Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

There are sane, mathematical models that predict that alien life almost assuredly exists in the cosmos. No such models exist for god. So it really isn't comparable. Alien life is just making an assumption that the rules on earth for life to arrive probably apply elsewhere (or may even be looser) then using statistical analysis to make a very good educated guess.

That being said, you are also correct in the lacking evidence part for alien existence. So that must always be taken into consideration as well. So we cannot say definitively that they exist, but we can have a pretty good idea that they do through deductive logic. In fact, using further deductive logic, we can say that it is MORE illogical that life DOESN'T exist in the cosmos given what we know about statistics.

Frank Tippler in his book "The Physics of Immortality" produces sane mathematical models that prove the existence of a God that is notably like the Christian definition.

I just now had to read up on Tippler. Keep in mind that his whole argument hinges on the "Big Crunch" being true. Most cosmologists argue that the universe is open and will expand forever. Now we know neither of these things for sure, so Tippler could be right. But if at any point the Big Crunch can be disproved then so can Tippler's entire argument.

One more thing about Tippler's argument, it claims to prove the Christian god, but that isn't entirely true. Part of Christianity is that you have to be a believer to reach heaven, but with Tippler's argument anyone can reach heaven. Some may have to spend some time in "purgatories" making themselves better, but everyone is able to eventually reach heaven. In effect, this god is similar at times to the Christian god but WORLDS different elsewhere.

Also, this god is CREATED by the universe, as opposed to god creating the universe. So even Tippler's argument doesn't prove a creator exists. Though one could argue that eventually this Omega Point will create a new universe that follows the same course as our universe resulting in a new god, which means our universe is the result of the same thing. This is an interesting take in that the creator god and the god of heaven aren't the same god, but it also raises more questions. Where did the first god that made the first universe come from? Is it an infinite loop that repeats on itself all the time?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

i always approach ancient history, regardless of where it derives from, as potentially true in every way, both a mix of metaphor and literal translation, and likely historical. if you don't like it, that's your problem.

Everyone views ancient texts as a mix of metaphors, myths, translations and historical facts. There is nothing special about your approach. That's not fundamentalism though


The problem is when people consider biblical literalism as an absolute dogma and start teaching it in schools or asking that biblical laws should apply to everyone. That is a problem.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

i always approach ancient history, regardless of where it derives from, as potentially true in every way, both a mix of metaphor and literal translation, and likely historical. if you don't like it, that's your problem.

Everyone views ancient texts as a mix of metaphors, myths, translations and historical facts. There is nothing special about your approach. That's not fundamentalism though

The problem is when people consider biblical literalism as an absolute dogma and start teaching it in schools or asking that biblical laws should apply to everyone. That is a problem.

well i do believe you were laying down ground rules for what i'm allowed to think about ancient texts, and i'm here to inform you that's not your place. my brain is in my own head and yours is in yours, for a reason. we are 2 different people. we are not clones of each other, for a reason. this is not the collective, and i believe resistance is not futile. in short, i'm gonna believe whatever i want. about anything i want. and so will you. not rocket science.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stutteringp0et

Half the Ten Commandments are about obeying and worshiping god unquestioningly. Sure the ones about adultery, murder and stealing are great, but do you think the first commandment is necessary (worship only the one god)?

Ten Commandments
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10. Thou shalt not covet

We can pretty much strike commandments 1-4 off the list since they are unimportant, and then it would a much better list.

In your opinion.

If there is no God, then there are no absolutes and the human character, being what it is, will redefine terms until the codified laws are meaningless. We can see this process in all human societies.

Of course absolutes don't exist. Absolutes create the duality paradigm that plagues Christianity and holds it back from updating its dogma. Even if god DOES exist, absolutes still don't exist. There is no such thing as true evil or true good.

By having an absolute standard (such as God), the Law does not 'water down' so easily.

So invent something that doesn't exist to cement useless laws into being? Sounds unnecessary and controlling.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no such thing as true evil

oh i think that's arguable. the idea of nerfing our dna so we age and die (the fall narrative) seems like a particularly evil thing to do to your creation, who you (supposedly) left alone with the (supposedly) trickiest and most brilliant angel ever to be created, while they were still dumb as a box of rocks. oh evil is there alright. tease it apart and the story starts revealing its mysteries, i think. and to me, that's a necessary revelation; it may explain a heckuvalot about our current situation on this planet.

calling it irrelevant or unnecessary, seems premature, particularly since we've only had the translated sumerian texts available for comparative research for less than 100 years.

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Develo

If you want these BS out of American textbooks, then it's a political fight, not something done on a place like here.

They can't. Cultural Marxism is about fighting against the narrative to bring the civilization down. They can't do what you are saying for them to do because then they would become the narrative.

Something tells me you don't know what Marxism actually is. Hint, it's not about bringing civilization down. In fact, it's an economic model used to change civilization. I'm not a Marxist, but I won't let you disparage such economic philosophies with your conspiratorial disinformation and fearmongering.

What you just did is the equivalent of saying that Libertarians want to bring about anarchy and chaos by getting rid of government. It's a dumb slippery slope and relies on incorrect knowledge of how these concepts work. Kind of like calling fundamentalist Christianity "science".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's a thing to be feared as it is singlehandedly responsible for some of the worst genocides in the history of mankind, making anything that came before it, pale by comparison.

originally posted by: undo
oh i think that's arguable. the idea of nerfing our dna so we age and die (the fall narrative) seems like a particularly evil thing to do to your creation, who you (supposedly) left alone with the (supposedly) trickiest and most brilliant angel ever to be created, while they were still dumb as a box of rocks. oh evil is there alright. tease it apart and the story starts revealing its mysteries, i think. and to me, that's a necessary revelation; it may explain a heckuvalot about our current situation on this planet.

All of that hinges on the fact that the bible is true. But it's not. We can prove that the bible's claims aren't true. Therefore I see no reason to believe in the Christian account of creation.

calling it irrelevant or unnecessary, seems premature, particularly since we've only had the translated sumerian texts available for comparative research for less than 100 years.

How does better understanding older mythology than Christianity enlighten people on reality? Mythology is mythology. It is all untrue. Sure there may be some wisdom in there, but you should just throw anything supernatural out the window until it can be definitively proven by science.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's a thing to be feared as it is singlehandedly responsible for some of the worst genocides in the history of mankind, making anything that came before it, pale by comparison.

No, what you are referring to is a perverted form of Communism. But AGAIN, Marxism (and as an extension Communism and Socialism) is an economic model. It ISN'T a political model.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you should just throw anything supernatural out the window

i view the word "Supernatural" as being just that: super - nature. nature that's been elevated in some fashion. i don't think throwing away thousands of years of ancient history, is wise. i'm also not of the opinion that it's been proven false, rather interpretations of selected passages, by mainstream religions, hundreds or even thousands of years ago, have been used as strawmen to roast. i can see right thru that method, as it doesn't address the actual text, but rather someone else's teachings on it. not.the.same.thing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's a thing to be feared as it is singlehandedly responsible for some of the worst genocides in the history of mankind, making anything that came before it, pale by comparison.

No, what you are referring to is a perverted form of Communism. But AGAIN, Marxism (and as an extension Communism and Socialism) is an economic model. It ISN'T a political model.

unfortunately, that's the only form (the perverted form) we have been allowed to have.

a reply to: undo

It's not throwing away ancient history. It is throwing away the things that defy physics and keeping the rest. Mythology ISN'T history. It is made up stories used to explain things that the people of the time didn't have the tools to do so with. Well we DO have the tools to explain much of what ancient mythologies try to explain and we have shown that those religions were and are impossible.

There is nothing wrong with studying it to see what these people believed and how they lived and worshiped, but at no point should you be entertaining the idea that they are anything more than stories like Lord of the Rings.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

but at no point should you be entertaining the idea that they are anything more than stories like Lord of the Rings.

at no point ? i will entertain what i want, when i want. comprende? holey rusted metal batman. who the flip do you think you are?

a reply to: undo

No it isn't. Most of Europe has become pseudo-Socialist and they aren't causing large scale genocides. This form of Socialism is still missing the point of Marxism, but it certainly isn't as destructive as the "Communism" ideal.

ETA: Heck even the Communist countries that exist today are WAY different than when they first started. China isn't genociding its people anymore. Cuba is doing ok for itself. Vietnam is just fine. So that is two points that you are wrong on.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

but at no point should you be entertaining the idea that they are anything more than stories like Lord of the Rings.

at no point ? i will entertain what i want, when i want. comprende? holey rusted metal batman. who the flip do you think you are?

Fine, be intellectually dishonest, but in order to entertain such silly notions you have to suspend belief in the sciences. The scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the universe and it takes us in directions and reveals things to us that is NOTHING like any of the religions on the planet, because again religion is all a guess.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

but at no point should you be entertaining the idea that they are anything more than stories like Lord of the Rings.

at no point ? i will entertain what i want, when i want. comprende? holey rusted metal batman. who the flip do you think you are?

Fine, be intellectually dishonest, but in order to entertain such silly notions you have to suspend belief in the sciences. The scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the universe and it takes us in directions and reveals things to us that is NOTHING like any of the religions on the planet, because again religion is all a guess.

i'm glad you mentioned that. which part of the text is defying physics? i'm all ears.

a reply to: undo

Which text are you referring to, Sumerian texts or the Bible?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

Which text are you referring to, Sumerian texts or the Bible?

pick whichever one you want.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

Which text are you referring to, Sumerian texts or the Bible?

pick whichever one you want.

Well the bible is just too easy. Man can't walk on water, nor heal the sick by just touching them. God doesn't destroy cities and a global flood is downright impossible with the amount of water on the planet (plus the diversity of life on the planet disproves it as well).

Sumerian texts fall apart when you consider that these texts are about gods interacting with humans. Well where are these gods now? Why aren't they still interacting with us. Physical gods being able to control the nuances of the planet certainly defy physics though (especially since we know why the sun rises and don't know we don't need to sacrifice something to make it happen and other things like that). Though you could argue that these ancient "gods" were really aliens, but that seems equally unlikely since they didn't leave any other waste to prove their presence. Look at all the waste our modern technology produces, do you think it logical that as technology improves, that somehow waste production disappears?

Another problem with Sumerian texts is that most of their dogma applies to the immediate area that Sumer existed in (Mesopotamia). These gods had little to no influence in say China or the Americas.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

i always approach ancient history, regardless of where it derives from, as potentially true in every way, both a mix of metaphor and literal translation, and likely historical. if you don't like it, that's your problem.

Everyone views ancient texts as a mix of metaphors, myths, translations and historical facts. There is nothing special about your approach. That's not fundamentalism though

The problem is when people consider biblical literalism as an absolute dogma and start teaching it in schools or asking that biblical laws should apply to everyone. That is a problem.

well i do believe you were laying down ground rules for what i'm allowed to think about ancient texts, and i'm here to inform you that's not your place. my brain is in my own head and yours is in yours, for a reason. we are 2 different people. we are not clones of each other, for a reason. this is not the collective, and i believe resistance is not futile. in short, i'm gonna believe whatever i want. about anything i want. and so will you. not rocket science.

Well then you haven't read my posts correctly.

I was actually the one saying it is useless and sterile to debate a fundie about his beliefs. If he wants to believe the world is 6000 years old to the point of delusion, that is indeed his problem.


What was raised as problematic though is the political side of Christian fundamentalism, when it tries to force a delusion into the education system, or when it denies people their personal freedom based on a law from the Bible (on what ground can Christian fundies decide for others how they should live their sexuality?).


If you felt targeted by these remarks while they don't apply to your beliefs, it's not my fault