[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have been to India and it is the most beautiful and the most putrid of countries.
[/quote]
As have I, and it cannot be described better than you’ve done here. The most beautiful and disgusting place on the planet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pride goes before the fall.[/quote]
Especially in San Francisco.
Those pride parades are held before fall, because it’s too chilly to march wearing a ballerina tutu in October.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Then fuck the guy who put me there.[/quote]
If I were you I’d be very careful about taunting. Both in this life, and the one that is to follow, words often come back to haunt us.[/quote]
Well, you’ll notice that this statement that you’ve quoted was a conditional.
If I’m going to burn in hell for not believing that Jesus was divine–or, at least, no more divine than anybody else–then…
So, if the conditional clause is fulfilled, then it really doesn’t matter what I say in the consequent clause. Unless, of course, you think I’ll be punished all the harder for what I’ve said here…in which case, while you’re right that it’s unwise of me to say it, He deserves the censure all the more, so far as I’m concerned.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point is about religion. You say that I will know “the Real Truth” in the end. But you can’t prove it–not even in the way that a physicist can prove quantum mechanics.
[/quote]
Well, technically, quantum mechanics is still “unproven” because it conflicts with relativity and they have yet to marry the two approaches successfully (that’s what the search for a quantum description of gravity is all about)…
[/quote]
This is true. I tried to account for this by saying, “not in the way that a physicist can prove quantum mechanics.” What I meant by this was that the random nature of quantum events, for example, while not “gospel,” has held up in each of the hundreds or thousands of experiments designed to test it.
As an aside, I just finished writing something pretty extensive on the subject, and that included some interviews with a good number of experts. It is the most mind-bending, crazy stuff I’ve ever tried to understand–and believe me, I don’t understand it. And, to the layman at least, it sounds about as implausible as Genesis.[/quote]
I was just messing with you lol. It is one of the most fascinating subjects I can think of, and I have loved it since I first picked up a science book outside of school (4th grade). It’s funny because my uncle is a physicist who worked for brookhaven and I’ve kept up with a good many people in academia who work in physics as well. It’s worth noting that probably even half of the experts don’t truly understand it either haha.
Which, of course, makes it even more insanely interesting. Truly the most mind-bending subject matter out there, and I thoroughly empathize with your statement!!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I am inclined to believe that a God that created the universe, and the quadrillions of stars, could probably stop a person from being struck by lightning. That’s peanuts compared to creation of the universe. What if he can stop it, but doesn’t stop it from happening?[/quote]
Exactly. I am interested to know what the community’s response to this is.[/quote]
Well, actually, I was asking you personally for your opinion with that last statement since you brought it up lol
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, if those guys are right you basically just said “fuck myself.”
Know what I’m sayin’ lol?
[/quote]
lol.
If those guys are right, I’m fucked either way, so I can really say whatever I want about the Big Man. I might as well enjoy the freedom while I have it.[/quote]
Pride goes before the fall.
Whether one is religious or not this axiom stands.[/quote]
I am not really being prideful here, though.
I believe to my very core that a god who would send me to hell for having been unable to believe the particulars of his book, and greet Jeffrey Dahmer at the pearly gates for having converted to Christianity, is en evil god.
For me to say anything else would not be humble, it would be cowardly and it would be a violation of my conscience.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I am inclined to believe that a God that created the universe, and the quadrillions of stars, could probably stop a person from being struck by lightning. That’s peanuts compared to creation of the universe. What if he can stop it, but doesn’t stop it from happening?[/quote]
Exactly. I am interested to know what the community’s response to this is.[/quote]
Well, actually, I was asking you personally for your opinion with that last statement since you brought it up lol[/quote]
Ah haha. I see.
To be honest with you, I think that it leads to the inescapable conclusion that such a God as originally described does not exist. Perhaps He is not omnibenevolent. Perhaps (and I agree with you that this seems less likely) He is not capable of intervening. Perhaps He is not omniscient. Perhaps He simply doesn’t care. Or, perhaps He doesn’t exist at all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I am inclined to believe that a God that created the universe, and the quadrillions of stars, could probably stop a person from being struck by lightning. That’s peanuts compared to creation of the universe. What if he can stop it, but doesn’t stop it from happening?[/quote]
Exactly. I am interested to know what the community’s response to this is.[/quote]
Well, actually, I was asking you personally for your opinion with that last statement since you brought it up lol[/quote]
Ah haha. I see.
To be honest with you, I think that it leads to the inescapable conclusion that such a God does not exist. Perhaps He is not omnibenevolent. Perhaps (and I agree with you that this seems less likely) He is not capable of intervening. Perhaps He is not omniscient. Perhaps He simply doesn’t care. Or, perhaps He doesn’t exist at all.[/quote]
I think if you leave xtianity you get a bit different answers anyway. If something created the universe and isn’t a part of it, it certainly wouldn’t be subject to the natural laws of the universe like time. Generally this is used as part of an argument against a Christian god because the bible purports to be a narrative and a narrative makes no sense to a being that exists independent of time. But such a being would likely have a vastly different view of suffering and death since everything is occurring for it simultaneously.
Or you could have an evil god or a non all powerful god or perhaps a non evil creator god who has his power circumscribed by a nemesis.
Many things so long as you don’t get bound up in ascribing particular qualities to a god.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Now your reasoning of comparing actual Christian martyrs with 9/11 Hijackers is way out of reach. The Early Christians were murdered for their beliefs.
[/quote]
The point was simply that something is not proved by virtue of the fact that people died for it, and the point stands. You offered Christian martyrdom as evidence of Christianity’s “truth.” This is simply fallacious reasoning.
Change it to the Cathars if you’d like. That they died because they believed what they did says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that belief. It does, of course, speak to their commitment. But that is another story.
Regarding the rest of your post, which isn’t quoted here only for the sake of saving space: I understand that you believe, and what you provided is really a personal account of your belief. This I respect completely. But it isn’t really what we’re talking about, which is religion as an objectively demonstrable truth, or as something that you can convince me is “true.”
I say that religion is no such thing. I also say that this is obvious, given the importance of “faith,” which is really belief without proof. If Christianity could be proved in the way it’s been “proved” that AIDS is caused by HIV, then I would be Christian. Yes, there would always be some deniers, just as there are deniers who think that AIDS is a hoax, or caused by ARV, or whatever. But me–I’d be a Christian.
However, Christianity is not demonstrably true. It cannot be “proved,” and by “proved” I don’t mean shown to be objectively true beyond any doubt. I mean “proved” in the way that it was proved that AIDS is caused by HIV. If you think it can indeed be “proved” in a comparable way, then I challenge you to do it–to concisely and clearly lay out a simple argument in your favor. For the record, I’ve asked some incredibly studied Christians and Jews to do this for me, and it absolutely never has. Never even close.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point is about religion. You say that I will know “the Real Truth” in the end. But you can’t prove it–not even in the way that a physicist can prove quantum mechanics.
[/quote]
Well, technically, quantum mechanics is still “unproven” because it conflicts with relativity and they have yet to marry the two approaches successfully (that’s what the search for a quantum description of gravity is all about)…
[/quote]
This is true. I tried to account for this by saying, “not in the way that a physicist can prove quantum mechanics.” What I meant by this was that the random nature of quantum events, for example, while not “gospel,” has held up in each of the hundreds or thousands of experiments designed to test it.
As an aside, I just finished writing something pretty extensive on the subject, and that included some interviews with a good number of experts. It is the most mind-bending, crazy stuff I’ve ever tried to understand–and believe me, I don’t understand it. And, to the layman at least, it sounds about as implausible as Genesis.[/quote]
I was just messing with you lol. It is one of the most fascinating subjects I can think of, and I have loved it since I first picked up a science book outside of school (4th grade). It’s funny because my uncle is a physicist who worked for brookhaven and I’ve kept up with a good many people in academia who work in physics as well. It’s worth noting that probably even half of the experts don’t truly understand it either haha.
Which, of course, makes it even more insanely interesting. Truly the most mind-bending subject matter out there, and I thoroughly empathize with your statement!![/quote]
It really is amazing. It’s probably the first and only thing I’ve encountered that my brain could simply not make sense of. I mean, objectively random radioactive decay? As in, not only can it not be predicted, but there is no hidden variable governing the particulars of its happening?
I simply cannot make anything of that. I can say the words, and I can know what they’re signifying, but I cannot fathom that reality operates in such a way.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I am inclined to believe that a God that created the universe, and the quadrillions of stars, could probably stop a person from being struck by lightning. That’s peanuts compared to creation of the universe. What if he can stop it, but doesn’t stop it from happening?[/quote]
Exactly. I am interested to know what the community’s response to this is.[/quote]
Well, actually, I was asking you personally for your opinion with that last statement since you brought it up lol[/quote]
Ah haha. I see.
To be honest with you, I think that it leads to the inescapable conclusion that such a God does not exist. Perhaps He is not omnibenevolent. Perhaps (and I agree with you that this seems less likely) He is not capable of intervening. Perhaps He is not omniscient. Perhaps He simply doesn’t care. Or, perhaps He doesn’t exist at all.[/quote]
I am inclined to believe that if a god exists that can create universes, then he also creates the laws under which those universes operate. This god would not be “bound” by those laws, but it would serve no purpose to break them. If an electrostatic discharge on one of the quadrillion worlds orbiting one of those quadrillion stars in one of those universes happens to intersect the path of one of the inhabitants of one of those worlds, I see no reason for this god to personally alter the laws of electromagnetism to prevent it from happening.
This does not necessarily mean that this god has “allowed evil to happen” or that he is “powerless” to stop it, or even that “he doesn’t care”, any more than you or I should be held personally responsible when a free radical oxidizes one of the cells in our bodies.
Stuff happens.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That they aren’t like me just because they say they did it in the name of the Bible…but you won’t allow that for a different faith? Interesting.
[/quote]
This is the exact point. The Bible only talks about the Jews destroying the people in the Holy Land when they were taking possession of it. Then Jesus comes and wants to show Grace to everyone. Now lets look at the Quoran. Starts off with love the Jew and Love the Christian, but then all of a sudden turns to kill the Infidel if they do not convert.
The Quoran was written by one person, and just on a side note there are different Quorans. This is the reason the two faiths still hate each other and turn back to killing each other when there is no infidels around. I will say this could have been the Protestants and Catholics 300-400 years ago, but those two stopped doing it while the Muslims have been doing it since Muhammad died. Now the Bible was written over 1500 years and with 39 authors.
There is a big difference between the two holy texts. I guess you do not see it because you really do not care.[/quote]
You’re making my point for me D. You’re saying you interpret the Bible in a certain way despite numerous instances where one could interpret the Bible as calling for bloodshed. The Bible is an old book and has ALWAYS meant different things to different people. You are claiming that those who have used the Bible to justify bloodshed are coming to the wrong conclusion.
I have never said a difference doesn’t exist between the two holy texts. The differences really don’t matter though. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Bible to justify atrocities. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Quoran to justify atrocities. And yet when it’s your side they are reading it wrong, and when it’s the other team it’s because the book is flawed? Why are Muslims who denounce terrorism not allowed to defend their faith, but you are yours? Because you believe their book is flawed? They think the same thing about you my friend.