomenon beyond our current scientific understanding. i do not even believe he is an entity in the way that we think of entities.(claiming God is a person is just for ease of understanding) but he is more like a state of being or just something completely out of our understanding and that all our current explanations are inaccurate. Therefore any scientific discovery
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
im just saying that it is possible, and there so much in the scientific realm that has remained undiscovered that it is ignorant to state that a God is impossible...we as the human race probable know <1% of all scientific discoveries there are to be made. Already in the realms of quantum mechanics there have been discoveries that defy common sense or logical thinking. So am i filling in the holes with God. ABSOLUTELY NOT! i am simply stating i believe there is a god who is somehow connected to
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
you can have a belief in God that isn't a "God plus" and still have an unhindered scientific belief so long as you believe that any God there may be is incomprehensible to science and will remain so for say hundreds or thousands of years most likely and that he does not break the laws of science so any affect he has on the world isn't a direct physical interaction. This is possible through quantum entanglement with his followers, not saying that is how i believe he does it just stating...
HolyReaperX01 1 year ago
Is this show meant for kids, rednecks or morons?
TheTrashytramp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTrashytramp Maybe people like you, who are all 3.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
what's the name of that song??
daddyleon 1 year ago
@daddyleon The song is called Tom Sawyer by Rush
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy technology from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
Science and religion are in themselves, not compatible. Science can exist with the notion of a 'god' per se, but the problem stems more so from the dogma inherent to most religions and the fact that most claims made by religion have been or are likely to be refuted by science.
Most need to remember that religion's origins stemmed from the need to explain that which could not be explained. Which is why most gods were archetypes of various natural phenomenon, like lightning or earthquakes.
Diomedes01 1 year ago
My father has a Masters degree in Physics and is also a Minister in the Church of England. So... yes I believe that science and religion are compatible. A lot of Americans can't seem to understand that.
Armageddon2077 1 year ago
@Armageddon2077 without stating which side of the issue I'm on, how are they compatible? it seems like he managed to do exactly what was said in the video a science plus thing.
electorg 1 year ago
@electorg their science plus argument is just down playing the fact that science and religion (any religion) is compatible. Did you know that the word algebra come from the middle east? and was devised at a time when baghdad was a cultural centre of learning?
Armageddon2077 1 year ago
@Armageddon2077
So does alcohol and alchemy. What's your point?
That because somebody was ahead in science at some point in history, their god becomes true?
tdjdk 1 year ago
@tdjdk
no... what...? what the fuck are you on about? when did i say... even imply... that because someone is ahead in science their god becomes true? all i said that you can believe in god and study, teach, research and write about scientific findings (in any culture) and believe in any god. showing that science and religion is compatible. if you want to call it 'science plus' go ahead... you could just as easily call it 'religion plus'... fuck 'muffins'... and still no one would give a shit
Armageddon2077 1 year ago
@Armageddon2077 somebody can be smart,and have no goddamned sense at the same time. there are a lot of people who are brilliant,and just cant cope with not having all the answers,so they need something to fill the gaps..aka,God
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@Armageddon2077 further,working as a scientist,doesnt mean someone applies scientific logic to all of their problems,and anyone who believes in any god,is directly in conflict with science,they are not compatible,some people are just to afraid to face a world without all the answers,so they make them up
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@ViralMessiah
muffins
Armageddon2077 1 year ago
Hi.'Conflict'? Freethinkers? ..lulz! The God, WHO IS , is THE CHIEF SCIENTIST of all being , WHO HAS INFINITE INTELLIGENCE! not a finite anthropomorphised fantasy creature in a Youtuber's fantasy with a goatee beard speculating,on false subjective premises about reality and real knowledge. It is you who imagines there is a conflict; and God is finite mortal like you, rather. God KNOWS, but you sit and sputter nonsensical, illogical specualations as if they were infallible reasoning! : )
Bye.
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes And...what is your definition of god, and what evidence can you provide to support the existence of such a being?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ The whole Universe is ample evidence God is. Nature is like a book; learn to read inbetween the lines, and also think and feel about this for yourself; not just posing to be a 'free' 'thinker' as some do, but are not, in fact, but slave-thinkers to some fanatical atheistic fundie cult. God is not silent, God has spoken, and God has defined God as being identical to LOVE thus; "God is Love;" I will not attempt to 'define' God; much better to let God define God!
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Anything physical is only evidence of itself. The Universe only proves the Universe. You have it ENTIRELY. FUCKING. BACKWARDS. YOU. MORON.
Love is defined as the emotion of strong affection and personal attachment. That tells me absolutely NOTHING about your god!
You, like many before you, have again FAILED to provide any actual arguments for your position.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ My my, all those capitalized words and explicatives. Now, calm down, we wouldn't want any EMOTIONS to have any distorting effect on you high degree of scientific critical thinking and logical philosphical reasoning, of such blindlingly bright light! ; )
No my thinking only APPEARS backwards to those who are already thinking and seeing reality backwards. Moron, moi? Yes, I am a complete idiot! ( next to God.)
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Again I ask, what is your evidence that your god exists? You've yet to provide any, and until you do, you're basing everything you're saying on an assumption; one that, by the way, has yet to be proven true in well over 2,000 years.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ Evidence? Look in the mirror; do you see a human being with a free will who is really a free thinking 'free-thinker', or do 'you' see a robot, with no free will to think what he/she wishes and willls, and who's 'thoughts' are but electrical spark patterns with no meaning of any essential qualtive importance and value? No soul? How much does this thought weigh then if it is material: "apple?" Pray tell; what is it's size and dimension, if it is merely material? WutDuzDNAXpress?
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes Well if your bible is to be believed, then looking in a mirror WOULD show a meat-sack meant for nothing else but to worship your god. Fortunately, I've accepted reality as it is; finite time is what truly gives infinite value. If you truly believe there's an eternal afterlife once you're dead, do us all a favor and just go kill yourself. Oh wait, religion's convinced you that if you do, you don't get to go to HappyLand. Newsflash: you're an idiot for believing any of that.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ Who are...'all of us" ..? "Underlord" ?...who are they? Gay satanist followers of anton la vay, who can't stand the the thought of there being a God, who live in denial 24/7/360/365, of God and God's Mercy......so, they don't have to even think about any sense of moral accountability for their lives towards The Creator, Who's sovereignity the like to deny? "Inifinite value" ? Where in culture, if U r a materialist did U get that concept ? Srssly,..U claim to have superiour logic! :)
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
@Tommy7FilmEpidodes And here is where we reach the point where you have completely stopped trying to even attempt to make sense.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 1 year ago
too bad I am an atheist because if i was religious I would pray to god for an opportunity to see Linda Harris naked.
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100 You could always ask her to do a show topless. Maybe a dare or bribe...
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
I prefer knowing to believing. Or not knowing and trying to find out.
If I can't find out? Still believing doesn't help.
No conflict though. Its just no option.
What keeps religion going in my opinion is that being a sentient lifeform itself is a gigantic spiritual experience. Wich no one understands.
Its megalomania to claim all this exists because of religion.
It exists. And we begin to understand a small portion of it.
Everybody is free to make assumptions - just don't make a religion of it.
FromVoid 1 year ago
Religion and Science is like Holocaust deniers and Historians.
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
Theists demand an explanation for the existence of a complex universe;
yet they don't feel the need to explain the existence of a far more complex "god".
Thus, they hold different standards for atheists than they do for themselves.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago 2
if there's a god, why so many atheists?
Atheist603 1 year ago
dicks and tits i like tits
therealmeissick 1 year ago
Why doesn't this universe building omnipotent being pop up in a beaker to help human mankind with their struggle to understand reallity, then? Freakin' asshole if you ask me, just stopped talking to us since hafway through the old testament. Or did the religious think tanks of the day eventually figuring out that they can't make people believe the the most naïve fairytales anymore so they'd better move this god thing a bit further back into the smokescreens, or there would be too many questions?
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
Whats up with the Tat' on Matts arm..Its not the dog tat from the movie Hostel is it..lol
SacredSocietyAP 1 year ago
If you delve into science and work with it, you will never run into God. God, being a non-existent entity, will never insert himself into any field of scientific study. So the conflict will never happen UNLESS you insert God yourself. So science and religion can co-exist unless YOU muck it up.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
That depends on the religion.
If the religion is just some kind of philosophy it can exist along science.
In fictional Krypton, science is the religion.
MithranArkanere 1 year ago
well i dont really care which is wrong or right but hey i like them both. i love religon and science. ^__^
sexyboa25 1 year ago
two things that dont and wont ever fit in together because people are over opinionated and wont take the time to listen to each other.. well actually i think it depends on how and who your dealing with when it comes to the subjects. i have tw friends. ones religious and the other isnt, they get along fine idk how but when they talk on these subjects they some how find a middle ground. so maybe theres a missing link between these two subjects.
sexyboa25 1 year ago
The concept of a super