Non-Christians, or Non-Abrahamic Religious Folks, in the WR?

[Thurisaz]

Is your god anthropomorphic?

In a sense, I guess. Christ was a man, too.

You talk of gods as if they were persons, i.e., had minds, plans, intentions, purposes, etc., so is science a person, is science a proper name, where is science if it is a god with a mind?

No. It is simply revered as one, much like the golden calf of yore was.

So now you accept this scientific theory because it supports, or think it supports, your belief in god, lol.

Scientific? Hardly, there's no empirical testing involved. Logical? Sure.

Lets ignore the fact that the theory states that the universe has a beginning point when it begun to expand which isn't the absolute beginning of the singularity.

Okay.

Now, since the universe begun to exist and everything that begins to exist has at least one cause (sometimes many causes) therefore the universe has exactly one cause?

That's the Christian hypothesis, but it does not directly result from there having been a beginning. One could also attribute it to, say, multiverse in which some programmers make a highly elaborate game called our universe and put it together in a group effort. The impossible first cause suggests an answer from the outside, but it doesn't limit that answer to just one. Causality renders a materialist explanation impossible, but makes no claims about the nature of the supernatural or extraplanar involved. I'd appreciate if you didn't try to get me to defend claims you make up. It's as annoying as it is dishonest.

There is evidence of proto scientific thought before Christianity was invented by humans.

Proto scientific never became scientific. Christianity did. Guess why.

The truth is Christianity slowed scientific progress down a lot.

Bullshit. It is the reason we have science in the first place.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

Proto scientific never became scientific. Christianity did. Guess why.

You are a powerful rhetorician. Of course the Church used such tools as these to burn people with my beliefs at the steak, so I should be glad the athiests keep up a resistance to organized religion.

Monotheism takes the spirit out of everyday things, animals, nature, and wraps it all up into the skydad Jgarner likes to imagine has an interest in his fapping. This encourages the systematic description of material processes to describe most precieved phenomenon.

 

[Thurisaz]

You are a powerful rhetorician. Of course the Church used such tools as these to burn people with my beliefs at the steak, so I should be glad the athiests keep up a resistance to organized religion.

The church very seldom burned anyone on either steaks or stakes, and if you're referring to the Inquisition, you'd do well to remember why and what for it was formed, as well as why the pope was so reluctant to start it. The Reconquista took the better part of 500 years and I don't think the Spaniards were all that keen on going through that again because they were lenient to a fifth column within.

Monotheism takes the spirit out of everyday things, animals, nature, and wraps it all up into the skydad Jgarner likes to imagine has an interest in his fapping. This encourages the systematic description of material processes to describe most precieved phenomenon.

Much like any regular sane dad, the skydad doesn't approve of excessive fapping.

 

[DoomPatrol]

That's as much an admission of me being right as your psyche can take at this moment. I'm glad you acknowledged you have no case.

...and there we have the reason why you're such a devout follower of "science": you want to jack off without feeling guilty and need someone to get pissed off at because you still do. Puts the "hard truth" you mention in a different light, it does.

It's not an admission of anything other than the fact that I think the shit you posted was so garbage that it's not worth responding to on a point by point basis. Here's the facts. You don't believe in most religions right? Well I don't believe in those plus yours. Even the highest ranking pedophiles in your ranks will admit that belief is based on faith. There's no evidence to suggest any of it happened. You have to have blind faith in the story.

Yeah, that's why I don't believe in the skydaddy story from a bunch of ignorant, gullible, corruptible, desert people. I just want to jack off. It's not that a fatherless pregnancy, talking animals, magical Jesus, disappearing bodies, and a shit ton of other magical claims sound silly to me. It's not that there's no independent verification of the stories from other cultures. It's not that these stories were written by anonymous people without verification decades after the incidents. It's not that there's dozens of other religions in history that follow that same story. It's that I just want to yank on my dick. Amazing sir. You're a real fucking Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Thurisaz]

Here's the facts.

Ah, I revel the anticipation I feel every time someone makes that claim. The main reason for it being the fact that very few manage to back it up.

You don't believe in most religions right?

Right.

Well I don't believe in those plus yours.

I know, you already claimed blind adherence to science, which some like to call Science Reason. I imagine it looks a bit like Mr. Spock.

Even the highest ranking pedophiles in your ranks will admit that belief is based on faith.

I'm not sure we have ranks for pedophiles. They're sinners of a pretty damn low grade, specifically condemned by Jesus Christ himself at a time few others ever did.

There's no evidence to suggest any of it happened.

Sure, if you disregard all the historical, theological and logical evidence supporting it. Did you know that a blanket denial of easily demonstrable evidence isn't the way to go to sway someone's mind?

You have to have blind faith in the story.

If it were blind the story would be irrelevant. It happens to be central to it, and also it happens to be the only known religion that centers on a single historical event.

Yeah, that's why I don't believe in the skydaddy story from a bunch of ignorant, gullible, corruptible, desert people. I just want to jack off.

Well, it's nice to see some honesty for a change.

It's not that a fatherless pregnancy, talking animals, magical Jesus, disappearing bodies, and a shit ton of other magical claims sound silly to me.

Lots of things sound silly when you know little of them. Initially you couldn't conceive of a believer that is vastly more intelligent than you and lo, here I am.

It's not that there's no independent verification of the stories from other cultures. It's not that these stories were written by anonymous people without verification decades after the incidents. It's not that there's dozens of other religions in history that follow that same story. It's that I just want to yank on my dick. Amazing sir. You're a real fucking Sherlock Holmes.

Indeed, my blade of shining reason cuts right down through the darkness in your shriveled and emasculated soul to expose the pettiness within.

 

[luckyshot]

Interesting take and after watching and listening to hours of Theist Apologist / Atheiest debates, this probably sums up my feelings towards creation perfectly. I mean really we're all agnostics in a way. Everyone's questioned wether or not their god is the right one, if god exists, life after death etc. At the end of the day, for people who can think logically, something tells us in the back of our mind that we just don't know.

I'm not a fan of any religion, regardless of the good it does. To think that humans cant perform acts of kindness without religion is dumb. Prager's attacks on atheistic morality are disingenuous and out right ludicrous. God is the only way for humans to define Good & Evil? What a cuck.

I've also never believed in the Supernatural. "We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence". As Hitch (I think) said, extraordinary claims require extortaordinay evidence.

That being said, I can't stand William Lane Craig. I do admire his agnostic reasoning, but the fact he has had debates about Jesus rising from the dead and history can prove it is mind numbing.

+1 for Science

This is absolutely true in an etymological sense. "Gnosis" is knowledge, so "Agnostic" is literally "without knowledge." Even the most devout believer is empirically without knowledge. To paraphrase Martin Luther, we're all beggars here.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Ah, I revel the anticipation I feel every time someone makes that claim. The main reason for it being the fact that very few manage to back it up.

It's a stupid thing to say considering you read the entire post before making your reply. So why bother with this shit when you know everything I said is factually true?

Right.

I know, you already claimed blind adherence to science, which some like to call Science Reason. I imagine it looks a bit like Mr. Spock.

I don't have blind adherence to anything. Even scientists have been wrong from time to time. I have adherence to the scientific method and peer review. That goes hand in hand with accepting most science.

I'm not sure we have ranks for pedophiles. They're sinners of a pretty damn low grade, specifically condemned by Jesus Christ himself at a time few others ever did.

It's well known that the Church is filled with pedophiles and covers it up. They love to move them from place to place so they can continue touching children instead of turning them over to the police.

Sure, if you disregard all the historical, theological and logical evidence supporting it. Did you know that a blanket denial of easily demonstrable evidence isn't the way to go to sway someone's mind?

There's no historical evidence other than a few documents written by followers. The only independent evidence of him even existing as a human is a single line written by a Roman. There's no logical evidence supporting it. The entire story is illogical. It's all written by his supporters after the fact. That's no more evidence for truth than all the stories of Zeus walking around are evidence for his existence. There is nothing that meets scientific scrutiny to corroborate the story. Hell, he was running around for 20+ years performing magic tricks and nobody in the region wrote about it but his followers after the fact when they wanted to make him their idol. Written testimony decades after the events isn't evidence of shit. If you held that standard across the board, you would have to accept literally everything from fairies, bigfoot, Zeus, aliens, ghosts, Loch Ness, Islam, Judaism, dragons, and any other thing that someone at some point just happened to write about. The bible is a collection of made up stories that were controlled and written by his followers to make him look good in the eyes of the world. Historians and archaeologists wouldn't accept that standard for anything else. Written evidence is the worst evidence.

If it were blind the story would be irrelevant. It happens to be central to it, and also it happens to be the only known religion that centers on a single historical event.

No it wouldn't. It's the feel good to go with the crazy. And you're completely wrong, it's not the only religion to be based on a story like that.

Well, it's nice to see some honesty for a change.

Lots of things sound silly when you know little of them. Initially you couldn't conceive of a believer that is vastly more intelligent than you and lo, here I am.

I was raised a Christian in a Christian family. I went to all the typical Church bullshit as a child and young teen. Then I matured and my bullshit detector started going off. I know plenty of the stories. I've read the book cover to cover. I've gone to countless Sunday schools and church events during the week. I know the story. I know the history. It's all based on faith. If you can't even admit that then you're kidding yourself.

Indeed, my blade of shining reason cuts right down through the darkness in your shriveled and emasculated soul to expose the pettiness within.

If you have a blade of shining reason, then you should use it more often. If you could even prove that a soul exists of course, which you can't. You go ahead and continue believing in that shit because you're a gullible sad man who can't think about life without a skydaddy to give you purpose and morality. I don't need to trick myself to have a happy fulfilling life.

 

[meauneau]

In a sense, I guess. Christ was a man, too.

But doesn't Jesus have a human nature and god a divine nature, i.e. a non human nature? If so then your god is not anthropomorphic. The divine nature sharing a physical body with a human nature doesn't make your god anthropomorphic.

No. It is simply revered as one, much like the golden calf of yore was.

But the calf was revered as one definite entitiy. Science is not a thing like a cow or a person is. No one prays to science or believes that science has a plan or purpose. Actually science tells us there are no plans, or purposes, or intentions, or aboutness, no non physical causation, etc. If ignorant person does think science is an object of worship that is up to that person, it is not what science is about or demands.

Scientific? Hardly, there's no empirical testing involved. Logical? Sure.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Ask those behind the BGV theory whether they were doing science, with data collection, observation, hypothesis testing, etc, or just philosophy starting from common sense and silly things like first principles.

That's the Christian hypothesis, but it does not directly result from there having been a beginning. One could also attribute it to, say, multiverse in which some programmers make a highly elaborate game called our universe and put it together in a group effort. The impossible first cause suggests an answer from the outside, but it doesn't limit that answer to just one. Causality renders a materialist explanation impossible, but makes no claims about the nature of the supernatural or extraplanar involved. I'd appreciate if you didn't try to get me to defend claims you make up. It's as annoying as it is dishonest.

You can't just imagine anything you like and say it could be that. The "could" here implies logically possible. Sure, logically it could have been a bird that shits universes. That is not what scientists do in the field of cosmogony/cosmology.

What do you mean with "impossible first cause"? This makes no sense. And what do you mean with "materialist" explanation? You probably meant to say "natural" explanation rather than "materialist" explanation. You might want to use the term "physicalist" rather than "materialist" since philosophers have moved ahead of that term with the advances in physics.

Also, you realise you did not respond to the points in my post, right? You didn't respond to my objection about the conclusion that there is exactly 1 cause from the fact that there are more than 1 cause in nature.

Proto scientific never became scientific. Christianity did. Guess why.

Christianity did what, become a science? lol. Christianity is a religion not a scientific program. It is the opposite of science, it requires faith, gullibility and uncritical credulity. Science requires evidence, it requires scepticism and critical caution and scrutiny. Just because some Christians did science doesn't make Christianity a science or science Christian or a Christian thing. Just like Muslims doing science doesn't make Islam science or science an Islamic thing.

Bullshit. It is the reason we have science in the first place.

Science is due to human nature. The fact that some scientists were Christians is accidental. Just as is the fact that some scientists were Muslims, atheists, Hindus, etc.

 

[Execute]

I was a hardcore anti-religious Atheist/Antagonistic spectrum poster from about 2008 to 2014...

Then I became a Deist after... events... then LOL_Wut_Christian after further events... and now a hardcore Christian with a lot of interfaith dialogue with my good Muslim and Buddhist brothers and sisters.

Atheist? Muslim? Snake handling backwoods Voodoo shaman? I do not care. Just enjoy true peace, love, and the rare spirit of good in this world, real good, not some selfish excuses to be a ridiculous person who checks Twitter 100000 times a day in search of likes, but to really help other people in the search for peace in a troubled world.

(Also, please like this post, I require constant online attention pretty please.)

I always think you're banned for some reason.

 

[Fawlty]

The one thing that I've found consistently while examining and comparing the various things people believe, is that every argument ends up at a duality problem on the deepest level we can access. It doesn't matter if it's waves & particles, or being/not being, or however you want to look at it. We always reach a point where we can't decide what and where things really are, even with really good information about them. My certainty of something can only approach certain like a curve that never reaches it, in same way that it's really difficult to say when a thing that is like a chair is in fact a chair. We can only define things in a way that approaches precision, no matter how precisely we go about it. And if our measurements are incredibly precise, we find that at best we are guessing between two outcomes for even the simplest forms of energy in the most controlled conditions. It's the cruelest possible joke to play on a human mind, unfortunately.

As hardwired as we are to draw boxes around things and label them, I think we are all pretty stupid and unable to say "I don't know." This is why scientific inquiry, from the ground up, is effective and progressive. The other approaches are mostly top-down, presuppositional exercises in every logical fallacy imaginable, and are deeply into justification and apology. Buddhists have gotten closest, which explains the respect they get from smart people.

There is always the utility of people bullshitting themselves though. For instance- every romantic relationship you ever have will end in failure, except for the last one- which will end in death. That would depress a whole lot of people if they weren't willing to bullshit themselves at least sometimes. Obviously there's a major evolutionary advantage to bullshitting yourself about love. The trick is being able to bullshit yourself just the right amount once you've realized this- it's not easy, and it brings up yet another duality problem- the meaning of life. Or if you're the kind of person who can accept just not knowing, and that you will never know, then maybe you'll be happier while you're here. Most of us just aren't smart enough or wired well enough to live our lives that way very often.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

The church very seldom burned anyone on either steaks or stakes, and if you're referring to the Inquisition, you'd do well to remember why and what for it was formed, as well as why the pope was so reluctant to start it. The Reconquista took the better part of 500 years and I don't think the Spaniards were all that keen on going through that again because they were lenient to a fifth column within.


Much like any regular sane dad, the skydad doesn't approve of excessive fapping.

I was taking you up on your offer to explain why Christianity was a necessary precondition for modern science. The sizzle on your steak correction was good. I don't care to contest your novel assertion the Inquisition was justifiable and didn't burn too many heretics.

It is more valuable to me to find places to agree with people like you, who seems principled and has some reason. Wasting time to argue with automata like Jgarner is can crushing. Fun to watch, nobody learns shit.

 

[Denter]

This is absolutely true in an etymological sense. "Gnosis" is knowledge, so "Agnostic" is literally "without knowledge." Even the most devout believer is empirically without knowledge. To paraphrase Martin Luther, we're all beggars here.

....except there are people "with knowledge", your abdals, your arhats, your saints, rishis, awliyyah, gurus, etc.

 

[Thurisaz]

I don't care to contest your novel assertion the Inquisition was justifiable and didn't burn too many heretics.

The assertion is less novel and more historically literate.

It is more valuable to me to find places to agree with people like you, who seems principled and has some reason. Wasting time to argue with automata like Jgarner is can crushing. Fun to watch, nobody learns shit.

It's also amusing to do and keeps one on the right path. If my enemies suddenly started making sense and bringing up good points it would give me pause.

 

[Thurisaz]

But doesn't Jesus have a human nature and god a divine nature, i.e. a non human nature? If so then your god is not anthropomorphic. The divine nature sharing a physical body with a human nature doesn't make your god anthropomorphic.

That's why I said "in a sense", not "yes, entirely so". I'm quite literal with my words that way.

But the calf was revered as one definite entitiy.

Irrelevant. It was revered as divine much in the same way all sorts of things are today. Whether people call their gods Science Reason, BLM or anthropogenic global warming instead of Baal or Quetzalcoatl isn't a relevant difference.

Science is not a thing like a cow or a person is. No one prays to science or believes that science has a plan or purpose. Actually science tells us there are no plans, or purposes, or intentions, or aboutness, no non physical causation, etc.

Science tells us nothing of the sort and you're projecting your opinions to it. Science isn't about metaphysics and states nothing about them.

If ignorant person does think science is an object of worship that is up to that person, it is not what science is about or demands.

I imagine the golden calf wasn't that talkative either. So what?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Ask those behind the BGV theory whether they were doing science, with data collection, observation, hypothesis testing, etc, or just philosophy starting from common sense and silly things like first principles.

Why should I do any of that? I'm asking because I do not understand how that relates to anything I've said.

You can't just imagine anything you like and say it could be that. The "could" here implies logically possible. Sure, logically it could have been a bird that shits universes. That is not what scientists do in the field of cosmogony/cosmology.

Irrelevant.

What do you mean with "impossible first cause"?

Stuff doesn't happen for no reason.

This makes no sense.

It's entirely falsifiable and easy to understand.

And what do you mean with "materialist" explanation? You probably meant to say "natural" explanation rather than "materialist" explanation. You might want to use the term "physicalist" rather than "materialist" since philosophers have moved ahead of that term with the advances in physics.

You apparently understood me just fine.

Also, you realise you did not respond to the points in my post, right? You didn't respond to my objection about the conclusion that there is exactly 1 cause from the fact that there are more than 1 cause in nature.

I did, as far as I found them. I did respond to your 1 cause objection too.

Christianity did what, become a science?

It fathered science. It was inevitable result of its premises and also there are strong reasons it never happened anywhere else.

Christianity is a religion not a scientific program. It is the opposite of science, it requires faith, gullibility and uncritical credulity. Science requires evidence, it requires scepticism and critical caution and scrutiny.

While entertaining, your emotional reaction and demonstration of utter ignorance of what you deride isn't tantamount to having a point. Parroting stuff you agree with but have never examined only serves to show you're in way over your head.

Science is due to human nature. The fact that some scientists were Christians is accidental. Just as is the fact that some scientists were Muslims, atheists, Hindus, etc.

There are no accidents. There are only reasons yet to be uncovered. If you were an honest thinker the fact that I have the answer to my question while you don't examine it but simply flat out deny that there even is an answer should give you pause. The fact that it doesn't serves as one demonstration why Christianity was the father of science while nothing else ever could. You're not even curious.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

There are a lot of science-ists around these parts.
Distinguishable from actual scientists by virtue of their taking, as gospel truth, the science they reference but know nothing about. They pretend that they're better than the rest of the religious folk by insistence that their cult-like adherence to knowledge that's beyond them is somehow different to, say, a Christian's stubborn loyalty to his own esoteric 'truths'.

Their pomposity means that they rank pretty highly on my personal list of "world's worst religions".

 

[99escobar]

I was raised in a nominally Christian household. Like others have said, science is where I place my hope.

I became a Buddhist after reading some of the Pali canon and realising that applying the teachings made me a happier person. I do not believe in reincarnation like some sects of Buddhism. I appreciate some parts of other religions. Anyone who does not like Dionysus, Athena, and the Hindu god Shiva is a poor person.

I look down badly at the historical crimes of the Catholic Church (burning Protestants etc) and the Hindu caste system.

Despite having muslim friends my whole life, after reading some of the Islamic holy books and hearing testimonies from many ex muslims, I consider Islam to be by far the most evil ideology / religion in the world.

 

[meauneau]

That's why I said "in a sense", not "yes, entirely so". I'm quite literal with my words that way.

So is your god anthropomorphic or not?

Irrelevant. It was revered as divine much in the same way all sorts of things are today. Whether people call their gods Science Reason, BLM or anthropogenic global warming instead of Baal or Quetzalcoatl isn't a relevant difference.

Show me a evidence that there are large groups of people who think science is divine and worship science in the same way people think Jesus is divine and worship Jesus.

No one has to believe your silly assertion that there are people who think science is divine or god like. You just want those who do not believe in god to be your companions in guilt. You want them to be guilty of blind faith, revering objects and showing credulity and uncritical caution when believing claims. We are not your companions, you are alone.

Science tells us nothing of the sort and you're projecting your opinions to it. Science isn't about metaphysics and states nothing about them.

Science tells us how the world and everything in it works. Science informs metaphysics. So science tells us what is or isn't the case about the world and everything in it. Experiments have shown that thought or thinking is unconscious, that introspection is unreliable, etc. People with no sight, or experience of sight, can still see. People with no language can still think, etc.

I imagine the golden calf wasn't that talkative either. So what?

Just like statues of Jesus aren't and the many statues of idols people worship in the past and in the present. But I never seen a statue or a symbol of science that is worshipped or prayed to. Nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone worship science like Christians worship Jesus. Again, you are looking for companions in guilt.

Why should I do any of that? I'm asking because I do not understand how that relates to anything I've said.

You said: Scientific? Hardly, there's no empirical testing involved. Logical? Sure. You implied that the BGV is not scientific. It is obvious you don't understand.

Irrelevant.

I wash showing you the fallacy in your reasoning and all you can come back with is "irrelevant". You should at least thank me for correcting you.

Stuff doesn't happen for no reason.

I asked what you meant with "impossible first cause". If something is a first cause how can it be impossible? You didn't give any reasoning for this claim.

It's entirely falsifiable and easy to understand.

What is? Is it the "impossible first cause" you claim? You didn't even explain what this is. I have never read seen this in anything related to the topic. Did you just invent that?

You apparently understood me just fine.

No I didn't. You are confused and don't know what you are talking about. So I didn't understand anything.

You cannot even formulate the thesis of physicalism let alone refute it. You just like to throw these terms around without knowing what they mean.

I did, as far as I found them. I did respond to your 1 cause objection too.

Direct me to it, I haven't seen it. I hope you are not being dishonest.

It fathered science. It was inevitable result of its premises and also there are strong reasons it never happened anywhere else.

LOL. You said: Proto scientific never became scientific. Christianity did (become scientific? lol). This is laughable. Why do you want Christianity to be scientific so much? You surely seem like you revere science so much you want to unify it with your religion. You say that science follows from the premises of Christianity? Can you derive the theory of relativity from these Christian premises?

While entertaining, your emotional reaction and demonstration of utter ignorance of what you deride isn't tantamount to having a point. Parroting stuff you agree with but have never examined only serves to show you're in way over your head.

So much irony in this post. It describes all your posts so far in this thread.

There are no accidents. There are only reasons yet to be uncovered. If you were an honest thinker the fact that I have the answer to my question while you don't examine it but simply flat out deny that there even is an answer should give you pause. The fact that it doesn't serves as one demonstration why Christianity was the father of science while nothing else ever could. You're not even curious.

I already explained why this reasoning is fallacious. You are to emotionally invested in your belief to realise it is false. It is like that guy who was blind because he drunk whisky all day everyday. The doctor told him to stop drinking and he would see again. So he stopped drinking, but then immediately resumed his drinking again. When asked why, he said that he didn't like what he saw. The same with you, if you stop believing in your fantasy you will not like the reality you will see. So you keep drinking your fantasy.

 

[meauneau]

There are a lot of science-ists around these parts.
Distinguishable from actual scientists by virtue of their taking, as gospel truth, the science they reference but know nothing about. They pretend that they're better than the rest of the religious folk by insistence that their cult-like adherence to knowledge that's beyond them is somehow different to, say, a Christian's stubborn loyalty to his own esoteric 'truths'.

Their pomposity means that they rank pretty highly on my personal list of "world's worst religions".

The fact that you put 'truths' in quotes shows that they aren't to be taken as proper truths, they are truths only within the language of Christianity or within the framework or fiction of Christianity.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

The fact that you put 'truths' in quotes shows that they aren't to be taken as proper truths, they are truths only within the language of Christianity or within the framework or fiction of Christianity.

Amazing, Holmes.

 

[Gregolian]

I'm in that "I think there IS something there... but if it's God, Allah, Yahweh, Thor/Odin, Zeus I don't know"