What Are You Going to Do

[Hierophant]

3 minutes ago, florduh said:

"Sin" isn't a secular concept. Sometimes we use the word incorrectly due to the influence of the religion on society. We also say "hell" and "damn."

 

I was just saying it could have a different meaning in a secular society, in the context of Edgarcito's question. I don't really use the word sin, but I think evil works great in certain contexts. I simply like using the word evil when I think about people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or their ilk.

[Edgarcito]

Thanks for the responses.  So we don't have to differentiate, let's not use the word sin.....so we won't get distracted with that definition.  What I am trying to describe is more like acceptance.  I.e., I wasn't "accepted" in the church, I wasn't "accepted" in the my family, I wasn't "accepted" in that culture, I wasn't accepted for my lack of intellect, I wasn't accepted because I'm ugly, I wasn't accepted because I wasn't athletic.  So I joined the band.

 

What I see is people divided......so I became a member of this party, or that, or a religion, or an intellectual community.

 

It's pretty difficult to deny this happening.  The Bible says love and grace are the answers.  Seems rather straightforward. 

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Science gives us something to identify with, with regard to truth, where the pressure to be a certain way can be put on it.....kind of like the scapegoat aspect of Christ.  So if a person can't identify with religion, then the alleviation of guilt can come through science.  That you bring it up, not sure I have met many that were non-science, non-religious.

 

Edgarcito,

 

Your argument in this post seems to be that those people who can't identify with religion to alleviate their guilt use science to alleviate their guilt.

 

I can understand how religion is used to alleviate a person's guilt.

 

But I can't see how science can do that.

 

Could you please explain how science alleviates guilt?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Hierophant]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's pretty difficult to deny this happening.  The Bible says love and grace are the answers.  Seems rather straightforward. 

 

No, I reject the idea that this is what the Bible teaches overall. I especially reject the idea that the Christian God is love and grace. I really thought about those ideas before I deconverted and I came to the conclusion that if the Christian God was real, he surely is not the zenith of love. How do you watch the insane amount of suffering each and ever day and simply shrug your shoulders in indifference, especially if you supposedly have the power to put an end to it. This even makes less sense if you prescribe to the idea that the Christian God made us, and everything about us, emotions, fears, etc. Which means that he should know exactly how it feels to be afraid, to be misused, to be tortured, to be abused, and then sits back and watches us get exploited, either by his implicit or explicit will. That is messed up. No parent with any sense of decency would ever do such a thing.

 

As far as grace goes, there is nothing magnanimous about the gospel. It was a rigged game from the beginning. It is analogous to someone putting a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city set to go off in a few hours and then coming back in and stopping it, then expecting everyone to thank you for it. Nobody would have needed you to diffuse the bomb if you did not put it there in the first place. Everything about the Christian God is conditional, "I will only love you if you follow my explicit will (which I will never tell you what that is); I will only forgive you if you do a certain ritual or accept a blood sacrifice as payment for your sins." I get super annoyed when I hear these self-loathing Christians claim that they deserve hell, but God saved them. Why do you deserve Hell? Nobody asked to be here, nobody asked to be part of this. It's God's show. He is supposed to be all-powerful and mighty, if anything has gone off tracks, how is it the responsibility of humans?

 

On a side note, if you are saying humans should use love and grace as the answer, then I would put parameters on it. Sure, it is a good idea in principle, but it would never be practical in totality. I am not going to extend love and grace to someone who kidnapped my child and tortured them to death. Why would I?

 

To a broader philosophical point, life is inherently a competition. Love and grace are useful in certain social constraints but not universal principles to be adhered to at all times. Let's be honest, some people are utter scum and will continue to be scum. No amount of love is going to change that and there becomes a point where you just write them off because they are useless to society. Some people are opposed to the death penalty because they think "all life is precious." No, it's not. I have no issue with ridding the world of someone like the BTK killer.

[WalterP]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks for the responses.  So we don't have to differentiate, let's not use the word sin.....so we won't get distracted with that definition.  What I am trying to describe is more like acceptance.  I.e., I wasn't "accepted" in the church, I wasn't "accepted" in the my family, I wasn't "accepted" in that culture, I wasn't accepted for my lack of intellect, I wasn't accepted because I'm ugly, I wasn't accepted because I wasn't athletic.  So I joined the band.

 

What I see is people divided......so I became a member of this party, or that, or a religion, or an intellectual community.

 

It's pretty difficult to deny this happening.  The Bible says love and grace are the answers.  Seems rather straightforward. 

 

Edgarcito,

 

The problem of non-acceptance you've described happens in social, familial and interpersonal contexts.

 

You say that the solution is Biblical love and grace.

 

So, why have you outsourced the solution to God?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

Your argument in this post seems to be that those people who can't identify with religion to alleviate their guilt use science to alleviate their guilt.

 

I can understand how religion is used to alleviate a person's guilt.

 

But I can't see how science can do that.

 

Could you please explain how science alleviates guilt?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Science is analogous to Christianity in many aspects.

1) A community.

2) An acceptance for not understanding.

3) An ongoing dispensation of "truth".

4) A scapegoat for lack of completeness.

 

A mixture where acceptance is attained, conviction admired, etc.

 

This is all that comes to mind at the moment.

 

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

The problem of non-acceptance you've described happens in social, familial and interpersonal contexts.

 

You say that the solution is Biblical love and grace.

 

So, why have you outsourced the solution to God?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like many others, the acceptance is no where else.  I think the same thing holds in the opposite direction.  "I haven't found acceptance in religion, but hey these non-religious science cats are pretty cool".

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

No, I reject the idea that this is what the Bible teaches overall. I especially reject the idea that the Christian God is love and grace. I really thought about those ideas before I deconverted and I came to the conclusion that if the Christian God was real, he surely is not the zenith of love. How do you watch the insane amount of suffering each and ever day and simply shrug your shoulders in indifference, especially if you supposedly have the power to put an end to it. This even makes less sense if you prescribe to the idea that the Christian God made us, and everything about us, emotions, fears, etc. Which means that he should know exactly how it feels to be afraid, to be misused, to be tortured, to be abused, and then sits back and watches us get exploited, either by his implicit or explicit will. That is messed up. No parent with any sense of decency would ever do such a thing.

 

As far as grace goes, there is nothing magnanimous about the gospel. It was a rigged game from the beginning. It is analogous to someone putting a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city set to go off in a few hours and then coming back in and stopping it, then expecting everyone to thank you for it. Nobody would have needed you to diffuse the bomb if you did not put it there in the first place. Everything about the Christian God is conditional, "I will only love you if you follow my explicit will (which I will never tell you what that is); I will only forgive you if you do a certain ritual or accept a blood sacrifice as payment for your sins." I get super annoyed when I hear these self-loathing Christians claim that they deserve hell, but God saved them. Why do you deserve Hell? Nobody asked to be here, nobody asked to be part of this. It's God's show. He is supposed to be all-powerful and mighty, if anything has gone off tracks, how is it the responsibility of humans?

 

On a side note, if you are saying humans should use love and grace as the answer, then I would put parameters on it. Sure, it is a good idea in principle, but it would never be practical in totality. I am not going to extend love and grace to someone who kidnapped my child and tortured them to death. Why would I?

 

To a broader philosophical point, life is inherently a competition. Love and grace are useful in certain social constraints but not universal principles to be adhered to at all times. Let's be honest, some people are utter scum and will continue to be scum. No amount of love is going to change that and there becomes a point where you just write them off because they are useless to society. Some people are opposed to the death penalty because they think "all life is precious." No, it's not. I have no issue with ridding the world of someone like the BTK killer.

All good thoughts sir....and about 14 different conversations in one post....thanks for the input/time.

 

[Hierophant]

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Like many others, the acceptance is no where else.  I think the same thing holds in the opposite direction.  "I haven't found acceptance in religion, but hey these non-religious science cats are pretty cool".

 

I see what you are getting at, and this may be true for some, but definitely not for all. I personally cannot think of a time where I felt as if I was a member of a card-carrying social club that revolved around the scientific community. For me, science is about having something to sink my teeth into, something with meat on the bone. When I was a believer, I frequently lost arguments with those who were science minded, especially those who were good science communicators. At the time, I was very much a fundamentalist and I adhered to a young earth and all that. It was through hundreds of conversations where I always found my answers wanting and realized I had nothing to bring to the table other than a literal reading of Genesis. I always felt on shaky ground trying to defend the Bible, or rather mainstream Evangelical worldviews. In my head I felt convinced, but I could never convince anyone else based on the evidence. The same held true even within the Christian community. Church X says they have the real truth and Churches A, B, and C are all going to hell. Nobody could actually demonstrate their position was correct, just quote mine the Bible or try to build a logical syllogism based off of unfounded assumptions.

 

Great example, I ran across some Jesus Only ministries in my time as a Christian. They would argue that Paul was a false prophet and you should only read the gospels. They laid out their arguments, which were not always terrible, but you could never prove it one way or the other. Simply another working hypothesis that could never be validated. Eventually the whole concept and differing views/interpretations just drove me mad.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 No amount of love is going to change that and there becomes a point where you just write them off because they are useless to society.

 

This is somewhat an aside to the religious conversation,  but I argue that that viewpoint, that nothing can be done, is a self fulfilling prophecy.   Perhaps nothing can be done to change that individual, but things can be done to change the dynamics that produced that individual.  An ego centered "me" society as we have today promotes agression and violence.  A respectful (love) centered society promotes more respect for all human beings.  It is the "mind set" that makes the difference.

 

That is not just religious thinking, it is based on social science.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Science is analogous to Christianity in many aspects.

1) A community.

2) An acceptance for not understanding.

3) An ongoing dispensation of "truth".

4) A scapegoat for lack of completeness.

 

A mixture where acceptance is attained, conviction admired, etc.

 

This is all that comes to mind at the moment.

 

 

1. 

The community of Christian believers is categorically different from the scientific community.  The former is bound together by an emotion-based belief in things that cannot be tested, checked or examined.  The latter is bound together by an unemotional recognition of only the material universe and those things within it that can be tested, checked and examined.  They are alike only in the vaguest and most general way.

 

2.

No.  Totally wrong.  Christians submit to God's will and shy away from trying to understand it.  They accept that they will not understand these things and never try to.  Scientists accept that they will never fully understand the universe, but they do not accept that they should stop trying to do so.

 

3.

Wrong again.  Science does not deal in in 'truth'.  It deals with evidence, fully accepting that the evidence to hand will always be incomplete.

 

4.

See above.  Scientists accept that they will never completely understand everything, bu nobody in the scientific community blames them for this.  

 

Your understanding of science and how it works is woefully inadequate, Edgarcito.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Like many others, the acceptance is no where else.  I think the same thing holds in the opposite direction.  "I haven't found acceptance in religion, but hey these non-religious science cats are pretty cool".

 

 I don't understand your first sentence, Edgarcito.

 

Could you try again please?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

23 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

1. 

The community of Christian believers is categorically different from the scientific community.  The former is bound together by an emotion-based belief in things that cannot be tested, checked or examined.  The latter is bound together by an unemotional recognition of only the material universe and those things within it that can be tested, checked and examined.  They are alike only in the vaguest and most general way.

 

2.

No.  Totally wrong.  Christians submit to God's will and shy away from trying to understand it.  They accept that they will not understand these things and never try to.  Scientists accept that they will never fully understand the universe, but they do not accept that they should stop trying to do so.

 

3.

Wrong again.  Science does not deal in in 'truth'.  It deals with evidence, fully accepting that the evidence to hand will always be incomplete.

 

4.

See above.  Scientists accept that they will never completely understand everything, bu nobody in the scientific community blames them for this.  

 

Your understanding of science and how it works is woefully inadequate, Edgarcito.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Let me add to your ideas please..

1) The idea is that they are bound together....it doesn't matter the semantics of the method.   As I said before, science, religion, political parties, band members.

2) You missed this one in your attempt to argue.  Christians readily seek understanding....church on Sunday, Wednesday...reading the Bible, praying??  Accepting God's will is very different in my opinion than seeking understanding.

3) Spiritual evidence, objective evidence...tomato, tomato.  Evidence, faith....not going to argue this one with you. 

4) The Scientific Method IS the scapegoat.....Christ of Christianity IS the scapegoat.  "We never will completely understand"...."we will never know God until someday....we have faith"

 

I'm not comparing apples to oranges....I'm discussing fruit.

[Edgarcito]

35 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

 I don't understand your first sentence, Edgarcito.

 

Could you try again please?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

People turn to religion because they are not accepted elsewhere....they are lost.  It's my contention that people turn to science because they are not accepted elsewhere (religion), they are lost.

 

Look at my good fried the Professor.....couldn't bear to be wrong....goes for BAA and a good many here that pride themselves on their knowledge base....I digress.

[florduh]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So I joined the band.

There were no good reasons to join the band. That was like saying, "I couldn't be in the choral group because I couldn't sing, so I started juggling muskrats."

[florduh]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

People turn to religion because they are not accepted elsewhere....they are lost.  It's my contention that people turn to science because they are not accepted elsewhere (religion), they are lost.

Religion is more than eager to snap up the vulnerable. Science doesn't recruit misfits just to increase their numbers and bank account. Science is not a religion or a club with membership dues.

[disillusioned]

On 7/28/2020 at 2:29 PM, Edgarcito said:

The inquiry today is, what happens when you adopt the science, no-religion life, but you're still not perfect......a bad person, a "SINNNNNERRRR".

 

Thanks.

 

I'm going to set my issues with the use of the word "sinner" aside, and try to treat the essence of the question. What do you do when you've moved on from religion, and then you realize that you don't have all the answers, and you're still not a great person?

 

You carry on, and recognize that no one else is that good either, and it doesn't matter. We just try to do the best we can with what we have. C'est la vie.

[WalterP]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me add to your ideas please..

1) The idea is that they are bound together....it doesn't matter the semantics of the method.   As I said before, science, religion, political parties, band members.

 

So, because different people join together for different reasons, to do different things in different ways... then they're all the same?  Is that your point?

 

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

2) You missed this one in your attempt to argue.  Christians readily seek understanding....church on Sunday, Wednesday...reading the Bible, praying??  Accepting God's will is very different in my opinion than seeking understanding.

 

Please give an example of Christians receiving understanding.  An example that we can test, check and examine.  

 

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

3) Spiritual evidence, objective evidence...tomato, tomato.  Evidence, faith....not going to argue this one with you. 

 

Please give an example of spiritual evidence, so that we may apply the scientific method to it and test, check and examine it.

 

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

4) The Scientific Method IS the scapegoat.....Christ of Christianity IS the scapegoat.  "We never will completely understand"...."we will never know God until someday....we have faith"

 

There is no scapegoating in science.  This is totally false.  

 

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I'm not comparing apples to oranges....I'm discussing fruit.

 

Non sequitur.

[WalterP]

58 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

People turn to religion because they are not accepted elsewhere....they are lost.  It's my contention that people turn to science because they are not accepted elsewhere (religion), they are lost.

 

Look at my good fried the Professor.....couldn't bear to be wrong....goes for BAA and a good many here that pride themselves on their knowledge base....I digress.

 

Your contention is false.

 

People become scientists because they want to understand the natural universe.  Not because they can't find acceptance in a peer group.

 

You are projecting your issues onto others Edgarcito.

 

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

There were no good reasons to join the band. That was like saying, "I couldn't be in the choral group because I couldn't sing, so I started juggling muskrats."

There were a lot of band nerds out the sir that found acceptance.  Is what it is.

[florduh]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

There were a lot of band nerds out the sir that found acceptance.  Is what it is.

That may satisfy the teenage angst, but adults shouldn't still live their life just for the acceptance of others or literally any group that will take them. The most damaged misfits are always drawn to and welcomed by religions, skinheads, proud boys, street gangs and other cults because they crave validation above all else.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, florduh said:

That may satisfy the teenage angst, but adults shouldn't still live their life just for the acceptance of others or literally any group that will take them. The most damaged misfits are always drawn to and welcomed by religions, skinheads, proud boys, street gangs and other cults because they crave validation above all else.

Which is my point....there are many many adults that never reach emotional maturity....I just think acceptance comes in all shapes and sizes...  I agree, but a lot of people never get there.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Your contention is false.

 

People become scientists because they want to understand the natural universe.  Not because they can't find acceptance in a peer group.

 

You are projecting your issues onto others Edgarcito.

 

 

Walter.

Don't be slow Walter....acceptance is as easy as affirmation, a "like" through Facebook.  No person is as motivationally pure as you describe.  But thanks for playing.

[WalterP]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Don't be slow Walter....acceptance is as easy as affirmation, a "like" through Facebook.  No person is as motivationally pure as you describe.  But thanks for playing.

 

Edgarcito,

 

Please justify your claim that no person is as motivationally pure as I have described... with evidence that we can check, test and examine.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[florduh]

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Which is my point....there are many many adults that never reach emotional maturity....I just think acceptance comes in all shapes and sizes...  I agree, but a lot of people never get there.

So what's the answer for them? Join a cult?