Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

[Koro_11]

you ask a lot of stupid questions, hence why I ask, honestly. Maybe think before you post and research what you're whining about. You have issues with a thing you fundamentally don't understand. Maybe if you undestand what atheism and agnosticism actually are, you'd find other windmills to slay.

Damn, was that a Don Quixote reference at the end there?

Anyway I asked one question and I guess I hit a nerve.

"I don't really care about collective reproduction or survival. It will happen or it will not, not much I can do about it."

That's what you wrote, which is why I asked if you're neutered, because if you're not then there is something you can do about it.

 

[Koro_11]

No its not.

The absence of belief does not create a belief . Thats ludicrous

Except it's not the absence of belief, atheism is a belief that there is no God.

 

[BAM]

Damn, was that a Don Quixote at the end there?

Anyway I asked one question and I guess I hit a nerve.

"I don't really care about collective reproduction or survival. It will happen or it will not, not much I can do about it."

That's what you wrote, which is why I asked if you're neutered, because if you're not then there is something you can do about it.

no nerve hit, you have no impact on me either way. You're just a really smug, stupid guy that is wasting people's time in this thread. You should just go google for 10 minutes and stop clogging up the thread with nonsense.

Now you don't even understand what large scale impact means? Is this a real question or are you really this stupid.

 

[ermac88]

It's really not a big deal, because the Big Bang theory is not a theory of the "origin of the singularity" or whatever it is you're seeking. I'm not really sure why you don't understand that.



I figured out the problem here. You have no idea what science actually is, or what its purpose is. You look at the answers provided by science and the answers provided by religion and you tally them up side by side as if they're competitors, playing the same game. But they are nothing of the sort.

You seem to think subjects beyond the scope of science are proof of its invalidity. It makes sense that you believe this, because it tracks very well with someone who believes in, or would prefer to believe in, religious doctrine, since religious doctrine is designed to be unfalsifiable.

And that's really where the key distinction lies. If it's unfalsifiable, then it is inherently not science. This is why you reject science; your brain craves the unfalsifiable, because you feel more comfortable believing those kinds of ideas, as opposed to falsifiable theories.

Don't worry though, because you're not exactly alone. Billions of people feel the same way you do. They don't want 50% of the truth, or 80% of the truth. They want 100% of the truth, and they want it to be the infallible truth. A truth that never changes. A truth they can live their lives by. A truth they never have to worry about defending, because it is an unassailable truth. And that's what religion gets you.

Of course, that truth is complete bullshit. But your brain is very comfortable ignoring that part.

Me? I'm perfectly fine not having all the answers, as long as the answers I do have are based on observation and reason. Bullshit from a religious text doesn't interest me at all save for the sociological and historical context.

And that's really where the key distinction lies. If it's unfalsifiable, then it is inherently not science. This is why you reject science; your brain craves the unfalsifiable, because you feel more comfortable believing those kinds of ideas, as opposed to falsifiable theories.






Mans on fire here

 

[ermac88]

Except it's not the absence of belief, atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Atheism is most commonly defined as a lack of belief in gods or deities, rather than a positive belief that gods do not exists

 

[Koro_11]

no nerve hit, you have no impact on me either way. You're just a really smug, stupid guy that is wasting people's time in this thread. You should just go google for 10 minutes and stop clogging up the thread with nonsense.

Now you don't even understand what large scale impact means? Is this a real question or are you really this stupid.

No one is forcing you to reply sherbro, and no need to get emotional those are female traits.

 

[BAM]

No one is forcing you to reply sherbro, and no need to get emotional those are female traits.

ah, so you're just a lazy troll. Gotcha.

 

[Koro_11]

Atheism is most commonly defined as a lack of belief in gods or deities, rather than a positive belief that gods do not exists

Ok but lack of belief is the same as saying I believe there isn't.

If you want to take some middle ground then you would say "agnostic", which is basically saying I just don't know, which is the only honest answer imo.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

There are numerous theories on where the energy came from, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, we haven't fully explained the universe and everything in it, not even close, but everything I said in my first post still matters.

You can choose to believe in a creator as long as you realize the limitations of the belief- you are taking it on faith and not evidence and believing in magic; there isn't a lot of room to criticize science when you are believing in magic. Unless of course you can explain where God got the energy from.

Since going from hunter/gatherers, we have progressively explained more and more as we have advanced; the need for attributing aspects I Iof our world to the supernatural has grown progressively smaller.

From a theological perspective the Holy Spirit would be the energy.

 

[Koro_11]

ah, so you're just a lazy troll. Gotcha.

Nah not at all, happy to engage on whatever terms you'd like, it was you who started throwing insults out when you didn't like my arguments.

 

[Deorum]

Evangelical Protestantism could never commission, create, or inspire this sort of artistic and cultural greatness.



@Long Dark Blues

Well, to be fair, they didn't have the money compared to the Catholics, and when you think about why, you see they are not without shameful behavior of their own, of course. Are you familiar with the connection between the printing press and "indulgences"?

Even so, I agree they're pretty amazing accomplishments. Mind you, the reason for the plain nature of protestant places of worship may simply be their preachers stuffing their own pockets instead.

Back when I was a teenager, we lived next to a Pentecostal church. Next to it was a home provided to their pastor by the church, which was, in turn, owned by the attendees. Buddy had an RV like the one given to that tool on the supreme court as well. And wadda ya know, the flock woke up one day to find they'd been completely fleeced by this ram a lam a ding dong and the next thing you know, he's gone, the church is a daycare, and the pastor's house has been picked up on the cheap by some rando.

It goes beyond that. Prots don't believe in the veneration of images and consider it a form of idolatry. They even went as far as destroying artwork across Europe for over a century after the Reformation kicked off. Catholicism is obviously deep into sensory and visual aesthetics that are designed to evoke a sense of the divine and facilitate spiritual experiences (as well as soft indoctrination, tbh). It's not any kind of coincidence there are drop dead gorgeous cathedrals to be found all over the world or that the Vatican has commissioned a lot of the most iconic artwork in the history of the western canon.

It was born out of Luther and the Protestant reformation. With the indulgences and the money used for ornation instead of the poor at that time, Luther went the opposite direction and most of that influence still stands. I am Protestant but have always appreciated some things about the Catholic church.

Catholic art is art produced by or for members of the Catholic Church. This includes architecture, applied arts, decorative arts, painting, and sculpture. In a broader sense, Catholic music and other art may be included as well. Expressions of art may or may not attempt to illustrate, portray, and supplement Catholic teaching in tangible form. Catholic art has played a leading role in the history and development of Western art since at least the 4th century.

The High Renaissance of Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael transformed Catholic art more fundamentally, breaking with the old iconography that was thoroughly integrated for original compositions that reflected both artistic imperatives, and the influence of Renaissance humanism. Both Michelangelo and Raphael worked almost exclusively for the Papacy for much of their careers, including the year of 1517, when Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses. The connection between the events was not just chronological, as the indulgences that provoked Luther helped to finance the Papal artistic program. The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century produced new waves of image-destruction, to which the Catholic Church responded with the dramatic, elaborate emotive Baroque and Rococo styles to emphasise beauty as a transcendental.

The Protestant Reformation was a holocaust of art in many parts of Europe. Although Lutheranism was prepared to live with much existing Catholic art so long as it did not become a focus of devotion, the more radical views of Calvin, Zwingli and others saw public religious images of any sort as idolatry, and art was systematically destroyed in areas where their followers held sway. This destructive process continued until the mid-17th century, as religious wars brought periods of iconoclast Protestant control over much of the continent. In England and Scotland, destruction of religious art was especially heavy. Some stone sculpture, illuminated manuscripts, and stained glass windows survived, but of the thousands of high-quality works of painted and wood-carved art produced in medieval Britain, virtually none remain.

 

[heloder]

Ok, but if there is no meaning or purpose to life, why is us surviving and reproducing important to anyone?

You're looking at the entire thing backwards. You think people wanting to survive and reproduce must mean there's a meaning to life, when those traits are simply inherent to any species that has survived this long. I see people (religious) making the same mistake with arguments about our environment here on Earth. They'll say things like "Surely it's not just a coincidence that Earth is perfect for us! It must have been part of a design by God! There are too many coincidences!"

On the surface, that's a compelling argument, isn't it? But when you actually think about it critically, you'll realize that—like the above example—they're thinking about it backwards. If we couldn't tolerate sunlight, we breathed methane, and we thrived in 170f temperatures...we wouldn't have evolved in this environment to be able to even ask that question. But we did evolve in this environment, which is why it's "perfect" for us (even though it's not, really).

 

[Gref]

Ok but lack of belief is the same as saying I believe there isn't.

If you want to take some middle ground then you would say "agnostic", which is basically saying I just don't know, which is the only honest answer imo.

I don't believe in god =/= there is no god.

 

[Patof]

Damn, my friend and I were joking last year about whether there would be a Rogan redemption arc or a full blown conversion to Christianity. Guess we know where it's heading.

 

[Cajun]

Catholic art is art produced by or for members of the Catholic Church. This includes architecture, applied arts, decorative arts, painting, and sculpture. In a broader sense, Catholic music and other art may be included as well. Expressions of art may or may not attempt to illustrate, portray, and supplement Catholic teaching in tangible form. Catholic art has played a leading role in the history and development of Western art since at least the 4th century.

The High Renaissance of Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael transformed Catholic art more fundamentally, breaking with the old iconography that was thoroughly integrated for original compositions that reflected both artistic imperatives, and the influence of Renaissance humanism. Both Michelangelo and Raphael worked almost exclusively for the Papacy for much of their careers, including the year of 1517, when Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses. The connection between the events was not just chronological, as the indulgences that provoked Luther helped to finance the Papal artistic program. The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century produced new waves of image-destruction, to which the Catholic Church responded with the dramatic, elaborate emotive Baroque and Rococo styles to emphasise beauty as a transcendental.

The Protestant Reformation was a holocaust of art in many parts of Europe. Although Lutheranism was prepared to live with much existing Catholic art so long as it did not become a focus of devotion, the more radical views of Calvin, Zwingli and others saw public religious images of any sort as idolatry, and art was systematically destroyed in areas where their followers held sway. This destructive process continued until the mid-17th century, as religious wars brought periods of iconoclast Protestant control over much of the continent. In England and Scotland, destruction of religious art was especially heavy. Some stone sculpture, illuminated manuscripts, and stained glass windows survived, but of the thousands of high-quality works of painted and wood-carved art produced in medieval Britain, virtually none remain.

Well Knox, zwingly, and Calvin were pointing to the Commandments and looking at images of God and/or Jesus. It is possible that back then they took it too far. But ultimately to portray God in a form as to represent him then they rejected it. You are focusing on particular images versus the ornation of what the Catholic church was doing and the indulgences that were had. That is what Luther rejected. I don't know Luther focused on the images as much as the indulgences and the elaborate nature of expenditures. Also out of curiosity why is this of issue to you

 

[Koro_11]

I don't believe in god =/= there is no god.

I agree, "I don't believe in God" does not equal to "there is no God".

HOWEVER

"I don't believe in God" equals "I believe there is no God".

 

[Koro_11]

You're looking at the entire thing backwards. You think people wanting to survive and reproduce must mean there's a meaning to life, when those traits are simply inherent to any species that has survived this long. I see people (religious) making the same mistake with arguments about our environment here on Earth. They'll say things like "Surely it's not just a coincidence that Earth is perfect for us! It must have been part of a design by God! There are too many coincidences!"

On the surface, that's a compelling argument, isn't it? But when you actually think about it critically, you'll realize that—like the above example—they're thinking about it backwards. If we couldn't tolerate sunlight, we breathed methane, and we thrived in 170f temperatures...we wouldn't have evolved in this environment to be able to even ask that question. But we did evolve in this environment, which is why it's "perfect" for us (even though it's not, really).

Ok, but that still doesn't explain why we shouldn't kill someone weaker than us and take his shit, animals do this every time the opportunity presents itself and their species survive just fine.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Ok, but if there is no meaning or purpose to life, why is us surviving and reproducing important to anyone?

Because my life and the lives of those I care about are better when we as a collective society and species do good by each other.

 

[Koro_11]

Because my life and the lives of those I care about are better when we as a collective society and species do good by each other.

Not necessarily, if I kill a bunch of people I don't like, take all their stuff and give it to the people I do care about, their lives will be better. So why shouldn't I do it?

 

[DoctorTaco]

Then we basically agree.

But don't forget to throw out the blind hate and general assholery in those who don't believe and ridicule those who do.

Sure. No one should be an asshole, it is inexcusable