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

[Deorum]

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

It's more like a misinterpretion of commandments or just the inability to grasp the definition of words. I'm an art aficionado who takes exception to the destruction of cultural heritage. Catholicism is responsible for much of the greatest of it to be found in the history of Western Civilization. Protestantism? Yeah, not so much. I was raised Prot and have Catholic baptized kids, so having very good familiarity with both sides: I'd say the latter is also vastly superior where doctrine and theology are concerned. The evangelical strain of protestantism is a cancer to the United States and a fucking scourge on Christianity as a whole.

 

[Deorum]

TL;DR

lol j/k very interesting and informative.

No doubt. The Vatican is the #1 art capital destination on the planet. It doesn't just house the commissioned works of Giotto, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Caravaggio but preserves a metric fuckton of Greco-Roman era treasures as well.

 

[shockaholic12]

Not even religious, just calling it as I see it, the smug scientific community absolutely do look down on the idea of God, despite they themselves having no clue how everything got here.

"Don't believe the God hypothesis, we have a much better scientific explanation for everything... ready... here it is... everything you see around you, all the planets, the stars, the universe, it all just exploded into existence out of nothing, and for no reason or purpose".

Ok, very realistic explanation, happens all the time, nothing more to see here...

There is no scientific theory that claims something came from nothing. There is no widely accepted science that claims there was ever a situation where there was or needed to be “nothing” then existence followed nor is there evidence that points to this.

You and a half dozen other people in this thread made that claim up. So why don’t you explain where it comes from and what evidence supports it since you’re making that claim and not science.

Because to me it seems you’re projecting the human condition of not being alive and then living on things that aren’t human. “I at one point didn’t exist and then I did so existence in all matters must be the same” is bad logic.

 

[shockaholic12]

I'm all too aware, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make, I think we're starting to talk past each other.

Let me see if I can get us back on track.

YES we did all those things you mentioned, and at the same time we all agree that those things were wrong.

MY question to you is, if nothing has a purpose or a meaning, then why do we consider some things morally wrong, even if they help us directly and help our tribe directly. If everything is just whatever, then why do we hold these moral standards?

I might not do something that directly helps my tribe because as an intelligent being I can ascertain that action can set a precedent for how my tribe could be treated. Species who survive off social structures don’t seem to have morally wrong actions that in all cases only bring benefit to them without also adding risks.

an intelligent social species can agree on the preference life is better than death as a vast majority of living things do and from there agree on being in a social structure is better than not because that equal death and continue from there on exploring preferences that become our moral framework.

At no point in this process do we need an outside entity who has predetermined these morals for us.

 

[Bob Gray]

What part of it is nonsensical

Honest question, why are you even asking as if you're some kind of authority that could possible correct anybody, even if they were wrong?

I think this is kind of where the breakdown of the conversation starts. You, guy posting on karate forum, dont really know shit about the big bang. Yeah, you can watch some PBS specials and read a pop science book or something. But the notion that you can sit here and correct anybody is laughable. Its the same thing as when an atheist doesnt read or study theology, but they go on the internet and find some arguments against something in the bible and just quote that argument at people as if theyre scoring any points about anything.

Yeah, it happens on the other side too.

Dont misunderstand me, this stuff is cool to read about and has really fascinating stuff in it thats super interesting. But at the end of the day, you dont know shit about it other than when the people doing the work break it down into the most simplistic, digestible bites and then you think you're an authority over someone who criticizes it and you're not.

And thats literally the entire argument people are making. You dont know about the big bang. you dont know what the mathematical arguments are for why its a popular theory. You dont understand what criticisms it could have or why something could be a legitimate criticism, because you dont know shit about it. You know pop science, which is not science. You can regurgitate some mantra or phrase about the scientific method, but you dont actually know any of these things youre talking about. You're just parroting phrases and thinking that theyre universally applicable to almost any criticism about this topic that you dont comprehend on anything other than the broadest, most meta level understanding a person outside the field could have. If scientists en masse decided tomorrow that everything we thought was wrong and the big bang never happened, theres absolutely nothing you could do except completely agree with them. That isnt knowledge.

In short, you're talking about what other people think. But its beyond you're understanding and you're acting like it isn't.

 

[Slapjit]

That was 100% understandable. Sherdog expects more from you, do better.

Mi slip still mi bredda mi haffi tighten up di vibes next taym good lookin' oot king

 

[Cajun]

It's more like a misinterpretion of commandments or just the inability to grasp the definition of words. I'm an art aficionado who takes exception to the destruction of cultural heritage. Catholicism is responsible for much of the greatest of it to be found in the history of Western Civilization. Protestantism? Yeah, not so much. I was raised Prot and have Catholic baptized kids, so having very good familiarity with both sides: I'd say the latter is also vastly superior where doctrine and theology are concerned. The evangelical strain of protestantism is a cancer to the United States and a fucking scourge on Christianity as a whwhole.

Of course we disagree on who has the misinterpretation. Otherwise I would be catholic. Luther, Calvin and other theologans knew the Greek and Hebrew. Of course you think the catholic interpretation is correct. And this isn't the venue for that debate. Doctrine and theology are weakest among catholic followers imo. I dont think its evangelicalism but Christianity as a whole thats of issue. So many Catholics are just as lost as Protestants. They attend church and do the sacraments and think that makes them a Christian. Same with Protestants. They go to church on Sunday then live like they want the rest of the week. That is not unique to Protestants but all of Christianity in the US. It is more a tradition now. That's all.

Overall any artwork destroyed is unfortunate. But ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme. Early churches did many disagreeable things be they Catholic or Protestant.

 

[Cajun]

There is no scientific theory that claims something came from nothing. There is no widely accepted science that claims there was ever a situation where there was or needed to be “nothing” then existence followed nor is there evidence that points to this.

You and a half dozen other people in this thread made that claim up. So why don’t you explain where it comes from and what evidence supports it since you’re making that claim and not science.

Because to me it seems you’re projecting the human condition of not being alive and then living on things that aren’t human. “I at one point didn’t exist and then I did so existence in all matters must be the same” is bad logic.

He is likely pointing to the original matter in the big bang. Matter isn't seen as eternal yet it came from somewhere. Im guessing that's his angle.

 

[shockaholic12]

Honest question, why are you even asking as if you're some kind of authority that could possible correct anybody, even if they were wrong?

I think this is kind of where the breakdown of the conversation starts. You, guy posting on karate forum, dont really know shit about the big bang. Yeah, you can watch some PBS specials and read a pop science book or something. But the notion that you can sit here and correct anybody is laughable. Its the same thing as when an atheist doesnt read or study theology, but they go on the internet and find some arguments against something in the bible and just quote that argument at people as if theyre scoring any points about anything.

Yeah, it happens on the other side too.

Dont misunderstand me, this stuff is cool to read about and has really fascinating stuff in it thats super interesting. But at the end of the day, you dont know shit about it other than when the people doing the work break it down into the most simplistic, digestible bites and then you think you're an authority over someone who criticizes it and you're not.

And thats literally the entire argument people are making. You dont know about the big bang. you dont know what the mathematical arguments are for why its a popular theory. You dont understand what criticisms it could have or why something could be a legitimate criticism, because you dont know shit about it. You know pop science, which is not science. You can regurgitate some mantra or phrase about the scientific method, but you dont actually know any of these things youre talking about. You're just parroting phrases and thinking that theyre universally applicable to almost any criticism about this topic that you dont comprehend on anything other than the broadest, most meta level understanding a person outside the field could have. If scientists en masse decided tomorrow that everything we thought was wrong and the big bang never happened, theres absolutely nothing you could do except completely agree with them. That isnt knowledge.

In short, you're talking about what other people think. But its beyond you're understanding and you're acting like it isn't.

you don’t need to be able to solve astrophysics calculations to digest the general conclusions the people who do them explain they represent or don’t.

I don’t need to know how to play every instrument in the orchestra to grasp the sentiment of a song it’s playing. I don’t need to understand how every cell in my liver works to grasp the conclusion its function.

For example, you don’t need an astrophysicist degree from Stanford to grasp that the Big Bang doesn’t claim what posters have commonly and falsely stated it does this whole thread, that the Big Bang is arguing that there was some state of nothingness that had to of preceded it.

It doesn’t claim that and I know that because no one who can do the math has done it and said it shows that and had that theory tested and accepted.

I’m not in here arguing the specifics of models and claiming expertise. I’m pointing out folks said the theory claims this dramatic general conclusion when that conclusion doesn’t exist in their published science and a layman can see that.

 

[shockaholic12]

He is likely pointing to the original matter in the big bang. Matter isn't seen as eternal yet it came from somewhere. Im guessing that's his angle.

Who’s to say matter didn’t always exist in some state prior to the Big Bang? Just because we cannot observe what occurred prior to it has no bearing on whether things occurred prior to it.

I’m just not sure where this insistence that there ever had to be a situation where there was nothing is coming from because it doesn’t seem scientific. Yet people keep attributing to science and arguing against it at the same time.

 

[Cajun]

Who’s to say matter didn’t always exist in some state prior to the Big Bang? Just because we cannot observe what occurred prior to it has no bearing on whether things occurred prior to it.

I’m just not sure where this insistence that there ever had to be a situation where there was nothing is coming from because it doesn’t seem scientific. Yet people keep attributing to science and arguing against it at the same time.

I believe the big bang theory and scientific thought is that the matter began at a point. They cannot prove it of course. And another law is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Imo the matter of the original would have to be eternal for the exclusion of a creator.

 

[shockaholic12]

I believe the big bang theory and scientific thought is that the matter began at a point. They cannot prove it of course. And another law is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Imo the matter of the original would have to be eternal for the exclusion of a creator.

My understanding is very shortly after the singularity formed what was a concentrated point of energy expanded and transformed into subatomic particles.

I don’t believe the Big Bang claims the have created the energy itself nor do I think it claims some state of nothing needs to proceeded the singularity where it didn’t exist. Only that we can’t observe beyond this point so we will never know.

 

[IanEdwards]

Of course we disagree on who has the misinterpretation. Otherwise I would be catholic. Luther, Calvin and other theologans knew the Greek and Hebrew. Of course you think the catholic interpretation is correct. And this isn't the venue for that debate. Doctrine and theology are weakest among catholic followers imo. I dont think its evangelicalism but Christianity as a whole thats of issue. So many Catholics are just as lost as Protestants. They attend church and do the sacraments and think that makes them a Christian. Same with Protestants. They go to church on Sunday then live like they want the rest of the week. That is not unique to Protestants but all of Christianity in the US. It is more a tradition now. That's all.

Overall any artwork destroyed is unfortunate. But ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme. Early churches did many disagreeable things be they Catholic or Protestant.

I'm not christian but even as a non-christian some of the catholic theology bugs me

where in the bible does it mention purgatory? it was just some confected bullshit to allow corrupt middle ages priests to sell indulgences and get paid to pray over candles and generally monetise their position of religious authority.

 

[Fanu]

Joe Rogan is rapidly devolving into a monkey - both physically and mentally

sounds like every other gym bro now

 

[Cajun]

My understanding is very shortly after the singularity formed what was a concentrated point of energy expanded and transformed into subatomic particles.

I don’t believe the Big Bang claims the have created the energy itself nor do I think it claims some state of nothing needs to proceeded the singularity where it didn’t exist. Only that we can’t observe beyond this point so we will never know.

Ultimately its all theory because there is a mystery that cannot be solved. But back to my original... the nature of the singularity and where it originated is likely what the poster was referring.

 

[Cajun]

I'm not christian but even as a non-christian some of the catholic theology bugs me

where in the bible does it mention purgatory? it was just some confected bullshit to allow corrupt middle ages priests to sell indulgences and get paid to pray over candles and generally monetise their position of religious authority.

Definitely some of their doctrine on Mary and her importance, pope's infallibility ex-cathedra and many others. I will say they have done much better on church structure and doctrinal accountability, feeding the poor. There is not a poor neighborhood you go into that doesnt have a catholic church there ministering to them. Overall there are some things we won't know until we are gone from this life.

 

[Deorum]

I'm not christian but even as a non-christian some of the catholic theology bugs me

where in the bible does it mention purgatory? it was just some confected bullshit to allow corrupt middle ages priests to sell indulgences and get paid to pray over candles and generally monetise their position of religious authority.

Where is Purgatory in the Bible? - About Catholics

What is Purgatory and Where can you find it in the Bible? Let's discuss and find out!

www.aboutcatholics.com

Definitely some of their doctrine on Mary and her importance, pope's infallibility ex-cathedra and many others. I will say they have done much better on church structure and doctrinal accountability, feeding the poor. There is not a poor neighborhood you go into that doesnt have a catholic church there ministering to them. Overall there are some things we won't know until we are gone from this life.

Indeed.

Big Ups for pointing that out, Cajun.

At least with Catholic doctrine, it teaches salvation through faith plus grace and good works (compassion, charity, kindness). Not so with evangelicals nor protestantism in general. It's through faith alone, so there is no religious incentive not to be a cruel shithead. It means nothing to point out their behavior runs contrary to Christ.

 

[Andy Capp]

LOL @ "called me out" by just typing "you don't know what you're talking about"... damn, what a profound argument.

You or some other war room meathead disagreeing with a claim is a long way from anything being "proven" lol.

Also, I didn't read every single post on this 25 page topic, just the ones that replied to me, so if you got some kind of "proof" then lets have it.

My claim is solid, the secular atheist has zero evidence that there isn't a creator, ZERO EVIDENCE, so when they ridicule the idea from some perceived high ground they're just being hypocrites and clinging on to their own beliefs which are grounded in nothing more than their own opinion.

Scientific method works for many things, but science is completely clueless when it comes to the origins of life and the universe, they're just guessing and no one has any idea, and anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit.

tl;dr lol

 

[Cajun]

Indeed.

Big Ups for pointing that out, Cajun

Catholic doctrine, it teaches salvation through faith plus grace and good works (compassion, charity, kindness). Not so with evangelicals nor protestantism in general. It's through faith alone, so there is no religious incentive not to be a cruel shithead. It means nothing to point out their behavior runs contrary to Christ.

No worries. Christianity is not a competition of denominations or shouldnt be. There are ups and downs about all of it. Even when someone tells me they are Non-Denominational, I have a pretty good idea at some of their theological viewpoints. We will not know the whole truth in this life. But we also have to be honest. I also like the liturgy in the catholic church. I will disagree on your second point. Protestantism believes these things or should. If you went to a place that didnt teach the things you mentioned then they are not the church. They are a church but not a part of the church. James makes all of what you mentioned very clear. There is a reason you can be KKK and attend a Baptist service. Or be mafia and be a die hard catholic. Its what gives people the idea that Christianity is fake. Hypocrisy of those who practice it. But those people do not represent anything more than those that will say Lord Lord and still end up rejected by God. If you meet a true believer in Christianity be they Catholic or Protestant then you see it in their lives.

 

[Koro_11]

It is a combination of the social contract and an agreed-upon law enforcement protocol that is stopping people from doing this.

I think it speaks very poorly of any religion to say that a belief in God is the only thing stopping its followers from killing people, stealing, raping, etc.

Further, there are plenty of people who are agnostic or atheist who still have a strong moral compass and choose to do right by people without believing that there is neither eternal punishment or reward for their actions.

When you ask Christ to forgive you and enter your heart he will do so, and forgive all of your sins- past, present, and future. Christian doctrine dictates that you could spend your entire life doing the most vile irreparable acts humanly possible, and if you have an earnest and heartfelt conversion on your deathbed, and truly mean it then all of those sins are forgiven and you get to spend eternity singing God‘s praise in heaven. The Bible even states explicitly that all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

You wanna get even theologically weirder you start taking into consideration the Calvinistic beliefs that most protestants hold. A large part of Christians believe that letter to the church in Romans tells us that some people are born and will go to hell because that is God’s will. They have no choice in the matter, it has been determined by all knowing and all powerful God who created some vessels for destruction so that those he chooses to save have even more glory and prestige.

When I was still a believer, I was firmly in the Armenianist camp and didn’t buy the idea of predestination because i couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of a loving God letting somebody have a human lifetime on earth followed by an eternity of being tortured in hell and that individual not having any choice in the matter. I presented that quandary to a pretty famous pastor and speaker and he didn’t really have much of an answer for me. Nice guy, lots of faith.

Then again it is sin that separates us from God and sin that doesn’t let us into heaven. Whole lot of people in hell who sinned but never had a chance to hear the gospel. Lotta kids too.

Anyways, I’m rambling but I do appreciate kicking ideas and philosophies around together. We might not agree on things but I enjoy the respectful discourse

That still doesn't explain why those laws are in place, if anything is permissible and there is no purpose, then everyone should be free to do what they like.

Yes there are atheists and agnostics who are still living according to basic Judeo-Christian values whether they realize it or not, it is deeply ingrained in western civilization.

As for the specifics of different religious sects, that's not really what the conversation is about. My main argument is whether or not there is a creator and a purpose to life vs whether there is no purpose and everything is completely random. We can not prove which is true and we simply don't know, but I lean towards purpose and meaning because:

1. My life is better and more meaningful when I do

2. The old watch argument, if I found a perfectly functioning watch on the ground I would have to assume that someone made it rather than it just got put together by random chance with no creator. When I look at the motion of the earth around the sun, and all the cycles we go through, to me it resembles a finely tuned watch and I have a hard time imagining that it's all by random chance without purpose.

Tbf there are talking donkeys and literal, actual acts of magic in the Bible.

Not here to defend everything written in the Bible, the book was written by man and my advice is take from it what is useful and discard what is not.