What are your beliefs on religion, god?

[ABM]

nice sermon, but what is any of that suppose to mean to an outsider who is trying to judge the probability of the objective existence of different metaphysical religious entities? it's a given that christianity makes unique claims. all religions do.

I am the son of a pastor. That said, I was the biggest basher of Christ there was. Total hedonist. Wanted to have NOTHING to do with my father's god, christ, and all that bunk. Just ask BLAZER PROPHET. He knew me at the time. That is, until I had a Christ, total God moment, experience in the kitchen of my home back in February of 1989. At that singular moment, the tables completely turned for me. My parents' (and many others') prayers were answered. I found Christ! Well, to be honest, perhaps He found me. Nobody knocked at my door, this wasn't one of those "church" "Come to Jeee-sus!!" moments. It happened in the quiet of my home, alone.

At any rate, I've never turned back, nor have ever regretted that decision. I don't have to "prove" it to anyone. It is what is is, and always will be. And, I'm extremely thankful for that!

 

[crowTrobot]

I am the son of a pastor. That said, I was the biggest basher of Christ there was. Total hedonist. Wanted to have NOTHING to do with my father's god, christ, and all that bunk. Just ask BLAZER PROPHET. He knew me at the time. That is, until I had a Christ, total God moment, experience in the kitchen of my home back in February of 1989. At that singular moment, the tables completely turned for me. My parents' (and many others') prayers were answered. I found Christ! Well, to be honest, perhaps He found me. Nobody knocked at my door, this wasn't one of those "church" "Come to Jeee-sus!!" moments. It happened in the quiet of my home, alone.

At any rate, I've never turned back, nor have ever regretted that decision. I don't have to "prove" it to anyone. It is what is is, and always will be. And, I'm extremely thankful for that!

that's great for you, but it did seem like you were interested in providing evidence that your relationship with Christ is objectively real. if not no problem.

 

[ABM]

that's great for you, but it did seem like you were interested in providing evidence that your relationship with Christ is objectively real. if not no problem.

My "relationship" with Christ is entirely subjective because, well, it's my own.

 

[crowTrobot]

My "relationship" with Christ is entirely subjective because, well, it's my own.

sorry, i meant evidence the object of your relationship is real not the relationship itself

 

[magnifier661]

presumably you wouldn't claim your mother is invisible if i wanted to go see her. or maybe you would.

No you are totally missing the concept. You are wanting some grey beard man to present himself as God. That's for your enlightenment. Your love for your mother is invisible. Your relationship with your mother is based on what she feels and what you feel. Can anyone else truly understand your love for your mother? No it's what you feel inside when you think about her. It's the things you choose to do for her for the sake of love.

If I was to tell you that you don't love your mother; then demand physical proof that you actually love her. Then when you try and explain; they say "nope that is a delusion! That is not proof you love your mother!"

 

[drexlersdad]

nobody is gonna touch the adam and eve thing? was it just a nice story?

 

[magnifier661]

nobody is gonna touch the adam and eve thing? was it just a nice story?

Adam and Eve? What do you think about it?

 

[drexlersdad]

Adam and Eve? What do you think about it?

that the bible version seems a little strange

at least as far as i know, maybe i missed something? were there others?

 

[magnifier661]

that the bible version seems a little strange

at least as far as i know, maybe i missed something? were there others?

No it's the same story. Yeah it seems a little strange. But when I have confidence there is God; then why couldn't it happen? I mean if you believe that God created the universe; then he has the ability to make a man and woman.

We see modern science able to clone animals. It doesn't seem impossible.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

UberFacts ‏@UberFacts There is a “cult” offshoot of Christianity in China that believes Jesus is currently living in the body of a Chinese woman.

 

[drexlersdad]

No it's the same story. Yeah it seems a little strange. But when I have confidence there is God; then why couldn't it happen? I mean if you believe that God created the universe; then he has the ability to make a man and woman.

We see modern science able to clone animals. It doesn't seem impossible.

was more thinking the whole incest part, is that explained away somehow?

seems like the gene pool would be immediately fucked, and then just get worse and worse

maybe thats whats wrong with the world today...

 

[magnifier661]

was more thinking the whole incest part, is that explained away somehow?

seems like the gene pool would be immediately fucked, and then just get worse and worse

maybe thats whats wrong with the world today...

Could be. I tend to look at it with more "out of the box" thinking. It could be possible that God; being all powerful; tweaked things so the gene pool wouldn't be fucked up. I tend to see god as the ultimate scientist. Having unmeasurable knowledge. What the most brilliant mind in this planet; is nothing in comparison.

 

[crowTrobot]

No you are totally missing the concept.

one of us is anyway

 

[magnifier661]

one of us is anyway

Yes you are, but it's okay.

I mean looking at the scientific debate you had with trip tango; it seems you are a bit off on a lot of things

 

[ABM]

was more thinking the whole incest part, is that explained away somehow?

seems like the gene pool would be immediately fucked, and then just get worse and worse

maybe thats whats wrong with the world today...

When in doubt, one of the passages I defer to is Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[drexlersdad]

Could be. I tend to look at it with more "out of the box" thinking. It could be possible that God; being all powerful; tweaked things so the gene pool wouldn't be fucked up. I tend to see god as the ultimate scientist. Having unmeasurable knowledge. What the most brilliant mind in this planet; is nothing in comparison.

meh, seems like a major cop out

but i guess you can explain anything at all away with "god tweaked it"

 

[magnifier661]

meh, seems like a major cop out

but i guess you can explain anything at all away with "god tweaked it"

What if I told you 120 years ago that man could build a machine that can take 120 people and fly them across the Atlantic in less than a day? How do you think those people would react to that madness?

They would probably say you are crazy. Then when you try and explain it; they say your mad and it's impossible.

 

[ABM]

meh, seems like a major cop out

but i guess you can explain anything at all away with "god tweaked it"

To me, it boils down to individual choice. Either, everything happened/exists just the way God prescribed it...and you believe it in its entirety...or....it's all a bunch of hooey.

Who's to say? Well, as I mentioned up there a ways ^, to each their own. Objectivity is objectivity, subjectivity is subjectivity, faith is faith, and poppycock is poppycock. Thus, red is gray and yellow, white, but we decide which is right, and which is an illusion...............

 

[drexlersdad]

senior citizens wish they were young

 

[crowTrobot]

Yes you are, but it's okay.

your invisibility of love for your mother thing doesn't relate to what i was talking about at all.

i wasn't questioning how someone would know feelings others have for an invisible entity are real. i asked how anyone would know if the entity itself is real, given that humans are demonstratably prone to developing strong emotional ties to things that don't actually exist.

 

[ABM]

i asked how anyone would know if the entity itself is real...

Well, as it stands, you're not gonna know this side of heaven. And then.....................

 

[Further]

To me, it boils down to individual choice. Either, everything happened/exists just the way God prescribed it...and you believe it in its entirety...or....it's all a bunch of hooey.

Who's to say? Well, as I mentioned up there a ways ^, to each their own. Objectivity is objectivity, subjectivity is subjectivity, faith is faith, and poppycock is poppycock. Thus, red is gray and yellow, white, but we decide which is right, and which is an illusion...............

But if you say it's all or nothing, then why don't you believe that slavery should still exist, women should be subjects of men, and gays should be stoned to death? I know these are not your views, but if its all or nothing, they should be.

 

[ABM]

But if you say it's all or nothing, then why don't you believe that slavery should still exist, women should be subjects of men, and gays should be stoned to death? I know these are not your views, but if its all or nothing, they should be.

There was an Old Covenant, taking into account the customs and God's "pre-Jesus" sacraments of the time, and which paved the way for Jesus' arrival. Then, the New Covenant, which takes into account everything Jesus. As far as the slave part goes, my guess is, many servants back served their respective masters, but were also cared for, at least should have been.

There's a lot of old typologies, customs, and more's of the time. Again, I could question God, but, really, it would be senseless and futile in my opnion. I choose to simply trust and obey. I'm living the best possible life as a result. I'll find out all the other stuff when I get to heaven.

 

[magnifier661]

your invisibility of love for your mother thing doesn't relate to what i was talking about at all.

i wasn't questioning how someone would know feelings others have for an invisible entity are real. i asked how anyone would know if the entity itself is real, given that humans are demonstratably prone to developing strong emotional ties to things that don't actually exist.

I just explained it before and it was explained on that YouTube video. If you believe that mass can only be produced by mass; then mass cannot be made from nothingness. Space, time and mass are finite; therefor it has a starting point. Only something supernatural and eternal can create mass; because nothing can never make something.

The genesis is the biggest proof because science even using cosmology are still scratching their head.

You can bring up multiverse; but still who started that? If there is such thing as a multiverse; then there is mass in other parts of the void. They are still mass that can't be created by nothingness.

So as hard as science is trying to band aide the genesis "god of gaps"; they just choose to ignore because they don't know. Unfortunately; they know that nothingness cannot create mass.

So my proof is there was a creator. Is mine the right one? Yes to me mine is right for me.

 

[magnifier661]

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17).

This was written 2000 years ago. This is description of atoms; which can't be seen by the eye.

"In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the Earth (matter)... And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." [Genesis 1:1,3 … written some 3450 years ago].

This explains time, space and matter.

 

[drexlersdad]

It could be possible that God; being all powerful; tweaked things so the gene pool wouldn't be fucked up.

Deuteronomy 27:23: Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.

 

[Jayps15]

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17).

This was written 2000 years ago. This is description of atoms; which can't be seen by the eye.

"In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the Earth (matter)... And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." [Genesis 1:1,3 … written some 3450 years ago].

This explains time, space and matter.

Those are vague platitudes you or someone else has ascribed meaning to.

 

[magnifier661]

Deuteronomy 27:23: Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.

And Adam and Eve were cursed no?

 

[TripTango]

the evidence from evolution, cosmology, biology is empirical. cogs and indifferent machine are just ways of saying the evidence from these fields (all of science really) strongly indicates that the hypothesis of the existence of an all-powerful being who purposefully designed and created the universe including humanity, intervenes in the lives of and responds to prayers of individual humans, and is concerned with judging humans and directing the dispersal of their souls after death based on details of their behavior, is improbable.

This is our missing link. You are making assumptions about what the universe ought to look like, if it was purposefully designed. Upon what do you base these assumptions? What is your metric by which you distinguish a "soulless" universe from a purposefully created one? I can think of no empirical measure by which these two possibilities can be evaluated. If you can, please fill us all in: how do the findings of evolution, cosmology, and biology definitively preclude (or reduce to highly improbable) the possibility of design?

Ironically, these are the same fallacious assumptions at work in the teleological arguments for the existence of god, just used for the opposite purpose. Aquinas recognized patterns in the world and concluded that they were evidence of a conscious designer. You see randomness and disorder in the world and conclude that there must be no designer at all. Both of these arguments presuppose that there are specific characteristics of the universe that suggest one thing or another -- as if we have other universes to which we can compare our own, and make conclusions about its design (or lack thereof). You can't categorize a sample size of 1, and you can't claim as remarkable any of its traits, however chaotic or ordered they may appear.

whether you mean to specifically or not, you (like Gould) by saying this end up directly implying to/agreeing with religious people that science has a constant fixed domain that constrains it, and that actual knowledge of questions about objective reality that are outside that domain can be obtained by other means. i see this as detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas.

You grossly overstate the scope of scientific knowledge, and in so doing perpetuate the image of atheists and scientists as arrogant and close-minded. Science has nothing to say about that which is untestable. Nothing at all. You may look at the findings of cosmology and say that the universe appears cold, chaotic and unplanned, but that's not science -- that's (ironically) an emotional response to scientific discovery. The domain of science isn't constant, but it is absolutely finite. We cannot speak scientifically about that which cannot be empirically and reproducibly tested. If there is another definition of "science" that contradicts this statement, please tell me where you found it, and in what peer-reviewed scientific journals I can find papers addressing the existence of supernatural deities.

in my view it is better to set the example for religious people by saying questions about the nature of objective reality that can't be answered by science can't be answered at all, and there's nothing wrong with saying we simply don't/can't know the answers. when you worry about semantics of what is or isn't a scientific question you end up doing the opposite.

It is not my job to regulate how or why people choose to explain the unanswerable. I think the benefits of science and scientific understanding are self-evident, and that rational thinkers will always recognize the importance of testing their beliefs critically. Yes, I think the correct answer to many of these questions is "I don't know, and you don't either", but that can often be a tough sell. I don't think overstating the powers of your product and ridiculing its critics is the right way to go.

I agree with most of your perspective. I think your conclusions on the nature of the world are generally correct. And even I think you come off sounding like a self-righteous prick. I can only imagine how you sound to those you are ostensibly trying to convert.

 

[drexlersdad]

And Adam and Eve were cursed no?

well they never fucked their siblings, seeing as how they never had any

just seems odd that god would set up the human race for inevitable failure, as brothers and sisters would be forced to eventually mate