Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Poitier]

Why do people think discrediting Christianity = discrediting God? Not that I'm religious, as I know some people would like to engage in ad hominem

 

[Remote]

Why do people think discrediting Christianity = discrediting God? Not that I'm religious, as I know some people would like to engage in ad hominem

I think it's just that Christianity gets targeted specifically because it's the religion with the most influence and power in the western world. But the argument, where ever it exists, is discrediting God...if only because the number of things that God has been credited with being responsible for has been dwindling for centuries now.

 

[Poitier]

I think it's just that Christianity gets targeted specifically because it's the religion with the most influence and power in the western world. But the argument, where ever it exists, is discrediting God...if only because the number of things that God has been credited with being responsible for has been dwindling for centuries now.

I don't see it like that, though. The bare essential characteristics of a monotheistic god = creator, omniscient, omnipotent. You can discredit what certain religions like to additionally attribute but how do you go further? Someone can always equate God = unknown and be correct. A lot of this stuff answers how but not why when you get to origins and things of that nature, which is an issue as well.

 

[Broke Wave]

Honestly, I wonder the same thing. I think part of the problem is they assume anything like this must be some kind of attack on religion, so they get obsessed with trying to make science look frail or silly. The thread title doesn't help, I guess...

The article said the big bang was originally a black hole and not a singularity... that's a far cry from the black hole just not existing ... these nikkas are like you see, you see, they revised a theory, we believed in nothing so we won a haaa haaa

 

[Remote]

I don't see it like that, though. The bare essential characteristics of a monotheistic god = creator, omniscient, omnipotent. You can discredit what certain religions like to additionally attribute but how do you go further? Someone can always equate God = unknown and be correct. A lot of this stuff answers how but not why when you get to origins and things of that nature, which is an issue as well.

"Someone can always equate God = unknown and be correct"

How?

See, science works backwards from religion. We might not know exactly how the universe came to be, but we do know that it wasn't "X, Y, Z...etc"
We know that through scientific rigor. We know that a God doesn't cause the tides to flow in and out and we can explain it.

But how does a person say "This was created by a God" without disproving all the other things that it could be?
I mean often the "God exists" or "This was created by God" argument has, at its fundamental core, the feeling that "Well, it's just too complicated to be anything else"....or "It's beyond our comprehension"

Well, for fukk's sake, why the hell would anyone believe something they can't comprehend? Faith? That's a stupid reason.
But just to play along, I'll accept faith. That's fine.

But the issue that many non-believers have is that there are people dictating policies that have a real impact on people's lives and it's in the name of something they fully admit they can't comprehend (God). Aside from many of these policies being outright harmful, the mechanism behind the thinking is downright scary.

 

[Poitier]

"Someone can always equate God = unknown and be correct"

How?

See, science works backwards from religion. We might not know exactly how the universe came to be, but we do know that it wasn't "X, Y, Z...etc"
We know that through scientific rigor. We know that a God doesn't cause the tides to flow in and out and we can explain it.

But how does a person say "This was created by a God" without disproving all the other things that it could be?
I mean often the "God exists" or "This was created by God" argument has, at its fundamental core, the feeling that "Well, it's just too complicated to be anything else"....or "It's beyond our comprehension"

Well, for fukk's sake, why the hell would anyone believe something they can't comprehend? Faith? That's a stupid reason.
But just to play along, I'll accept faith. That's fine.

But the issue that many non-believers have is that there are people dictating policies that have a real impact on people's lives and it's in the name of something they fully admit they can't comprehend (God). Aside from many of these policies being outright harmful, the mechanism behind the thinking is downright scary.

You can't know because simply saying "God causes the tides to flow" is ambiguous... it could in fact be through what we call "science" that shows us the "how." They aren't opposing. It's the problem with attacking something that is basically "all powerful." Unless you're also a God then there will always be room for ambiguity and belief in a mighty being.

I don't think "faith" is stupid. We all operate on faith at some level. Can't have it both ways.

Atheist tend to be satisfied by science answering "how" but not "why." You can assert that there is no "why" but then you'd be going on faith just as much as a religious person, no matter how coherent your logic and reasoning are.

I do think bigots and zealots ruin the reputations of many but you can't generalize. A suicide bomber does not make me hate Muslims. Kritic does not make me hate the people who post in HL.

Like I said, I'm Agnostic but I never really understood the whole religion versus atheism. It's really a waste of time with the life we're given.

 

[Remote]

You can't know because simply saying "God causes the tides to flow" is ambiguous... it could in fact be through what we call "science" that shows us the "how." They aren't opposing. It's the problem with attacking something that is basically "all powerful." Unless you're also a God then there will always be room for ambiguity and belief in a mighty being.

I don't think "faith" is stupid. We all operate on faith at some level. Can't have it both ways.

Atheist tend to be satisfied by science answering "how" but not "why." You can assert that there is no "why" but then you'd be going on faith just as much as a religious person, no matter how coherent your logic and reasoning are.

I do think bigots and zealots ruin the reputations of many but you can't generalize. A suicide bomber does not make me hate Muslims. Kritic does not make me hate the people who post in HL.

Like I said, I'm Agnostic but I never really understood the whole religion versus atheism. It's really a waste of time with the life we're given.

They aren't imposing? Dude, watch the news.
Honor rape?
Banning gay marriage?
Holy wars?
Abortion?
The motherfukking boy scouts?

Sorry for getting a bit worked up, but yeah, religion imposes its will on the general public everywhere, every single day.
I mean that's the biggest thing that probably offends the non-believer.

 

[Remote]

Apologies. I was skimming, and misread "opposing" for "imposing" and went on a small rant.

 

[Poitier]

I was ready to fire off a rant myself

 

[MostReal]

Wheres your evidence though?

We have evidence of the following.

1. Expanding universe.

2. Black holes

3. The creation of black holes

4. We can visualize the observable universe

5. a telescope that just added 15 BILLION years to how old we thought the earth was

6. an understanding of gravity

7. and understanding of quantum mechanics in space.


....and yet...AND YET...you just wanna sit here and act like its some grand conspiracy to take credit from your sky pimp.

SUPPORT YOUR CASE THEN>

simply put...all of the aforementioned will change in due time. They will come up with something else claiming it as fact. Facts do not change.

 

[DerrtySouthpaw]

Except it challenges the whole "origin" thin...

you dont have to believe in "origin" "god" or jesus to believe in a higher power.


your point?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Science always tries to disprove its own theories. If the big bang theory wasn't likely, that's not a failure of science. That's a triumph of science because it means the method is working and we are learning more.

It boggles the mind that there are people who deny science but never question biblical fairy tales like the talking snake or the virgin birth. Instead they revise their arguments to continue their endless circle jerk.
i.e.: "it wasn't meant to be taken as literally true" --- except that it was. All the stories were, for thousands of years, at the expense of countless lives.

The people in the science community have to be more understanding of their ignorance. If you dont know you dont know but sadly, demonic clowns who worship scientific THEORIES perpetuate these theories as the truth and when their theories are crushed they just ignore the fact theyve basically been lying all these years and are jumping on the bandwagon of a new theory. Its like but, but friend? What about that time you called friends idiots for not believing lies?

Its so demonic, friend.

 

[Remote]

The people in the science community have to be more understanding of their ignorance. If you dont know you dont know but sadly, demonic clowns who worship scientific THEORIES perpetuate these theories as the truth and when their theories are crushed they just ignore the fact theyve basically been lying all these years and are jumping on the bandwagon of a new theory. Its like but, but friend? What about that time you called friends idiots for not believing lies?

Its so demonic, friend.

Respectfully, I don't think you understand what a theory is in the scientific community.
It's not some flimsy idea like "I think the moon is made out of bleu cheese"

 

[Chris.B]

"Big Bang was mirage from collapsing higher-dimensional star, theorists propose."

lets just say for the sake of argument that this theory is true.

The real question here who created the "higher-dimensional star"????