Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What do you believe


realityrunt

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

That is not what short-sighted means.  I know you don't want to go back to living like it is the bronze age all over again because nothing is stopping you.  You can walk off the grid and live like it were the "Bible times".  You won't.  You enjoy the benefits science has given your life.

 

 

Science knows that because otherwise science would stop.  Think about it.

 

 

 

True, I could start a religion any time I want.  I choose to not do that.  I don't want people hooked on a religion that I invented.

 

 

 

 

Do you realize nobody thinks science will ever have all the answers?  Scientists realize that questions really are infinite.  

 

This does not change the fact that science is the tool we use to uncover the truth.  If our decedents survive for billions of years they might uncover most of the truth or even all the truth that can be uncovered but that doesn't mean there won't be something we can't access.  Meanwhile religion will still give you nothing you didn't already have. 

Go re-read your post sir.  You just quoted me specifically where you said I was wrong for stating that "neither side had the answers".  And now you are saying that you believe science doesn't have the answers.  ?????

 

So let me conclude, that if YOOOOOOUUUU don't have all the answers and IIIIIIIIIIIIIII don't have all the answers and NO ONE else has all the answers, the only way we allow for this is what?  GRACE?  Do you not like this word?  Does it convey too much religion?  We could find a synonym if you would rather...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, end3 said:

Go re-read your post sir.  You just quoted me specifically where you said I was wrong for stating that "neither side had the answers".  And now you are saying that you believe science doesn't have the answers.  ?????

 

There is this little pesky thing called language.  Words matter.

 

Science has all the answers that we have discovered in the last 200 years and every answer we will ever discover from now on.  You pointed out correctly that since the questions are infinite science won't ever answer every question.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that not having *all* the answers is the same as having none of the answers.  See, the difference is "the answers" vs. "all the answers" as if to every possible question.

 

Science has a large quantity of answers and the answers science finds are true.  Religion finds nothing.

 

 

24 minutes ago, end3 said:

So let me conclude, that if YOOOOOOUUUU don't have all the answers and IIIIIIIIIIIIIII don't have all the answers and NO ONE else has all the answers, the only way we allow for this is what? 

 

We both have access to all the answers uncovered by science as long as we accept truth.  If you won't do that then that choice will come back to bite you someday.  It saddens me to watch somebody sabotage their own life but there is nothing I can do to stop you.

 

 

24 minutes ago, end3 said:

  GRACE?  Do you not like this word?  Does it convey too much religion?  We could find a synonym if you would rather...

 

 

What I dislike is how you turn everything into meaningless word salad.  The word "grace" has a real meaning to the rest of the English-speaking world.  But you ignore that and use "grace" to mean whatever you want.  You even change the meaning mid sentence and nobody can figure out what the word means to you at any given time.  When you go to explain yourself you change your private meaning again so there is no way to get back in time and figure out what you thought Grace meant yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

There is this little pesky thing called language.  Words matter.

 

Science has all the answers that we have discovered in the last 200 years and every answer we will ever discover from now on.  You pointed out correctly that since the questions are infinite science won't ever answer every question.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that not having *all* the answers is the same as having none of the answers.  See, the difference is "the answers" vs. "all the answers" as if to every possible question.

 

Science has a large quantity of answers and the answers science finds are true.  Religion finds nothing.

 

 

 

We both have access to all the answers uncovered by science as long as we accept truth.  If you won't do that then that choice will come back to bite you someday.  It saddens me to watch somebody sabotage their own life but there is nothing I can do to stop you.

 

 

 

 

What I dislike is how you turn everything into meaningless word salad.  The word "grace" has a real meaning to the rest of the English-speaking world.  But you ignore that and use "grace" to mean whatever you want.  You even change the meaning mid sentence and nobody can figure out what the word means to you at any given time.  When you go to explain yourself you change your private meaning again so there is no way to get back in time and figure out what you thought Grace meant yesterday.

Crap MM, this isn't even worth arguing.  You nor I have a fraction of the "factual" knowledge base.  This doesn't even touch how we process that information/knowledge as individuals.  With that, there is a heck of a lot of room for "what we don't know"......as a group and also as individuals. 

 

With that, how are we to treat each other physically and mentally if we don't have the entire knowledge base, known and unknown, logically working as individuals?  And then factor in some greater meaning/goal?  How we treat each other is meaningless unless there is some goal as a society. 

 

I digress, this is a stupid argument. 

 

You are captives of science.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, end3 said:

Crap MM, this isn't even worth arguing.  You nor I have a fraction of the "factual" knowledge base.  

 

There is no reason to compare what one person knows to the infinite possibilities of knowledge.  This is nonsensical.  If your car brakes down and a mechanic knows how to fix it then you pay him to fix your car.  Doesn't matter if he doesn't know the precise location and velocity of every atom making up the planet Neptune let alone the whole universe.  He can fix your car so you pay him and he fixes your car.  There is no need for you to over complicate things with nonsense.

 

24 minutes ago, end3 said:

With that, how are we to treat each other physically and mentally if we don't have the entire knowledge base, known and unknown, logically working as individuals? 

 

People have managed just fine ever since there were people.  Really, so what if we don't have infinite knowledge?  It's silly and irrelevant.  Everybody goes about living their lives anyway so everything is fine.

 

 

26 minutes ago, end3 said:

And then factor in some greater meaning/goal? 

 

There doesn't seem to be one unless you count providing Pastors/Priests with an opportunity to scam fools.  That would be the only accomplishment of Christianity

 

29 minutes ago, end3 said:

How we treat each other is meaningless unless there is some goal as a society. 

 

That is a bold claim.  I expect you will provide zero support to back it up. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

There is no reason to compare what one person knows to the infinite possibilities of knowledge.  This is nonsensical.  If your car brakes down and a mechanic knows how to fix it then you pay him to fix your car.  Doesn't matter if he doesn't know the precise location and velocity of every atom making up the planet Neptune let alone the whole universe.  He can fix your car so you pay him and he fixes your car.  There is no need for you to over complicate things with nonsense.

 

 

People have managed just fine ever since there were people.  Really, so what if we don't have infinite knowledge?  It's silly and irrelevant.  Everybody goes about living their lives anyway so everything is fine.

 

 

 

There doesn't seem to be one unless you count providing Pastors/Priests with an opportunity to scam fools.  That would be the only accomplishment of Christianity

 

 

That is a bold claim.  I expect you will provide zero support to back it up. 

 

 

No, this is lacking.  You are now saying that more knowledge is irrelevant.  This is wrong.  Atheists are very quick to point out that more knowledge alleviates old beliefs, improves our lives, etc.  And you are saying less knowledge is the same as. 

 

Again, moral behavior above nature requires a goal/meaning.....i.e. life or happiness.

 

To your last statement, we would have to ask if nature has evolved nurture and then did we turn nurture into theology....  A good question certainly, but I don't know that we have the facts to back this thought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, end3 said:

You are captives of science.....

I don't even know what that means. Captive?

 

I can't add much that isn't already stated or obvious. Let me sum up my position at least.

 

People seem to have a need to know all the answers. In not knowing everything we often tend to make up an explanation and that explanation becomes a permanent truth for some and a place marker for others when new facts are discovered. Some people just can't admit, "I don't know." A problem arises, though, when people try to equate the apples of science to the oranges of metaphysics or mysticism.

 

The apples: Science doesn't claim to have all the answers not does it claim it ever will. What science does is observe our reality, postulate, experiment and corrects or refines it's position when new information is found. This method has proven extremely useful in making it possible to better the human condition, even if that betterment isn't always fully realized. For example, we can produce enough food and medicine for everyone but the problem of distribution and political hurdles hasn't been solved. Everything we use on a daily basis is the result of science that has brought us advantages unknown to prior generations. Everything; your house, car, food, comfort, health, leisure are the result of scientific inquiry applied.

 

The oranges: People have always had a sense of "something more." That we must somehow continue even after we die. That no matter what injustices we may suffer, all will balance out in the end. Evil will always be punished and good rewarded, if not in this life then in the next. Our human sense of justice demands it. Clearly we do on occasion experience mental aberration by way of disease, drugs, hypnosis or injury. Altered perceptions are often labeled as proof of another dimension rather than a brain anomaly. An invisible, undetectable world may of course exist as anything is technically possible, but such subjects are beyond the reach of the scientific method. The closest science can come to understanding the mystical experience is to create it in the lab with electrical stimulation or drugs. When the experience is spontaneous, who can say it's not from somewhere else other than our own brain? Certainly science has no way of knowing that. No one can know that.

 

The problem that arises is that sometimes an unfounded assumption of the reality beyond our senses becomes dogma that demands obedience and respect. Regarding souls, afterlife and all such topics, neither science nor religion actually knows any facts. The best anyone can do with a concept that can't be critically examined is to guess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, end3 said:

No, this is lacking.  You are now saying that more knowledge is irrelevant.  This is wrong.  Atheists are very quick to point out that more knowledge alleviates old beliefs, improves our lives, etc.  And you are saying less knowledge is the same as. 

 

Again, moral behavior above nature requires a goal/meaning.....i.e. life or happiness.

 

 

 

You are confused.

 

I do not say more knowledge is irrelevant.  I've not saying less knowledge is more knowledge or less knowledge improves our lives.  Moral behavior is natural.  Moral behavior evolved because it was good for humans and good for human cultures.

 

 

1 hour ago, end3 said:

 

To your last statement, we would have to ask if nature has evolved nurture and then did we turn nurture into theology....  A good question certainly, but I don't know that we have the facts to back this thought up.

 

That is a horrible question that indicates you don't know what those words mean. It doesn't make any sense to ask if nature evolved nurture.  Both nature and nurture come from evolution.  Nature refers to what is hard wired in such as instructions in DNA.  Nurture is efforts to pass information between generations and is secondary to DNA.  In other words a mouse mother won't be as sophisticated as a human mother because humans have bigger brains with more specialized development.  I'm not a neologist so I can't give you a more detailed answer but that is the bottom line.

 

Theology isn't nurture.  It's nonsense.  Theology is how a scam artist separates a fool from his money.  It has nothing to do with the nature vs. nurture question because theology doesn't raise young.

 

 

But I do want to thank you for illustrating the earler point made about how some Christians handle probing questions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 hours ago, end3 said:

Science will never, never, never have all the answers......never.  It's ok that they don't have all the answers.....and you are free to fill in the blanks as you wish.  But the first order is, they don't have all the answers and never will.

 

Ahh the favorite argument of every person who wants to peddle their pet belief.

 

Science doesn't have all the answers therefore [insert pet belief] is justified.

 

It's a non sequitur. 

 

And what, may I ask, do you propose that has all the answers, and more importantly can you demonstrate this? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, end3 said:

 Science will never, never, never have all the answers......never.  It's ok that they don't have all the answers.....and you are free to fill in the blanks as you wish.  But the first order is, they don't have all the answers and never will.

 

This is probably correct, in my opinion. But it doesn't follow that any particular religion is, therefore, reasonable. To argue such would basically be to say, "your facts are not sufficient, so my fairy tale will have to do". This is silly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 10:03 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 2:57 AM, end3 said:

Science will never, never, never have all the answers......never.  It's ok that they don't have all the answers.....and you are free to fill in the blanks as you wish.  But the first order is, they don't have all the answers and never will.

 

Ahh the favorite argument of every person who wants to peddle their pet belief.

 

Science doesn't have all the answers therefore [insert pet belief] is justified.

 

It's a non sequitur. 

 

And what, may I ask, do you propose that has all the answers, and more importantly can you demonstrate this? 

 

Hi end3

 

Care to answer the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hi end3

 

Care to answer the question?

I don't propose anything has all the answers.  What I do propose is reading the story and looking at the anecdotal evidence, the comparisons, the illusions to what we know today, and then ask, how in the heck is that in there several thousand years ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, end3 said:

I don't propose anything has all the answers.  What I do propose is reading the story and looking at the anecdotal evidence, the comparisons, the illusions to what we know today, and then ask, how in the heck is that in there several thousand years ago...

Are we to do that with all ancient texts?

 

Are you aware Muslims say exactly the same with the Koran and apparently the Hindu say that they have amazing stuff in their texts from 5,000 years ago.

 

The issue is that people are taking modern knowledge and reading it back into the text.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Are we to do that with all ancient texts?

 

Are you aware Muslims say exactly the same with the Koran and apparently the Hindu say that they have amazing stuff in their texts from 5,000 years ago.

 

The issue is that people are taking modern knowledge and reading it back into the text.

What's the matter with reading modern knowledge and reading it back into the text? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, end3 said:

What's the matter with reading modern knowledge and reading it back into the text? 

 

 

It's make believe.  It's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

 

It's make believe.  It's not true.

Don't be stupid....just because we don't understand the exact mechanisms in previous generations, doesn't mean the "truth" is not the same. 

For example, this native bean has this effect from some past pioneer generation.....later to find the chemical properties produce that effect.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, end3 said:

Don't be stupid....

 

Never.  That's my policy.

 

 

54 minutes ago, end3 said:

just because we don't understand the exact mechanisms in previous generations, doesn't mean the "truth" is not the same. 

 

We were talking about pretending advanced understanding is in old literature when it is not.  Also known as "reading into it something that isn't there".

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, end3 said:

For example, this native bean has this effect from some past pioneer generation.....later to find the chemical properties produce that effect.

 

 

 

That is different.  DNA comes from reality rather than the imagination of a human author.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mymistake said:

That is different.  DNA comes from reality rather than the imagination of a human author.

Right, but there was a time when they didn't know about DNA....and evidence pointing towards.... 

 

Think about some coffee this morning...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/7/2018 at 12:57 AM, end3 said:

This is really short-sighted MM.  Science will never, never, never have all the answers......never.  It's ok that they don't have all the answers.....and you are free to fill in the blanks as you wish.  But the first order is, they don't have all the answers and never will.

Never say never, it lead's to the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2018 at 6:16 AM, end3 said:

What's the matter with reading modern knowledge and reading it back into the text? 

     It's an anachronism.  There are a lot of variations (ie. Presentism, Historian's Fallacy, etc.).

 

           mwc

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     It's an anachronism.  There are a lot of variations (ie. Presentism, Historian's Fallacy, etc.).

 

           mwc

 

You can have evidence of a truth yet not understand the mechanism of a truth....i.e., the sky is blue but we didn't understand they physics and chemistry of why the sky was blue until some time later.  "This plant/bean makes me feel better this way"....same thing....caffeine.  There are several, several such things in the Bible pointing to a truth that we may not yet understand and dismissing these things under "anachronism" is as I said, short-sighted....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, end3 said:

You can have evidence of a truth yet not understand the mechanism of a truth....i.e., the sky is blue but we didn't understand they physics and chemistry of why the sky was blue until some time later.  "This plant/bean makes me feel better this way"....same thing....caffeine.  There are several, several such things in the Bible pointing to a truth that we may not yet understand and dismissing these things under "anachronism" is as I said, short-sighted....

     An anachronism is something that is placed into the wrong time period.  So projecting our knowledge, or understanding, of how the universe operates into the minds of those who lived in the past, would be an anachronism.

 

     If all you're saying is that people of the past observed the sky was blue but had no clue why it was blue (if we ignore the fact it was a common, untested, belief that it was because it was part of a crystal dome) and now we know (and have tested) it's because of the light being scattered then this is not anachronistic.  The same might be said of the caffeine example.

 

     The bible is a slightly different beast however.  People tend to read it with a modern understanding.  It's hard to avoid.  Even when those beliefs are only traceable back to the 19th century.  Many don't even make it as far back as Luther.  So anachronistic thinking is pretty common if not almost entirely the norm.  But I'll leave it to you to provide examples.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mwc said:

 

 

     The bible is a slightly different beast however.  People tend to read it with a modern understanding.  It's hard to avoid.  Even when those beliefs are only traceable back to the 19th century.  Many don't even make it as far back as Luther.  So anachronistic thinking is pretty common if not almost entirely the norm.  But I'll leave it to you to provide examples.

 

          mwc

 

Ah, Luther, I wish I had read up on him, and his writings, and what he was like, long ago. Would have probably rejected the church at least a decade earlier. One of the things that continues to bother me is that I couldn't apply my critical thinking skills to religion, even though I had them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that about 10 years ago, God went back to the Old Covenant and crashed the economy for some bizarre reason, and He's left us to answer all the questions before Jesus opens Heaven maybe? If that really happens... Seems a little far fetched lol.

 

I do believe that Jesus had to be real because of society's advancements over 2,000 years. It had to have worked, like how do you convert the whole world to an idea of nonsense and have it go for 2,000 years? The Book of Proverbs changed my life, and growing up, I knew there was a guide to life somewhere. I don't know how I knew, but I just knew there was, and it's the Book of Proverbs. It has every trap God has ever thrown at me and every life lesson someone could learn in my opinion.

 

In essence, I believe we're all supposed to live like Jews, and Jesus just died on the cross for sinners to find spiritual awakenings in place of a prophet leading the church. I don't believe Jesus was God, and I believe only the disciples said this, and that Jesus never said it. I also believe weed is the tree of life, and the King of Kings Bible must be a real thing, since God said He would take from them their right to the tree of life if they take from the book of prophecies. 

 

Know someone with PTSD? They probably have a spiritual awakening, and they can't make sense of what's going onto them, because modern science can't help them, and they view their gift from God as a curse rather than a blessing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this guy for real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

Is this guy for real?

No this is all just a joke lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.