Then he wouldn't have done a good job, because people who understand the universe that way don't understand that he made the universe.
Just Catch-22 moments
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
What religion or belief system are you?
- Thread starter Tory
- Start date
Just Catch-22 moments
Idk I personally believe agnostics go to heaven to
Who are you to say whether or not God has done a good job or not?
pascal's wager, take it back to week three philo 101 cuh
You posited that God may have made the universe in a way that is understandable.
You also believe that God wants to be known and worshiped ('m putting words in your mouth, but I've read the Bible).
So therefore, if You believe that God made an understandable world, scientists should understand he exists and worship him for it. If that is not the case, either he did a poor job, or the rationalization you spent a good five minutes coming up with makes no sense.
You're basically saying that God put a bunch of red herrings on Earth like he was writing a Hardy Boys book and not making creation.
Might as well post here myself.
I consider myself an agnostic lean atheist, although I am more likely than not an atheist. I was never in a really religious family (my father hated religion after his parents forced it upon him, and my mother never grew up super religious and has been trying to get into SGI Buddhism since me and my brother we little), so I think that most certainly had an influence. Parents, in which I mean mother, tried to get us into Buddhism, but didn't work. Generally the reasoning for my non-religious feelings generally stems from a lack of spiritual belief in anything, while the scientific evidence of it not coming to light. Particularly, I have no real care for most classical depictions of a "God" (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) because the classical depictions of a God that can do absolutely anything and everything imaginable is a massive cop out for bringing up actual evidence. Although I must admit the "can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it" paradox is amusing.
I am generally a pretty understanding guy though when it comes to religion. I had a few friends in high school who were complete religion nuts, and even started a Bible study during my time. I find exploring different religions through discussion a very interesting thing, and I think it lets me better relate to those around me. I am becoming more and more interested in religion as time passes, and I can feel my spiritual side yearn for something. I might end up exploring religion more in-depth and I might convert, but I can tell it wouldn't be because I believe in an all-powerful deity, but would likely see "God" as more of a spiritual guide.
With that said though, I dislike stupid arguments for it. Please don't make any stupid ones or I will fight them with consistent, repeatable evidence in consistent, repeatable scenarios.
Also wanna reply to this
I agree with Broken Phobias that agnostics go to heaven as well, as they fulfill their life's purpose and find happiness for themselves. I imagine that only those who have sinned against others (IE Stealing with greed in mind, Murdering, Raping, Abusing etc.) would be sentenced to hell I would find it stupid as well that God would desire man to pray to him to enter heaven, as that would say that God is greedy in a way and has an ego (at least in my interpretation of it) which makes god a hypocrite thereby imperfect and impossible considering all the stuff in the Bible that goes against greed. Just a thought though.
I consider myself an agnostic lean atheist, although I am more likely than not an atheist. I was never in a really religious family (my father hated religion after his parents forced it upon him, and my mother never grew up super religious and has been trying to get into SGI Buddhism since me and my brother we little), so I think that most certainly had an influence. Parents, in which I mean mother, tried to get us into Buddhism, but didn't work. Generally the reasoning for my non-religious feelings generally stems from a lack of spiritual belief in anything, while the scientific evidence of it not coming to light. Particularly, I have no real care for most classical depictions of a "God" (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) because the classical depictions of a God that can do absolutely anything and everything imaginable is a massive cop out for bringing up actual evidence. Although I must admit the "can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it" paradox is amusing.
I am generally a pretty understanding guy though when it comes to religion. I had a few friends in high school who were complete religion nuts, and even started a Bible study during my time. I find exploring different religions through discussion a very interesting thing, and I think it lets me better relate to those around me. I am becoming more and more interested in religion as time passes, and I can feel my spiritual side yearn for something. I might end up exploring religion more in-depth and I might convert, but I can tell it wouldn't be because I believe in an all-powerful deity, but would likely see "God" as more of a spiritual guide.
With that said though, I dislike stupid arguments for it. Please don't make any stupid ones or I will fight them with consistent, repeatable evidence in consistent, repeatable scenarios.
Also wanna reply to this
v ninja'd me to pascal's wager (woo philosophy class in high school), but I also want to bring up my own thoughts on it.
I agree with Broken Phobias that agnostics go to heaven as well, as they fulfill their life's purpose and find happiness for themselves. I imagine that only those who have sinned against others (IE Stealing with greed in mind, Murdering, Raping, Abusing etc.) would be sentenced to hell I would find it stupid as well that God would desire man to pray to him to enter heaven, as that would say that God is greedy in a way and has an ego (at least in my interpretation of it) which makes god a hypocrite thereby imperfect and impossible considering all the stuff in the Bible that goes against greed. Just a thought though.
EV
Banned deucer.
I am guaranteed this life here on Earth. I'm going to make the most of it without paying service to a sliver of a hope that I'll make it to Level 2 when I die. Rather, I'll do Good Things and make a conscious effort to be a genuine person without a carrot dangling in front of me.
I joined Smogon to post on the circumcision topic, but now that's closed, so I might as well post here (Jk, I'm not that interested in genitalia).
Anyway, I consider myself a flaming moderate Episcopal/Methodist and I consider myself a modernist (although, I do understand and appreciate the post-modern critiques). I think most fundamentalist Christians incorrectly shrug off the advances of science and textual studies and create a lot of problems with science and faith that don't need to exist. For instance, they will take Genesis literally instead of as a secular collection of early Jewish stories and folklore. This of course creates problems when you then try to force Genesis 1-3 to explain the origins of the universe, because the text wasn't meant to give an actual account of creation but rather was a theological story written much later. It was an etiology, so to speak.
There are also tons of other problems if you try to take certain sections of the Bible as an historical account meant to tell us how things actually happened in the past. Let's take for instance just Genesis 4. In verse 2, in the second generation of humanity, you have Cain as a farmer and Abel as a herdsmen. The problem with that is that animal and plant domestication was a relatively late invention in human history- we have at least 180,000 years of human remains preceding herding and farming. We don't even know how animal or plant domestication happened- all we know is that there is evidence of them in the archaeological record at a much later time than the Genesis story would portray them. Follow that up to Genesis 4:17, where Cain leaves God's presence and founds a city. Once again, this assumes that humankind always has lived in settlements- but this has not been the case. The earliest semi-permanent settlement that we even know about is a place called Gobekli Tepe, which is only a little over 10,000 years old. Once again, we have remains of humans not settling, but instead running around, hunting and gathering, for about 190,000 years before this. Now let's move on to Genesis 4:22- where one of Cain's descendants make bronze and iron tools. The problem with this is that bronze and iron tools don't appear until around 5,000 BCE. Now, if you are a young earth creationist you may say "well that works well with my dating!" But the problem with that is that all these dates I'm providing are based on radiocarbon dating schema. Meaning, if you do actually take a young earth creationist view, you'd have to push up that 5,000 BCE a couple of thousand years. Furthermore, the 5,000 BCE dating is also problematic because even if you adjust the radiocarbon date to fit a Young Earth Creationist formula, the adjusted date would still be after when the Young Earth Creationist would date the flood. Genesis 4:22 is pre-flood, and the advent of iron and bronze would be after the flood archaeologically. See the problem?
But let's not stop there. Do we even know how radiocarbon dating is calibrated? It is calibrated by something called dendrochronology. Dendrochonology is the study of tree rings. Essentially, every year a tree makes a new ring within its trunk. The size of this ring is determined by different weather conditions or tragic events that occur. Now, all the trees within a given area will have roughly the same pattern of rings. Hence, when you take core samples of many different trees, they will show very similar patterns for the same years. Since patterns are recorded within tree-rings, you can then use the ends of certain tree patterns to match them with the beginnings of other tree patterns. This allows the scholar to connect an older and younger tree together, and create a sort of continuous record of weather conditions. Now, this has been studied in depth. And do you know how far back tree ring patterns go? 40,000 years. Meaning, we have tree ring patterns for way before what a young earth creationist would account for.
So, that's my soapbox. Now to what other people have said in this topic... I would shy away from Rising Mighty Ace's logic not because I fundamentally disagree with it, but I think it sort of portrays God as a God of the Gaps. That is, evidence for God is seen as coming from the lack of scientific explanation for things. This assumes that because science has not explained a certain phenomenon, that such phenomenon shows science can't explain everything and that such must be the result of a divine creator. Now, the problem with this of course is that science is still progressing. Hence, instead of science being unable to explain actually such phenomenon, it may instead be that science simply hasn't had enough time or research to explain such, as such requires money, time, grad students, grant proposals, further sophistication of tools and methodology, etc.
But as I said, I don't think fundamentally his point is invalid about the cosmological argument- that is, God must exist because a universe exists and it must be created. The traditional critique of this argument is then- well, who created God, then? Aren't Christians just punting back the problem of creation to another being? However, this critique doesn't work as the cosmological argument instead revolves around two different types of existence. That is, there argument is not just that everything needed a creator, so God has to exist. But rather, that there has to a self-existent entity to create that which is not self-existent. And, everything else that exists was created by something and is hence not self-existent. So, the argument posits that God must exist because God fits the mold as a self-existent being who could create everything that exists.
However, I think more compelling than that argument, which can just favor general deism instead of Christianity, is to exam the historical evidence for Jesus Christ. Because really, that's what Christianity revolves around- not around evolution or proving there is a divine being. But, if the evidence is compelling that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, then everything falls in place. That being said, I find the gospel accounts themselves overall credible- mainly because they show evidence of being genuine eyewitness evidence. That doesn't mean that they are flawless- or even more appallingly, inerrant- but rather that they do hold up to being honest eyewitness testimony that followed good historical method for their time. For instance, why are so many different names of people recorded in the gospels? It's because those people were still around at the writing of the gospels, or were known to their original audience. In many instance, you could go talk to them and ask them if what happened actually happened.
That being said, if anyone is genuinely interested in following up on that, check out Richard Bauckham, who's a professor emeritus at St. Andrews. He's not one of these apologists who cling to a Bible, make up their own untested arguments, and have their cousin's unaccredited university give them a fake doctorate. Rather, the guy is legitimately recognized by the top New Testament professors around the world as a wonderful and well-thought out scholar, by conservatives and liberals, Christians, Jews, and Atheists alike. You can check out a shorter video of him here, or a longer here, or his book here.
Anyway, I consider myself a flaming moderate Episcopal/Methodist and I consider myself a modernist (although, I do understand and appreciate the post-modern critiques). I think most fundamentalist Christians incorrectly shrug off the advances of science and textual studies and create a lot of problems with science and faith that don't need to exist. For instance, they will take Genesis literally instead of as a secular collection of early Jewish stories and folklore. This of course creates problems when you then try to force Genesis 1-3 to explain the origins of the universe, because the text wasn't meant to give an actual account of creation but rather was a theological story written much later. It was an etiology, so to speak.
There are also tons of other problems if you try to take certain sections of the Bible as an historical account meant to tell us how things actually happened in the past. Let's take for instance just Genesis 4. In verse 2, in the second generation of humanity, you have Cain as a farmer and Abel as a herdsmen. The problem with that is that animal and plant domestication was a relatively late invention in human history- we have at least 180,000 years of human remains preceding herding and farming. We don't even know how animal or plant domestication happened- all we know is that there is evidence of them in the archaeological record at a much later time than the Genesis story would portray them. Follow that up to Genesis 4:17, where Cain leaves God's presence and founds a city. Once again, this assumes that humankind always has lived in settlements- but this has not been the case. The earliest semi-permanent settlement that we even know about is a place called Gobekli Tepe, which is only a little over 10,000 years old. Once again, we have remains of humans not settling, but instead running around, hunting and gathering, for about 190,000 years before this. Now let's move on to Genesis 4:22- where one of Cain's descendants make bronze and iron tools. The problem with this is that bronze and iron tools don't appear until around 5,000 BCE. Now, if you are a young earth creationist you may say "well that works well with my dating!" But the problem with that is that all these dates I'm providing are based on radiocarbon dating schema. Meaning, if you do actually take a young earth creationist view, you'd have to push up that 5,000 BCE a couple of thousand years. Furthermore, the 5,000 BCE dating is also problematic because even if you adjust the radiocarbon date to fit a Young Earth Creationist formula, the adjusted date would still be after when the Young Earth Creationist would date the flood. Genesis 4:22 is pre-flood, and the advent of iron and bronze would be after the flood archaeologically. See the problem?
But let's not stop there. Do we even know how radiocarbon dating is calibrated? It is calibrated by something called dendrochronology. Dendrochonology is the study of tree rings. Essentially, every year a tree makes a new ring within its trunk. The size of this ring is determined by different weather conditions or tragic events that occur. Now, all the trees within a given area will have roughly the same pattern of rings. Hence, when you take core samples of many different trees, they will show very similar patterns for the same years. Since patterns are recorded within tree-rings, you can then use the ends of certain tree patterns to match them with the beginnings of other tree patterns. This allows the scholar to connect an older and younger tree together, and create a sort of continuous record of weather conditions. Now, this has been studied in depth. And do you know how far back tree ring patterns go? 40,000 years. Meaning, we have tree ring patterns for way before what a young earth creationist would account for.
So, that's my soapbox. Now to what other people have said in this topic... I would shy away from Rising Mighty Ace's logic not because I fundamentally disagree with it, but I think it sort of portrays God as a God of the Gaps. That is, evidence for God is seen as coming from the lack of scientific explanation for things. This assumes that because science has not explained a certain phenomenon, that such phenomenon shows science can't explain everything and that such must be the result of a divine creator. Now, the problem with this of course is that science is still progressing. Hence, instead of science being unable to explain actually such phenomenon, it may instead be that science simply hasn't had enough time or research to explain such, as such requires money, time, grad students, grant proposals, further sophistication of tools and methodology, etc.
But as I said, I don't think fundamentally his point is invalid about the cosmological argument- that is, God must exist because a universe exists and it must be created. The traditional critique of this argument is then- well, who created God, then? Aren't Christians just punting back the problem of creation to another being? However, this critique doesn't work as the cosmological argument instead revolves around two different types of existence. That is, there argument is not just that everything needed a creator, so God has to exist. But rather, that there has to a self-existent entity to create that which is not self-existent. And, everything else that exists was created by something and is hence not self-existent. So, the argument posits that God must exist because God fits the mold as a self-existent being who could create everything that exists.
However, I think more compelling than that argument, which can just favor general deism instead of Christianity, is to exam the historical evidence for Jesus Christ. Because really, that's what Christianity revolves around- not around evolution or proving there is a divine being. But, if the evidence is compelling that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, then everything falls in place. That being said, I find the gospel accounts themselves overall credible- mainly because they show evidence of being genuine eyewitness evidence. That doesn't mean that they are flawless- or even more appallingly, inerrant- but rather that they do hold up to being honest eyewitness testimony that followed good historical method for their time. For instance, why are so many different names of people recorded in the gospels? It's because those people were still around at the writing of the gospels, or were known to their original audience. In many instance, you could go talk to them and ask them if what happened actually happened.
That being said, if anyone is genuinely interested in following up on that, check out Richard Bauckham, who's a professor emeritus at St. Andrews. He's not one of these apologists who cling to a Bible, make up their own untested arguments, and have their cousin's unaccredited university give them a fake doctorate. Rather, the guy is legitimately recognized by the top New Testament professors around the world as a wonderful and well-thought out scholar, by conservatives and liberals, Christians, Jews, and Atheists alike. You can check out a shorter video of him here, or a longer here, or his book here.
I'm a "strict" or "true" agnostic in the sense I neither believe nor disbelieve in equal measure. I keep running into conversations that categorically insist that you're either an "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist," when in fact this is an unsophisticated hot take that ignores a lot of history and philosophical tradition.
can share my fake/ made up religion?
i worship Durge, Tempura, and Takanuva
i worship Durge, Tempura, and Takanuva
Ah yes, Pascal's wager. That old cop out's still going huh. The problem with Pascal's wager is it assumes that the Christian god is the only possible god, when in reality there have been thousands of gods created by man over the centuries. Any one of those could be the one true god. Also, if god is indeed all knowing, wouldn't he know that you were simply following the religion to avoid hell/get into heaven, and not because you genuinely wanted to?
Anyway, personally I identify as atheist. There is no hard evidence that any god exists, and as someone who has read the bible (admittedly not cover to cover), I can tell you it is a vile, hateful book. If you want to use a book for moral guidance, use Aesop's fables: they're better written, have much better moral lessons, and as far as I know haven't been used to justify war.
I do believe the world would be a better place without religion. It would encourage people to actually solve their problems, rather than just expect something better in the afterlife. There would be one less divider of the people (although you'd still have race, politics and wealth.)
Your comments here seem pretty vile and hateful. Saying how people only follow God for fear of hell is pretty insulting. I'm sure there are people who don't feel they need God in their lives, but there has to be a certain respect instead of dismissing religion as something that is done out of fear.
Ah yes, those dastardly cruel and vile messages like loving each other, being gentle to foreigners and respect family! What an evil bunch!
The more I study science the more I believe in God - Albert Einstein.
It's not too hard to agree. No science law allows an explosion without first having energy inputted into it first. This means there is energy prior to the big bang to initiate it. So you have a chicken and an egg proble. What came first the energy to initiate the big bang or the big bang to release the energy? Furthermore life cannot form from non life let alone intelligent life and human intuitive reasoning can just magically appear from just simply a coincidence from 'evolution'. Damn what a coincidence.
Still not convinced? I asked an atheist this question. Sir, what does DNA, a book,a computer and a human brain have in common. He couldn't answer. So I told him a book tells the user knowledge, a computer screen can display numbers and graphics or animated illustrations, our DNA contains blueprints about how the human cells function and finally the human brain sends signals to the body and stores memory. All four have this in common - they all carry information.
So I asked him well if you know an author and a programmer transferred his information based knowledge onto a book and a computer, why do you insist that the information carried within human DNA nor a human brain requires not a programmer to input it in? I don't understand nor comprehend this inconsistent double standard. He was speechless later. So I then asked him well you also insist the big bang is scientific and mathematical. So then I ask just in this on theory alone just ask yourself how many times have you jumped between science and faith back and forth? Theres no science law that suggests life can come from non life, we can't create an explosion without first putting energy into it. We can't create something from absolutely nothing and information requires an information giver like a programmer, author, writer or composer and thus information can't just come from nothing. So here's my conclusion
Both theism and atheism are faith based. Just because the big bang theory is taught in science does NOT make it science. Similarly like we associate horse racing as a gambling activity does NOT mean horse racing itself is gambling. I can't help but laugh that there are atheists mock theists for having blind faith in God but they fail to see their own blind faith on how this world came to be which is masqueraded as science.
But hey that's my view - in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It's not too hard to agree. No science law allows an explosion without first having energy inputted into it first. This means there is energy prior to the big bang to initiate it. So you have a chicken and an egg proble. What came first the energy to initiate the big bang or the big bang to release the energy? Furthermore life cannot form from non life let alone intelligent life and human intuitive reasoning can just magically appear from just simply a coincidence from 'evolution'. Damn what a coincidence.
Still not convinced? I asked an atheist this question. Sir, what does DNA, a book,a computer and a human brain have in common. He couldn't answer. So I told him a book tells the user knowledge, a computer screen can display numbers and graphics or animated illustrations, our DNA contains blueprints about how the human cells function and finally the human brain sends signals to the body and stores memory. All four have this in common - they all carry information.
So I asked him well if you know an author and a programmer transferred his information based knowledge onto a book and a computer, why do you insist that the information carried within human DNA nor a human brain requires not a programmer to input it in? I don't understand nor comprehend this inconsistent double standard. He was speechless later. So I then asked him well you also insist the big bang is scientific and mathematical. So then I ask just in this on theory alone just ask yourself how many times have you jumped between science and faith back and forth? Theres no science law that suggests life can come from non life, we can't create an explosion without first putting energy into it. We can't create something from absolutely nothing and information requires an information giver like a programmer, author, writer or composer and thus information can't just come from nothing. So here's my conclusion
Both theism and atheism are faith based. Just because the big bang theory is taught in science does NOT make it science. Similarly like we associate horse racing as a gambling activity does NOT mean horse racing itself is gambling. I can't help but laugh that there are atheists mock theists for having blind faith in God but they fail to see their own blind faith on how this world came to be which is masqueraded as science.
But hey that's my view - in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Tory
Banned deucer.
I am happy that situation with cookie, leonard (from big bang theory), and Ashaebi ended great. At first, I thought it was going to turn into a heated discussion. To be real, no one didn't do anything wrong. Ashaebi was just voicing his thoughts on how he feels about irreligious philosophies and scientific theories, and I accept it. It doesn't matter if you are a Christian, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic, you should have the right to criticize. As I mentioned before, I am not hear to tell anyone to shut up, or censor anyone. I just want everyone to feel comfortable.
If religions never existed, there would be no circumcision being force on infant children. No men and women would be restricted to what clothing options they could wear. Men wouldn't be treated as disposable utilities, expected to act robotic, and force to sacrifice their live in wars to millions of people who don't care about them. Women wouldn't be shamed for being promiscuous, having fun with multiple boyfriends, and being accused of a witch to be burned alive on woods. No anti-gay laws, people being executed for liking the same sex. I also believe transgenders would be less hated, no one wouldn't feel too uncomfortable about it. In the other parts of the animal kingdom, no one discriminates for their sexual orientation. But because we have been socially condition through cultural books, humans do.
Also, this gives us a clue, have you notice very religions nations have the highest crime rate with a little to no human rights (El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Jamaica, Bahamas, South Africa, Lesotho, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran) And guess what countries have the most freedom, and have the least crime? You guessed it, non-religious countries. (Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Japan, and Taiwan.)
Yes, If you look at thoughout history in many well devolved countries, it was illegal to do many things as a human, autonomy was virtually non-existent. As time go by, when people become less religious, hateful laws start disappearing.
If religions never existed, there would be no circumcision being force on infant children. No men and women would be restricted to what clothing options they could wear. Men wouldn't be treated as disposable utilities, expected to act robotic, and force to sacrifice their live in wars to millions of people who don't care about them. Women wouldn't be shamed for being promiscuous, having fun with multiple boyfriends, and being accused of a witch to be burned alive on woods. No anti-gay laws, people being executed for liking the same sex. I also believe transgenders would be less hated, no one wouldn't feel too uncomfortable about it. In the other parts of the animal kingdom, no one discriminates for their sexual orientation. But because we have been socially condition through cultural books, humans do.
Also, this gives us a clue, have you notice very religions nations have the highest crime rate with a little to no human rights (El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Jamaica, Bahamas, South Africa, Lesotho, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran) And guess what countries have the most freedom, and have the least crime? You guessed it, non-religious countries. (Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Japan, and Taiwan.)
As much as I want to agree with you I need to point out to you that China is one very atheist nation yet the crime rate is some of the highest on the planet. China is also the most densely populated country on the planet too.
As many as people has caused great suffering in the name of religion, the world most brutal dictatorship including Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol pot and the Kim family combined has started genocides responsible for so many deaths it will make religious aggression throughout the previous 19 centuries pale in comparison just in the 20th century alone.
Looking at a neutral standpoint religious violence is an atheists best friend but I gotta say there are quite a number of people that gave atheism a bad name tbh.
Also you mentioned about people being discriminated left and right I gotta say China despite being very atheist is pretty dang anti gay and really looks down on people who don't stay virgin until marriage. Adulterers are pretty much shamed for life. Although polygamy is justified. Smh. I know this because I'm Chinese myself.
Last edited:
I feel very sorry for you if you genuinely believe this.
The problem with this statement is that the world's population curve makes it a bunk comparison. You'd need to compare 20th to 20th, where it is not actually true. Mao Zedong's genocide (minus the parts that aren't directly genocide, like the famine caused by dumb policies) is on about the same level as the Holocaust.
The Crusades were truly ridiculous. Mean estimate death of 1.7 million from the years 1095 to 1261. If you scale the world population to today's (not exactly valid, but to show you how insane the Crusades were), the equivalent death toll would be 34 million. That's double the Holocaust. The Thirty Years War doesn't look much better.
A lot of these are historically wrong. And like, not even that far back in history. Like, all of this stuff can be related to WW2.
The Soviet Union was largely atheistic and had men killed in war by the millions. You can ask women who lived through it how they felt they were treated (and probably get ten different answers). Alan Turing, the founder of computer science a WW2 war hero from the UK (not a religious country), was chemically castrated for being gay and committed suicide for it. Today's hatred and misunderstanding of transgender people in the west also comes from Nazi Germany literally burning down an institution that was studying transgenderism and advocating for both their rights and gay rights; I personally believe it is fair to say that if Nazi Germany did not happen we would be close to equality today. Germany itself was not a religious country.
Straight up nationalism can be as harmful as religion.
At the end of the day it's fanaticism that's the real killer
So, my last post got a bunch of likes so I'd figure I'd post again. I like nothing better than spending all my precious time in grad school posting things on the internet to please complete strangers. That being said, for those of you who are not just here to make pot shots at the other side and are genuinely interested in learning how more scholarly Christianity has dealt with recent advances in science and textual studies (such as errors in the Bible), I've compiled some resources for you to peruse, complete with my commentary on what they are.
Biologos
https://biologos.org
Biologos is basically a site where a bunch of Christians more intellectual Christians write about how the Bible isn't actually opposed to science and how such interpretation actually stems from a completely misuse of the Biblical texts. The goal of the organization is essentially to get Christians to accept evolution, which is quite admirable in my opinion.
Bible Odyssey
https://www.bibleodyssey.org
Bible Odyssey is a website run by the Society of Biblical Literature, which is the
primary organization of Biblical scholars from around the country. It was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities to basically disseminate Bible scholarship to everyday people. Essentially, if you want to know about something in the Bible from a scholarly view, instead of what a random fundamentalist will tell you, this is the site to go to. However, I have to advise- the contents aren't linked well. There's a ton more than evident- but you have to use the "Browse by subject" ABCDEFG... bar at the bottom of the page.
The Torah
https://thetorah.com
So, this website is actually Jewish and some of the stuff is too Jewish for my taste. And while I identify as a flaming moderate, this tends to veer more liberal. But regardless, there's some cool articles there that deal with textual issues in the Old Testament of which you may not be even aware. Furthermore, these issues aren't just given for the sake of being given, but rather are given in the context of faith. How can a Jew remain a Jew when the Exodus from Egypt and conquest of promise land probably never happened? Good question! This website helps Jews answer that.
The Bible in a Disenchanted Age by R. W. L. Moberly
The introduction and first chapter are free here. If you like it, you can pick it up on Amazon.
http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...es/files/Excerpt_9780801099519.pdf?1508499535
So, we live in an age of science and technology and where we know that the Bible isn't some inerrant book that fell from the sky, but was written and copied by people. What's so special about it, then? Why is the Bible any more important than Shakespeare, Twilight, or Fortnite? Couldn't any community just form around a flawed piece of literature? Moberly seeks to answer this critique and show the need for the Bible, even amidst an age of skepticism.
How the Bible Became a Book by Bill Schniedewind
https://www.amazon.com/How-Bible-Became-Book-Textualization/dp/0521536227
This is a book written by a professor at UCLA that writes on the origins of the Old Testament- how did it come about? I don't agree with everything he saids, but his general methodology is sound and he also integrates a lot of ancient Near Eastern data with which the lay person will not be familiar with. It's also short and very readable. Amazon also offers the option to look inside. And so, if the book strikes your fancy, pick it up! I should also mention that I heard that Schniedewind is a Christian, but the way the book is written is completely scholarly. You won't be able to discern a faith tradition from his approach.
Biologos
https://biologos.org
Biologos is basically a site where a bunch of Christians more intellectual Christians write about how the Bible isn't actually opposed to science and how such interpretation actually stems from a completely misuse of the Biblical texts. The goal of the organization is essentially to get Christians to accept evolution, which is quite admirable in my opinion.
Bible Odyssey
https://www.bibleodyssey.org
Bible Odyssey is a website run by the Society of Biblical Literature, which is the
primary organization of Biblical scholars from around the country. It was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities to basically disseminate Bible scholarship to everyday people. Essentially, if you want to know about something in the Bible from a scholarly view, instead of what a random fundamentalist will tell you, this is the site to go to. However, I have to advise- the contents aren't linked well. There's a ton more than evident- but you have to use the "Browse by subject" ABCDEFG... bar at the bottom of the page.
The Torah
https://thetorah.com
So, this website is actually Jewish and some of the stuff is too Jewish for my taste. And while I identify as a flaming moderate, this tends to veer more liberal. But regardless, there's some cool articles there that deal with textual issues in the Old Testament of which you may not be even aware. Furthermore, these issues aren't just given for the sake of being given, but rather are given in the context of faith. How can a Jew remain a Jew when the Exodus from Egypt and conquest of promise land probably never happened? Good question! This website helps Jews answer that.
The Bible in a Disenchanted Age by R. W. L. Moberly
The introduction and first chapter are free here. If you like it, you can pick it up on Amazon.
http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...es/files/Excerpt_9780801099519.pdf?1508499535
So, we live in an age of science and technology and where we know that the Bible isn't some inerrant book that fell from the sky, but was written and copied by people. What's so special about it, then? Why is the Bible any more important than Shakespeare, Twilight, or Fortnite? Couldn't any community just form around a flawed piece of literature? Moberly seeks to answer this critique and show the need for the Bible, even amidst an age of skepticism.
How the Bible Became a Book by Bill Schniedewind
https://www.amazon.com/How-Bible-Became-Book-Textualization/dp/0521536227
This is a book written by a professor at UCLA that writes on the origins of the Old Testament- how did it come about? I don't agree with everything he saids, but his general methodology is sound and he also integrates a lot of ancient Near Eastern data with which the lay person will not be familiar with. It's also short and very readable. Amazon also offers the option to look inside. And so, if the book strikes your fancy, pick it up! I should also mention that I heard that Schniedewind is a Christian, but the way the book is written is completely scholarly. You won't be able to discern a faith tradition from his approach.
I was getting ready to sleep but oh boy... Here comes long blabbering...
I hate to admit it, as it's fucking painful, but this is why movies like God's Not Dead exist. A stupid religious alterity example exists as long as a stupid opposite exists. Most of my Smogon friends are atheists or agnostics, and so is one of my best friends with who I often discuss religion with. All I can do is leave here a good text that is being required as a main read from some Anthropology and Religious Studies post-graduation admission exams and curricula. I'm sorry for being salty asf, and as a good Chr-, no, human being, I'll offer you my charity and suggest some academic books and articles about faith and religion that the best academics, regardless of their faith, to enlighten you. I believe you can change this hateful look of faith and understand the others better. I was like you (for the other extreme, lol) once, but with study I changed. All I can leave is the word of an influential historian of religion from here, Dr. Francisco Gomes (an atheist whose expertise field lies on Cultural History of the Church from Middle Ages through XXth century), that the best historian (but also sociologist, anthropologist, etc) of Religion and beliefs is not the faithful or unfaithful one, but the one that isn't stupid and instead respects the field and the subjects.
Shoah. I don't need to say anything. Also afaik USA is less religious now than it ever was, and everyone knows how "progressive" with loving thy neighbour it's becoming. Also, be careful with the concept of "freedom" you're masking under those words, a very dated concept back from Illuminism that, as anyone can see, brought a lot of harm as much as good.
Really? You know that it's entirely possible that before the selection of Yhwh as the main deity of the hebrews, it was possible they did it before for belonging, right? Is it possible that, as present in the Torah/Old Testament, they're attributing an already existing tradition a faith basis to attribute logic to it? And the genital mutilation of some women in african tribes has more to do with belonging to a tribe than faith, right? Are you really sure of those attack-lowering, defense-increasing claims of yours?
Another claim, but this one raises your speed and decreases your defense. This is a really big topic that I don't know that much about that well, but feel free to read about History of Fashion and Clothing. It's really interesting. Also, it has too something to do with belonging. Some people here that are soccer fanatics avoid to use clothes that are from the rival team's colors, and some groups fashion themselves based on specific clothing, making them recognizable by that. I wouldn't have a mohawk since I'm not a punk, nor use long paints that show underwear because I'm not part of "favela culture". It does not have to do exactly with an institutionalized or not system of beliefs. In fact, have you ever considered that religion can be a meaning instead of a reasoning to do something? Read a bit more about Crusades (not the old fucks that blame it on evangelism, but modern works that take into consideration social and economic reasons. The late Jean Flori has a good work abou it, but idk if it exists in english...).
You seem to live in a nice world without voracious Capitalism or any wars fought. I suspect you're from the United States, a place where the North X South big confront in the XIXs, a conflict, of course, fought because of Jesus! Same applies for the Korean War, Vietnam War, and all other interventions, all for the good name of the Lord and no other motives whatsoever!
By the same logic pedophiles and zoophiles shouldn't be ashamed for going for that underage/animal pussy. And let's not even talk about incest, this stupid taboo forbidden by the Scriptures (I know the main target here is Christianity, so let's just keep these. Have more examples if you want from other places with different creeds!).
Azande women that were lesbians are still outsiders in their society as in many other cultures. Besides, gender/sexuality relations cannot be reduced to only systems of faith. Go read the chapter "The Bow and the Basket" from The Society against the State from Pierre Clastres to get only one example of how those work outside religious beliefs, or any other anthropology work focused on gender relations.
You seem to be kinda generalist. Can I share a secret? Jesus was portrayed with feminine characteristics during most of High Middle Ages. Jesus was a mother that ecclesiologists often asked for the milk running from the bosom (read Jesus as a Mother, from Carolyne Bynum, and a slew of other queer-oriented historical surveys about religiosity during Middle Ages). And let's not forget that most Indoeuropean faiths have some sort of androgynous deity or ideal of human perfection, just like some branches of Christianity. And also, (at least as I believe but I'm not too understood of this as I've read not enough of this subject, but I have the balls to admit this intellectual weakness of mine and want to amend it as soon as I can), transgender is a modern feeling, brought by the freedom ideals of the burgueoise revolutions, particularly the 1789 one. And AGAIN, go read Clastres, a good example on how a transgender is brutally excluded because of his tribe's social function logic. AAAAAAAAAAAAND as Surgo pointed out above, Nazism (this is not Godwin, it's common sense 101). But if you want to exclude it, that's fine, our Tovarishi from Soviet Union under Stalin and Khruschiov are there to give another example.
Trust me, if the synapsis of dolphins and ducks worked like ours, they'd do the same shit. Also animals practice incest, cannibalism and necrophilia, so I don't understand your point at all.
This is legit the stupidest thing I've read in this site, and I was here in the height of the Alomomola debacle in last gen's RU where people thought it was healthy for the metagame. I'm not talking this point specifically as a Christian, but as someone from the countries you cited and as a historian / History teacher. You know what fucked Brazil? Do you really want to know what fucked Brazil? Colonialism did. Wars regarding its frontiers did. Internal strifes between Portuguese and Spanish crown did. Incompetent monarchs did. Populist dictatorship did. Militar dictatorship did. Slavery did. Favelization did. And all those asian and african countries you listed? Well no fucking shit they're shitholes. Have you ever heard about a little phenomenon that happened called IMPERIALISM? Y'know, exploration based on, among other things, hunger for a place to sell the shit-quality excedents of the metropolis and a dick-measuring contest among themselves for territory? You know what was one of their weapons, more than "evangelism" (this is at the height of the "Scientific Revolution" if you remember). Phrenology, racial theories, and theories of the "marching of civilization", and those kinda belong to a group that starts with s and ends with -cience, and one that tried its ass off to differentiate itself from what it considered faith (read Durkheim and Cassirer. Hell, read Kuhn!). As far as I know, Imperialism didn't really brought religion to those parts, nor religion had a lot to do on all the impoverishment and mistreating of the people. There's also the big R-word in the room. Will you claim it's also solely faith's product, even with some heavy xenophobia present in places like ancient Egypt and Greece, and present-day Japan? This is legit really really darn moronic, I have nothing yet so much left to say. For all that is sacred, I'm so fucking mad I'm having a hard time typing! The fury is oozing through my fingernails and I'm almost destroying my keyboard.
I hate to admit it, as it's fucking painful, but this is why movies like God's Not Dead exist. A stupid religious alterity example exists as long as a stupid opposite exists. Most of my Smogon friends are atheists or agnostics, and so is one of my best friends with who I often discuss religion with. All I can do is leave here a good text that is being required as a main read from some Anthropology and Religious Studies post-graduation admission exams and curricula. I'm sorry for being salty asf, and as a good Chr-, no, human being, I'll offer you my charity and suggest some academic books and articles about faith and religion that the best academics, regardless of their faith, to enlighten you. I believe you can change this hateful look of faith and understand the others better. I was like you (for the other extreme, lol) once, but with study I changed. All I can leave is the word of an influential historian of religion from here, Dr. Francisco Gomes (an atheist whose expertise field lies on Cultural History of the Church from Middle Ages through XXth century), that the best historian (but also sociologist, anthropologist, etc) of Religion and beliefs is not the faithful or unfaithful one, but the one that isn't stupid and instead respects the field and the subjects.
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
So I’m agnostic. I honestly have no clue if there’s a god or not and I’ve experienced both sides pretty heavily. However, I feel I can add to the discussion as I have problems with some posts from both sides.
I know this has been responded to a lot, but I just want to say how much I hate pascal’s wager. ChrystalFalchion did a good job in the first paragraph of his post talking about why pascal’s wager is bad so I won’t repeat what he said, I’ll just quote him.
So I disagree with this. I agree there’s no hard evidence that god exists, but I’m not so sure about the Bible being a vile, hateful book. Care to provide examples? Because from what I’ve read, the Bible actually does have good moral lessons. Loving your neighbor, forgiveness, helping people, etc. I think there’s more good taught by the Bible than hate. Also, the Bible has been used to justify war. The Catcher in the Rye has been used to justify murder. People will use whatever means they see fit to justify their actions when the blame lies with the person. The Bible isn’t an inherently hateful book because it’s been used to justify terrible things. Also, from my experiences, Christians do try to solve their problems with gods help rather then just wait for the afterlife for everything. What Christians just expect everything to be handed to them? From my experience, that’s the opposite of what the Bible tries to teach.
Moving onto this
I also want to respond to
Ok a lot to break down here. I’ll go part by part so this isn’t a cluttered mess.
I’m not going to respond to Tori vs Raven VI T’s post since ever got already has. Like I said, I’m not on a side here of whether god is real or not. I just wanted to clear up what I see as misinformation. Have a nice day.
I know this has been responded to a lot, but I just want to say how much I hate pascal’s wager. ChrystalFalchion did a good job in the first paragraph of his post talking about why pascal’s wager is bad so I won’t repeat what he said, I’ll just quote him.
However, then in that same post, he says
So I disagree with this. I agree there’s no hard evidence that god exists, but I’m not so sure about the Bible being a vile, hateful book. Care to provide examples? Because from what I’ve read, the Bible actually does have good moral lessons. Loving your neighbor, forgiveness, helping people, etc. I think there’s more good taught by the Bible than hate. Also, the Bible has been used to justify war. The Catcher in the Rye has been used to justify murder. People will use whatever means they see fit to justify their actions when the blame lies with the person. The Bible isn’t an inherently hateful book because it’s been used to justify terrible things. Also, from my experiences, Christians do try to solve their problems with gods help rather then just wait for the afterlife for everything. What Christians just expect everything to be handed to them? From my experience, that’s the opposite of what the Bible tries to teach.
Moving onto this
He’s not saying that people only follow God for fear of Hell. He’s responding to a comment that’s basically pascal’s wager and he’s saying that if you follow god only because of pascal’s wager or the fear of hell like it’s suggesting you to, wouldn’t God know and see that’s you’re not truly faithful and just fear punishment? I wouldn’t think that is truly worshipping God in the eyes of a Christian or God. That specific statement wasn’t a slight against Christianity, but against pascal’s wager.
I also want to respond to
Ok a lot to break down here. I’ll go part by part so this isn’t a cluttered mess.
This quote doesn’t mean what you think it means. While yes, Einstein believed in a god, he did not believe in the god of the Bible like you’re trying to portray. Rather, he believed in the pantheistic god of Baruch Spinoza. He thought the idea of the Christian god was naive and he also didn’t believe in an afterlife. I can give a source if necessary, but I’m lazy and you can find this info online without too much trouble. This may be a nitpick, but he’s trying to use this quote to say he has Einstein and science on his side when that is simply not the case.
Now, I can’t even begin to understand the science behind the Big Bang, but even I can tell you that the model has energy before the Big Bang. From my understanding, please correct me anyone who understands this better if I’m misrepresenting this, there was always energy in space and the Big Bang happened when that energy reacted and the universe started expanding rapidly, atoms started forming, etc. The Big Bang didn’t create the energy like you’re trying to make it sound. Now as for life cannot be created from no life, I’m gonna link you to this which shows how life could have originally been created. Once these tiny single celled organisms were formed, they slowly evolved and became more and more complex over billions of years and eventually they became the complexity we see in humans. Intelligent life didn’t just appear after the earth was formed, it took billions of years for the life forms to slowly evolve into intelligent life. It’s not a coincidence since being more intelligent would help it survive and hence be passed down. Also, evolution is an observable fact so yeah. Already, this first paragraph comes across like you have no understanding of the science you’re talking about. Now, science doesn’t claim to have all the answers to how life started and the universe was formed, but all this stuff has observable evidence to back it up and it’s the best we have for now.
Ok so, DNA doesn’t function exactly like computers and books. There’s no literal information in there. If you pull it apart, there’s no words in there telling the cell what to do. Any code or anything interpreted from it was invented by us and given value by us. It’s not a double standard since it’s not comparable in the way you’re trying to make it seem. I already explained about the Big Bang and life forming so I won’t repeat myself. Also, there’s no faith involved in the Big Bang theory. Science isn’t claiming that’s what happened. Science is claiming that from what we know now, this is the most likely explaination, no blind faith involved. You kind of just keep repeating the same points over and over here so I’ll move on so I don’t have to repeat myself.
Like I said, atheists don’t have blind faith. Science doesn’t claim to know the answer, it’s just trying to figure it out and this is what we have right now. The Big Bang is science to the best of our knowledge right now and you have not disproved that it is scientifically accurate from what we know right now. Like I said, if I got any of the science stuff wrong here feel free to call me out with facts. I tried my best with the research I did but I’m sure I didn’t understand everything correctly.
I’m not going to respond to Tori vs Raven VI T’s post since ever got already has. Like I said, I’m not on a side here of whether god is real or not. I just wanted to clear up what I see as misinformation. Have a nice day.