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

IanEdwards said:
well, they kind of are, though, aren't they?

There is a strong strain of 'anti-science' thinking in the US- often, but by no means solely, perpetuated on religious grounds

If he *rejects* 'Big Bang' (you could just as easily say 'vaccines' or 'global warming') whilst juxtaposing it with a religious trope that he finds more convincing (or at least he says he does), it seems to me he is pretty clearly showing his ass to a particular demographic.

Sooner or later it will go from 'Big Bang doesn't convince me' to 'well,m how can you trust science at all, I mean, if you can't trust the Big Bang theory, how can you trust anything scientists say?'

it seems pretty obviously transparent to me.

Plus, lets face it, intellectual rigour isn't at all his strong suit, spiritualist thinking in general is well-suited to him as it gives him the chance to base his opinions on The Feels, bro.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't competing ideologies in fact, the story of creation can easily accommodate the Big bang.... The fact is it does for millions and millions of Christians. Even questioning the 7 days... literally the 7 Days of creation has been present since the earliest days of Christianity.

Also, we're talking about the Big bang versus the resurrection of Jesus and frankly they just don't have much of a relationship with one another. As far as trying to contradict one another, it's like saying English contradicts math. They're just different disciplines.


Joe may not know any of this and I tend to think he's wel....l. I don't know what to say about Joe..... Sometimes think he's just stupid, sometimes.I think he's just influenced by his new bros in the Trump administration and sometimes I think he's done a lot of .. well
.. so many drugs and he can't think straight. But mostly I think it's just what happens when an irresponsible buffoon is elevated to a position of authority kind of like Trump.


In any case, he's free to his beliefs, but he didn't have to choose between the Big bang and the resurrection of Jesus, they're not even competing ideologies. And neither of those ideologies self-refufute one another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seano said:
Literal definition of faith-

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Click to expand...
That's a secular definition... it doesn't have much to do with the specialized Christian use of the word faith and how it's been used in the Christian tradition historically.

Faith and reason has always been the motto and no one has ever taught people to have faith without reason. Even the Bible refutes that claim.

Put into modern secular language. You could say it like this. You take a leap of faith and believing based on the evidence of people's testimony, but the personal evidence comes from the transformation that's produced in your life.
 
terrapin said:
Also, we're talking about the Big bang versus the resurrection of Jesus and frankly they just don't have much of a relationship with one another
Click to expand...
Jesus was born of an immaculate conception. God sparked life in Mary’s womb without any of the “ingredients” needed to do so. It’s literally parallel to the god creating the universe out of nothing.
 
DoctorTaco said:
If the Christian god is real than Rogan is in some trouble.

Probably my favorite take on the matter:
Click to expand...

So many people just have a hard time saying they don't know. It is a painful thing to realize, and most will fight tooth and nail to do anything but that.
 
DoctorTaco said:
Swear to god seano (pun!) I copied that same definition to post as a response
Click to expand...
Yeah but you're using secular definitions and obviously as you know in any discipline, scientific, philosophical, theological etc. Terms come to have special meanings specific to that discipline.

Faith is at least as much a way of opening to experience with God as it is and acceptance of a theological position put forth by Christian doctrine.


Faith is the only proximate means to Union with God according to John of the Cross, but that faith is a radical openness and includes an apophaticism as a foundation for mystical experience.


The point is you and I both know that any discipline worth its salt comes to use specialized meanings for terms. This is why when scholars have discussions with one another, they must spend a great deal of time coming to terms with terms themselves before discussing to avoid misunderstandings.


All good "faith" discussion rests on this premise that we must have first of all good "faith" and want to understand what each other means by a term and that we need to take the time to define all that.

I'm sure you have, but I certainly have witnessed scholars take a good 45 minutes getting terms straight in the beginning of a long discussion. They're using the same words, but they don't mean the exact same thing. This has to do with the limitations of language.
 
Mathematically.... it takes far more faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory without a high power than to believe in Intelligent Design. The Atheists are some of those with the greatest faith and many of them are too dumb and/or arrogant to realize it.
 
terrapin said:
Yeah but you're using secular definitions and obviously as you know in any discipline, scientific, philosophical, theological etc. Terms come to have special meanings specific to that discipline.

Faith is at least as much a way of opening to experience with God as it is and acceptance of a theological position put forth by Christian doctrine.


Faith is the only proximate means to Union with God according to John of the Cross, but that faith is a radical openness and includes an apophaticism as a foundation for mystical experience.


The point is you and I both know that any discipline worth its salt comes to use specialized meanings for terms. This is why when scholars have discussions with one another, they must spend a great deal of time coming to terms with terms themselves before discussing to avoid misunderstandings.


All good "faith" discussion rests on this premise that we must have first of all good "faith" and want to understand what each other means by a term and that we need to take the time to define all that.

I'm sure you have, but I certainly have witnessed scholars take a good 45 minutes getting terms straight in the beginning of a long discussion. They're using the same words, but they don't mean the exact same thing. This has to do with the limitations of language.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, no argument here. One side wants to use a special meaning of a word, the other wants to use its common use definition.
 
Is this gonna be on par with the whole Joy Behar “he believes in dragons” nonsense?
 
italiamusica said:
So he's now fully done a 180°, he's a complete Trump and republican shill, going against everything he's said in the past in order to suck the dick of the machine and keep him in their good graces. He really is a midget with a Napoleon complex, and he see's the powerful losers of the world as the right people to suck up to.

Dude has no fortitude, morals, ethics, he really just sold out for money and power. What a fucking pathetic person 😂 just a straight up loser, I'm sure his daughters hate him.
Click to expand...
Says the douchebag with a Satan star as his avatar.
 
DoctorTaco said:
Absolutely, no argument here. One side wants to use a special meaning of a word, the other wants to use its common use definition.
Click to expand...
That's right, that's exactly right and an honest discussion of those two differences have to be taken into account. Or else the discussion is being had in bad faith....

Here are three scholars discussing the Meta Crisis and its possible root causes and solutions. Since this discussion represents three scholars coming from different sets of disciplines, but discussing the same topic, a great deal of time is spent throughout the discussion defining terms and coming to some kind of common agreement on what they mean by words as theology, philosophy, cognitive science, history etc all make subtly different uses of those terms.

 
Andy Capp said:
To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
Click to expand...

Damn, that's a great quote. Hawking bless.
 
DoctorTaco said:
Jesus was born of an immaculate conception. God sparked life in Mary’s womb without any of the “ingredients” needed to do so. It’s literally parallel to the god creating the universe out of nothing.
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with the resurrection of Jesus though?

What I see here in Joe's reasoning is just the typical lack of it. A lack of making proper distinctions, a lack of making proper arguments and a lack of understanding the foundations of the ideologies involved.

I don't even begrudging his position, but it just seems to be throwing things together for no point or reason as far as I can tell.

Maybe in his defense he's just making a basic statement however imprecisely about his belief in Christianity over science, but even then he could have picked much better positions to equate and contrast.

He should have said he believes in the Genesis account more than he does the Big bang.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
terrapin said:
That's right, that's exactly right and an honest discussion of those two differences have to be taken into account. Or else the discussion is being had in bad faith....

Here are three scholars discussing the Meta Crisis and its possible root causes and solutions. Since this discussion represents three scholars coming from different sets of disciplines, but discussing the same topic, a great deal of time is spent throughout the discussion defining terms and coming to some kind of common agreement on what they mean by words as theology, philosophy, cognitive science, history etc all make subtly different uses of those terms.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where I asked you to reason out a talking donkey
 
44nutman said:
If I was Joe Rogan I would be pissed at Jesus for making me a Manlet.
Click to expand...
6’1” guy checking in,

Who gives a shit about the dudes’ height (Especially when he’d render you unconscious in under a minute if he wanted)?? Pretty sure he’s already accomplished enough in life to make Odin jealous.
 
evansusmc2 said:
6’1” guy checking in,

Who gives a shit about the dudes’ height (Especially when he’d render you unconscious in under a minute if he wanted)?? Pretty sure he’s already accomplished enough in life to make Odin jealous.
Click to expand...
I detest Joe Rogan but you do have a point there. It's funny listen to people bag on him for being short. They would never dare do that in person. Joe Rogan isn't particularly nice. He's kind of a bully in the gym from what I hear, I don't think he would treat someone too well if they tried that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,211
Messages
57,974,737
Members
175,888
Latest member
whatsername

Share this page

Back
Top