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

I disagree that the big bang is implausible. I concur with Stephen Hawking on this subject.
I wasn't saying I literally believe it is implausible- that was a comparative statement about the two beliefs. In other words, the belief that something scientific isn't satisfactory in terms of realism, but something supernatural is- the contradiction.
 
Nobody asking the real question, is Joe letting go of Aliens? Or is he on the Aliens were angels camp?

<30>

I do think Joe have been platforming grifters for so long that he became a grifter himself, meaning that if came out and said he's a christian I would be more inclined to believe he's pandering to somebody or trying to get ahead of some allegations than to believe him to be a true christian believer (as many people are).
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but him saying time didn't exist is more a matter of the mathematical equations breaking down at and before the big bang (and even very soon after it), yes?
I'd say that's the reason for the claim that time does not exist in a singularity, to wit, "...gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist."

Time is part of the fabric of space. We know the rate at which time passes in the presence of a massive object changes, and the denser the object, the stronger the influence of gravity at the surface on that rate. That's a fact. At a singularity, this effect is infinitely strong, for lack of a better way to put it for now, and time stops having meaning.

ITT, people are conflating two entirely different questions with entirely different (potential) answers.

First: is the big bang theory the best explanation for what we observe of the current and past states of the universe? The answer is yes.*

Second: what happened to result in the big bang? The answer is nobody knows but the best explanation based upon what we do know seems to be that it popped into existence on its own. There's no way to test that experimentally though, so your guess is as good as mine.

Even so, not knowing what "made" the big bang does not invalidate it as an explanation for everything that has happened since.


*if one believes there's a supernatural explanation for everything we see and experience, there's no point in engaging in that debate. There's nothing wrong with spirituality--it can certainly play a role in one's life--but if the goal is to understand things like how the universe evolved and what we can predict about its future, it's necessary to rely on the scientific method, not belief.
 
Last edited:
Nobody asking the real question, is Joe letting go of Aliens? Or is he on the Aliens were angels camp?

<30>

I do think Joe have been platforming grifters for so long that he became a grifter himself, meaning that if came out and said he's a christian I would be more inclined to believe he's pandering to somebody or trying to get ahead of some allegations than to believe him to be a true christian believer (as many people are).
Hes not really pandering to anyone other than his mortality. Theres a reason in every culture and every religion people get more religious as they age. Its universal.. Hes aging and very aware of his mortality.

I highly doubt hes chasing more money or viewers and thought you know what we will get me more viewers , Leaning into christianity lol
 
The Big Bang Theory is "Genesis" for scientists.

"At first, there was nothing. Then there was something"

Whoa, very science-y.
 
I have never been "anti-religion" but still feel the overall sentiment here. The tide is shifting, and the sociopolitical liberal driven atheist revolution seems to be collapsing in real time. By far, one of the most egregious aspects of it has been the promulgation of the academically fringe Christ Myth theory, the idea that his entire historical existence is up for debate. It's not. This man was born, baptized, began a ministry, and got brutally crucified on the cross.

Catholicism is based on the original Christian church founded by Jesus and handed down to Saint Peter (the first pope), who was ultimately martyred and crucified himself by Nero in Rome. It is the longest surviving institution in the history of western civilization. In terms of theology and tradition, it is vastly superior to any of the other post-1517 Prot denomination offshoots (IMO) and significantly different from them in a multitude of ways where aesthetics, afterlife, holidays, symbols, sacraments, saints, and even salvation for that matter is concerned.

And I don't even say any of this as an active or practicing Catholic, although my children were baptized by the church in large part on account of their mother who is. I actually come from a family of mainline Protestants and grew up regularly attending a Lutheran church. I just naturally fucked off from all of it in my early 20s to settle on ambivalent agnosticism before incorporating elements of Norse paganism. That is, in a strictly spiritual sense, because there isn't and never was any sort of firm religious doctrine associated with it.

Funny Thing: Big Bang Theory comes from a Catholic Priest.

Georges Henri Édouard Lemaître (/ləˈmɛtrə/ lə-MET-rə; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, and theoretical physicist who made major contributions to astrophysics and cosmology. He was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law with the solution to the Einstein Field Equations in the General Theory of Relativity. That work led Lemaître to propose what he called the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" now regarded as the first formulation of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

500px-GLemaitre30.jpg
Re: that first paragraph--I don't see a lot of that happening, but then, I haven't looked very hard either. But I appreciate the rest of the post as an ex-Catholic myself.
 
I have never been "anti-religion" but still feel the overall sentiment here. The tide is shifting, and the sociopolitical liberal driven atheist revolution seems to be collapsing in real time. By far, one of the most egregious aspects of it has been the promulgation of the academically fringe Christ Myth theory, the idea that his entire historical existence is up for debate. It's not. This man was born, baptized, began a ministry, and got brutally crucified on the cross.

Catholicism is based on the original Christian church founded by Jesus and handed down to Saint Peter (the first pope), who was ultimately martyred and crucified himself by Nero in Rome. It is the longest surviving institution in the history of western civilization. In terms of theology and tradition, it is vastly superior to any of the other post-1517 Prot denomination offshoots (IMO) and significantly different from them in a multitude of ways where aesthetics, afterlife, holidays, symbols, sacraments, saints, and even salvation for that matter is concerned.

And I don't even say any of this as an active or practicing Catholic, although my children were baptized by the church in large part on account of their mother who is. I actually come from a family of mainline Protestants and grew up regularly attending a Lutheran church. I just naturally fucked off from all of it in my early 20s to settle on ambivalent agnosticism before incorporating elements of Norse paganism. That is, in a strictly spiritual sense, because there isn't and never was any sort of firm religious doctrine associated with it.

Funny Thing: Big Bang Theory comes from a Catholic Priest.

Georges Henri Édouard Lemaître (/ləˈmɛtrə/ lə-MET-rə; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, and theoretical physicist who made major contributions to astrophysics and cosmology. He was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law with the solution to the Einstein Field Equations in the General Theory of Relativity. That work led Lemaître to propose what he called the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" now regarded as the first formulation of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

500px-GLemaitre30.jpg

Ehhh I would say that Catholic tradition maintains that they are the original church, and that Peter traveled to Rome, was first pope, etc—I think the evidence for that is scant, and there’s *some* evidence that Peter was buried elsewhere and not in Rome at all.

I would argue that the original church would be the Jerusalem church headed by Jesus’s brother James. When Peter and Paul have a dispute (documented in Galations 2), they go to James to have the dispute mediated. Peter doesn’t have the authority to decide the dispute on his own.

Oh, he absolutely was. Christianity is a gentile religion with a Jewish founder. All 27 books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew. Half of them are attributed to Paul, who made it his life's work to become an instrument of Christ as an apostle to the gentiles. The canonical Gospel of Luke (along with Acts) alone comprise almost 30% of the NT text and were written by a non-Jewish companion and colleague of Paul. The point being: Christianity likely never would've made it out of the 1st century without Paul. He is nothing less than one of the most influential figures in human history.
Possibly Paul is more influential on Christianity as it’s practiced today than Jesus himself. It’s Paul’s Epistles (the ones that are genuine anyway) that are the oldest texts in the NT. As you mention, Luke/Acts is a significant part of the NT and was a text that deliberately alight to suppress or marginalize the family of Jesus, including James, and paint a picture in which James played no leadership role, which we know is not true.

 
Hes not really pandering to anyone other than his mortality. Theres a reason in every culture and every religion people get more religious as they age. Its universal.. Hes aging and very aware of his mortality.

I highly doubt hes chasing more money or viewers and thought you know what we will get me more viewers , Leaning into christianity lol
My point is not religion/christianity, he can believe in whatever he wants, anybody can. I just don't believe his stances on things to be honest ones.
Joe is definitely chasing money, I used to listen to him making fun of podcasters who stopped to read ads. Nowadays somehow while being richer than ever his podcast become flooded with non stop ad reads.

Dude rants about how the pharmaceutical studies are week and brought for while citing a very weak study with no relevant result to sell alphabrain (a company he had money on).
He became a huge influencer, there's tons of money to made in his position and it's his right to take advantage of this position to make money. But I've seen way too many times he contradicting previously stated stances, going back and forth while making money over shit.

I have no problem with anybody wanting to be a born again christian, but if I was still a christian wouldnt be buying it.
 
Oh yeah, I don't mean he'll be a true believer or actually follow Jesus's teachings or anything. Hardly anyone does that. But that Christo Corpo Fascism schtick is becoming en vogue now, and Joe seems like he has his fingers on the pulse of his base.
I think Joe for his part does try to have an open mind for the most part. I don't really think he looks in terms of his base. I think his appeal is that he can take people from any different area and have some sort of conversation with them.
 
My point is not religion/christianity, he can believe in whatever he wants, anybody can. I just don't believe his stances on things to be honest ones.
Joe is definitely chasing money, I used to listen to him making fun of podcasters who stopped to read ads. Nowadays somehow while being richer than ever his podcast become flooded with non stop ad reads.

Dude rants about how the pharmaceutical studies are week and brought for while citing a very weak study with no relevant result to sell alphabrain (a company he had money on).
He became a huge influencer, there's tons of money to made in his position and it's his right to take advantage of this position to make money. But I've seen way too many times he contradicting previously stated stances, going back and forth while making money over shit.

I have no problem with anybody wanting to be a born again christian, but if I was still a christian wouldnt be buying it.

Yeah doesnt bug me either way honestly. I only watch rogan sporadicy for certain guests heh. Hes welcome to believe whatever he wants. Aliens are more fun tho =)

I think money grabs arr so simple for rogan honestly, turning christian just for it seems a lot of effort lol

But. You maybe correct. But people becoming more religious as they age is very normal behaviour as well
 
Never said I believe the big bang theory. Its just in my mind its maybe a 10% chance... simulation theory is a 20% chance... Christianity, Judaism and Islam combined is like .0000000000001% chance. Too many wars fought between those 3...

I just don't see God telling his peoples to kill and conquer and subjugate everyone. And if he is all knowing.. Then surely he wouldve known that Christianity would've been used to wage wars..

So you're perfectly comfortable saying there's a 1 in 5 chance that some greater intelligence from a reality that transcends our own created the universe and defined all its rules, but as soon as you put a name on that entity, that chance somehow drops to almost 0%?
 
Joe going full mega church pastor now?

Also even if scientists are wrong about the beginnings of the universe, that doesn't make Christianity right.
 
Last edited:
It seems like the overwhelming majority of historians acknowledge Jesus was an historical person.

An historical person who wasn't actually anything special to people while he was alive, and had very few followers. St. Paul was by far the most important spreader of early Christianity and he never even met Jesus.

Jesus was special enough for people to record his life and works, which is more than you can say for most people who lived during that time (and all throughout history). And if you believe the Biblical accounts - which, if you're accepting the historicity of Jesus, you might as well - then Paul did have an encounter with Jesus, which is what began his conversion. He certainly wrote as though he believed Jesus was not only real, but the absolute foundation of Christianity.
 
Jesus was special enough for people to record his life and works, which is more than you can say for most people who lived during that time (and all throughout history). And if you believe the Biblical accounts - which, if you're accepting the historicity of Jesus, you might as well - then Paul did have an encounter with Jesus, which is what began his conversion. He certainly wrote as though he believed Jesus was not only real, but the absolute foundation of Christianity.
Paul's "encounter" was a vision, as Muhammad "encountered" the angel Gabriel in his.
 
Jesus was special enough for people to record his life and works, which is more than you can say for most people who lived during that time (and all throughout history). And if you believe the Biblical accounts - which, if you're accepting the historicity of Jesus, you might as well - then Paul did have an encounter with Jesus, which is what began his conversion. He certainly wrote as though he believed Jesus was not only real, but the absolute foundation of Christianity.
One of the reasons Jesus didn't actually make any waves when he was living was because there wasn't anything original about him. Even his alleged miracles. There were many other cults around during that time and place with people who made the same claims, and there's a record of them too. When someone heard Jesus turned water to wine most people were just like "cool, that's what Steve down the road says too."

As for St. Paul, he didn't know Jesus before the crucifixion. He never met him. He claims to have seen a light, heard his voice, has visions, etc of Jesus on the road to Damascus. But he never knew him during Jesus' "Earthly ministry."
 
One of the reasons Jesus didn't actually make any waves when he was living was because there wasn't anything original about him. Even his alleged miracles. There were many other cults around during that time and place with people who made the same claims, and there's a record of them too. When someone heard Jesus turned water to wine most people were just like "cool, that's what Steve down the road says too."

I can never find the passage when I look for it (I believe it's somewhere near the end of Acts), but this actually comes up when the apostles are being investigated, and one of the leaders says, "Don't worry about this new cult; if there's nothing to it, it'll fade away like all the others, and if there's something to it, it's bad news for us to stand against it." That always fascinated me, because to me it underlines the significance of Jesus and Christianity. If it really was just another belief of thousands, it should have died out by now. But it never did.

As for St. Paul, he didn't know Jesus before the crucifixion. He never met him. He claims to have seen a light, heard his voice, has visions, etc of Jesus on the road to Damascus. But he never knew him during Jesus' "Earthly ministry."

That's true, but what of it? Almost no one in a given religion, leader or follower, has met their messiah figure. Besides, Paul had close contact with people who did meet Jesus, and his writings are consistent with Jesus' teachings.

One of the core tenets of Christianity is that the Bible was written by many people with unique individual divine inspiration. The Old Testament is no less valid because none of its writers encountered Jesus, and Hebrews is one of the most significant books of the New Testament even though we don't know who its author is. The important thing is the consistency of the message, not whether or not the writer was personal friends with Jesus.
 
Last edited:
"Declare now, O man, how the bow is set in the clouds, or how the sun goeth down in fiery splendor. Canst thou explain the workings of the Posi-Trac rear axle upon the chariot of Plymouth? Nay, but it worketh, and that is sufficient."

Dirte 4:20

Yuh bombaclaats need Jesus dis weh yuh wan fi be wen him come back?

#injesushisname
 
Last edited:
this is called grifting. he knows the money is in shilling conservative beliefs and talking points. joe rogan believes whatever his top donor is asking him to.
 
Back
Top