Forum menu
if you think you’re the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
I don't know.
But I also find the 'we don't know. We have some theories but we're still working on it' statements more compelling than 'here's an old book which tells us everything'
.
Although I do note that Genesis saying light/dark, heaven/earth, etc, etc down to humans at the end is roughly the right order of stuff happening, even if it took more than a week in reality.
@WCA That sounds plausible bit it doesn't fit in to what I know of history. Is that just conjecture or the result of study?
We have some theories but we’re still working on it’ statements more compelling than ‘here’s an old book which tells us everything’
So you've disproved Genesis, well done. Now what about everything else?
Oh and hardly anyone seems to have taken Genesis literally throughout Christian history. St Augustine wrote to this effect in the 5th century IIRC.
So you’ve disproved Genesis, well done. Now what about everything else?
Oh and hardly anyone seems to have taken Genesis literally throughout Christian history. St Augustine wrote to this effect in the 5th century IIRC.
The 7 days timeline is actually Not the timeline as we defined. Time in God's term is nothing like the way human defined. In Islam we are just in the 6th day of creation. The logic is there.
Similarly in Buddhism the timeline in different dimensions is different from time defined by human.
if you think you’re the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
That too has been explained right down to whatever smaller than atom whatever (I am not scientist so I assume atom is small?). They vibrate to communicate so a bit like conscious energy. There are also other two source of energy being mentioned finer than atom.
Just as well an online 'pub night' was proposed. An actual pub night judging from the reactions thus far would be 1 broken nose, 2 black eyes and 4 arrests 😆
It's all just people, innit?
I don't really care what's going on inside peoples heads, it's what they do that matters. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what people think - I just don't mind what particular God(s) you believe in, as long as you are not a dick/murderous about it.
I'm interested in religion from a historical perspective, but that's about it.
[i]@WCA That sounds plausible bit it doesn’t fit in to what I know of history. Is that just conjecture or the result of study?[/i]
A bit of both.
Paragraph 1 - People are incredibly insecure and have some deep need to have a purpose in life and seem to need to constantly strive for something. If they don't have one they either invent one, die of apathy or kill themselves. This seems to be true if they have everything and therefor nothing to strive for, or nothing with no objective and therefor no reason to strive. Check our https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/
Paragraph 2 - Largely from personal observation of how people justify their actions and explain their life goals.
Paragraph 3 - Most modern religions do come from desert areas and the oldest most basic rules have a common theme of be nice, don't kill each other and don't eat rotten food.
Paragraph 4 - It was the later interpretations of these rules that became be nice and wear funny clothes, don't kill each other but other religions are fair game and don't eat rotten food abd only buy our brand name products.
Paragraph 5 - Always try to end on an upbeat note to cheer up the audience.
It was a shortened, simplified version of some long and deep thought streams and discussions I have had over the years.
Which bits didn't match your view of history?
Science isn’t a belief system, it’s the diametrical opposite. Science does not require belief. Science wants to be proven wrong. This is how we learn things.
100% this. I would discount anyone who states that 'science is a belief system'. Anyone who has done even a BSc knows that science is built on having a hypothesis and then designing studies/experiments to try and prove it wrong in every conceivable way.
Religion is a philosophy. You could argue - quite successfully IMO , that without Christianity - in western European context, you cannot begin to even look at science. Christianity provides a set of morals/ethics/laws including things like secularism - a medieval French church invention, that give science (especially as it's practiced before say the 19thC) a framework to work within. Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel ...none of that happens without the church.
Basic ethics/morals that we take for granted in the Late20th/early21stC , including those practiced by non-religious organisations rely either partially or wholly on fundamentally Christian beliefs. And it's difficult not to overstate the revolutionary change that Christianity - as a set of rules, has had as an impact of the belief systems of those "in charge" Look after the poor, equal rights under the law, not being a slave, not being killed arbitrarily by the state and so on and on.
You may not like the hats and stories, that's fair enough, but Christianity (as a basis for a power structure) was revolutionary.
People had - and do have - morals and ethics without having the need for religion. Religion didn't invent those things.
Religion didn’t invent those things.
Not arguing that. The argument I'm proposing is that the morals and ethics that this particular religion bought to Europe changed everything.
people had – and do have – morals and ethics without having the need for religion
Yep, not arguing that either, however, at the time in Europe the moral and ethical framework that Christianity bought with it, changed the way that everybody (eventually) behaved. For example, The Roman empire is a totally different thing after Constantine converts - for better and worse
[i]Religion is a philosophy. You could argue – quite successfully IMO , that without Christianity – in western European context, you cannot begin to even look at science. Christianity provides a set of morals/ethics/laws including things like secularism – a medieval French church invention, that give science (especially as it’s practiced before say the 19thC) a framework to work within. Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel …none of that happens without the church.[/i]
Not disagreeing but because of the all pervasive nature of the Church within society and the State for the last (quite a) few centuries it isn't really possible to say what happened because of, despite of and with blind indifference to the church.
It is similar to saying that all advances in the USSR, while it existed, were down to communism or that all advances in the USA during the same period were down to Capitalism. Some were, some weren't, some were accelerated by it and some were delayed by it but most would have happened regardless of it because people basically want something to do and are curious so they invest stuff.
Basic ethics/morals that we take for granted in the Late20th/early21stC , including those practiced by non-religious organisations rely either partially or wholly on fundamentally Christian beliefs.
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Beliefs in honouring your parents, that murder and theft etc are wrong are almost universally held by all people and have been since long before monotheistic religions came along. They evolved as pragmatism which eases social interaction and cooperation amongst tribe members more than anything else. Christians claiming they invented or own morality is a other turn off from religion for me.
it isn’t really possible to say what happened
Counter factual is an intellectual dead end (how much fun they are to debate) The history of European scientific advancement and the established church are intertwined.
nickc - I think I agree with you. I was trying to say that it is very difficult / impossible to un-intertwine the two.
Yes, agreed. There's little point in trying to extricate the influence of the church
Yep, not arguing that either, however, at the time in Europe the moral and ethical framework that Christianity bought with it
Luckily we have a bunch of Christian countries which arent, traditionally, counted as European. So we can test the theory that Christianity was the positive asset you claim or whether other cultural influences were in play. Logically if your claim is true then they should all have had roughly the same outlook but given the massive variation even within those countries which were under Roman Catholicism for a long period this is clearly incorrect.
changed the way that everybody (eventually) behaved
Even more problematic since it raises the question why it took so long and why plenty of extremely dubious actions were approved of by the church authorities at the time.
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
Again, that's not the argument that I'm proposing. The set of values/ethics/laws that Christianity bought to Europe are the basis for all the set of values of western philosophical thought that come after it (including those arguing against the existence of "God") and do so from the basic framework of the fundamental belief system of the Christian religion.
Look at say the Humanists for an example. Their moral framework which includes such stuff as
- That man should show respect to man, irrespective of class, race or creed is fundamental to the humanist attitude to life.
Is just basic Christian philosophy, it's literally identical. The morals that we take for granted now haven't happened by accident.Again, it's hard to overstate the impact of Europe essentially converting wholesale to one religion at (more or less) the same time. Is utterly revolutionary. I for one can't wait to discuss it with someone who's studied it just a few hundred years after it really gets going. It's going to be fascinating.
Even more problematic since it raises the question why it took so long
Because Humans. I'm not arguing it was massively successful. But the fact that suddenly it was thought important that treatment of the poor (for example) was something that you had to - or should do at least, pay attention to and was going to impact how successful you are going to be with God; was revolutionary.
The problem with a religion like Christianity is that it's philosophical tenants are so entwinned in our society it's hard to separate it all out.
SaxonRider
Full Member
Precisely the sort of thoughtful, scholarly remark I was hoping for.Posted 1 day ago
REPLY | REPORT
cinnamon_girl
Full Member
That’s pretty offensive @twinw4ll. A kind and generous offer has been made to users and yet you see fit to sneer.Posted 1 day ago
I am firmly in the same camp as twinwall and brucewee. CG's response is exactly why and how religion has been used to oppress, subjugate, and crush humanity since it was invented.
As brucewee said if the same discussion was offered about some other made up rubbish then it would not have been afforded the same respect.
Members of my family have been physically, mentally, and sexually assualted by relgious types, who were then protected by their organisation and their acolytes.
I am happy for any of you to delude yourselves, but please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
As an atheist I have absolutely no interest in this idea.
As an atheist myself, I am actually intrigued by the idea – I cannot understand why people choose to have belief personally, however many of these people are clearly very intelligent (like SaxonRider evidently given how he gives his time) so why do *THEY* choose to believe? What is it that makes them believe, gives them belief? Is it them or is it me that is mistaken?
I don't think you choose to have belief any more than you choose to be, for instance, homosexual.
I guess that you can live your life without knowing enough to make the choice though?
Another misconception is that “science is not a belief system”.
Science is belief. Belief comes from acknowleding the most compelling evidence. A belief "system" is a way of torturing any evidence to make it seem like your preconceived ideas are true.
Evidence of gods = zero
Evidence of the phemonenology of physics - huge, and constantly changing. Scientific theories are just that - theories based on the best available evidence, and they evolve and change as the evidence appears - see the progression of newtonian physics to quantumn physics and beyond.
I cannot understand why people choose to have belief personally
From a basic position; Given that what we know about how the universe works can be written down in a (relatively) very small book. Pointing at a Deity and saying "They did it" is as good a system as any other right now.
Here's one that's bang up to date though. It's a fundamental legal right for Jewish women to have access to abortion. That matter was settled in Rabbinic law in about 600BCE. The current legal wrangling of Wade vs Roe going on in the states right now could very much hang on religious freedom as promised in the original constitution. I'd imagine that Jewish women feel a bit different about the protection afforded to them by their religion.
I don’t think you choose to have belief any more than you choose to be, for instance, homosexual.
I don't believe that to be true.
I don’t think you choose to have belief
This is quite hard to pin down, I remember thinking it was all bullshit at church from a young age, and it took me until I was 10 or 11 to be brave enough to express it. Did I decide or was my lack of faith hard wired?
I am happy for any of you to delude yourselves, but please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
I think there's a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name - saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
Evidence of gods = zero
So far...Most science, and more especially the science that particularly involved with universal physics has a basic set of principles that "zero chance" is not something you want to conclude. It might be very (to the power of many tens) unlikely, but's it's never zero.
There's a distinction to be made between "practicing religion" and "having belief".
I think there’s a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name – saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
Difference here is that ISIS was a small splinter group that had the condemnation from Islam as a whole whereas Catholic church abuses were systematic and covered up from top to bottom by the organisation itself from the highest levels of power.
So far…Most science, and more especially the science that particularly involved with universal physics has a basic set of principles that “zero chance” is not something you want to conclude. It might be very (to the power of many zeros) unlikely, but’s it’s never zero.
Of course, that is we are always prepared to change in the face of newer better evidence, but believing in god, you may as well believe in flying invisible chocolate teapots or any other random concept as there is so far the same evidence and chance.
Can I ask, do you do calculus? Do you know what a limit is?
I think there’s a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name – saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
No, its the same thing. As soon as you introduce faith and a lack of reason as way to control or motivate people you are carrying out a terrible immoral abuse. It is all part of the same continuum.
Because Humans.
Doesnt really work that way. If you are claiming its a direct benefit of Christianity you need to explain why and also why it didnt catch on in plenty of Christian cultures until external influence came in.
was revolutionary.
Nope just look at the grain dole in Rome although that obviously had self serving interests at play.
Or look at how serfdom kept going in some Christian countries way longer than others. There is no obvious reason to claim Christianity suddenly worked better in some countries vs looking at other factors.
you may as well believe in flying invisible chocolate teapots
I think most Christians don't think that any chocolate teapots died for their sins though. And I don't think any teapots (chocolate or otherwise) have ever argued that mosaic laws as practiced by Judean sects were regressive from a teapot-ist standpoint.
Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel …none of that happens without the church.
Galileo? The Galileo who the catholic church put under house arrest for heresy, that Galileo?
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
It comes in quite handy in enforcing it though. "You must do as you're told." Why should I listen to you? "Uh... see this carrot? And this stick?"
If you are claiming its a direct benefit of Christianity
Most, if not all judicial and governmental systems in Europe today operate from a philosophically Christian basis or at least have their roots there. Equal in the eyes of the law, just punishments and so on. You can argue that it was misinterpreted, or not done well, or different cultural mores* are at play. but fundamentally it removed might is right. You can't argue that these aren't Christian beliefs (you can see that they are in the bible and the commentary of people like Paul and his contemporaries), you can only argue about the interpretation of them
* In the same way the writings of Pleney or Caesar are re-interpreted for each generation as social and cultural structures change, the writing in the Talmud, Koran and Bible are constantly revised for each generation to find accepatble.
The set of values/ethics/laws that Christianity bought to Europe are the basis for all the set of values of western philosophical thought that come after it (including those arguing against the existence of “God”) and do so from the basic framework of the fundamental belief system of the Christian religion.
The problem with this line of thinking... there's probably a 'logical fallacy' name for it, I don't know. But it presumes that if something hadn't happened, it would never have happened. We could posit for instance "without Stephenson we wouldn't have had trains" or "without Steve Jobs we wouldn't have smartphones" but it supposes that no-one else could or would ever have come up with the idea.
That's the thing with revolutions, there will be another one along in a minute.
please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
It isn't. Have you read this thread? The many, many previous others? Your own post?
but fundamentally it removed might is right.
... by force.
Irony much?
I think most Christians don’t think that any chocolate teapots died for their sins though. And I don’t think any teapots (chocolate or otherwise) have ever argued that mosaic laws as practiced by Judean sects were regressive from a teapot-ist standpoint.
So what? Just because a huge amount of assumption and interpretation has been carried out, there is still zero evidence. And even more crucially, it is built in to the faith that questioning the lack of evidence is wrong, and even if you do question the lack of evidence the answer is always faith.
1) My calculus question?
2) Do you know what falsifiable means?
Galileo? The Galileo who the catholic church put under house arrest for heresy, that Galileo?
Yeah, that Galileo. You know that his research was funded, encouraged, and supported by Pope Urban, right? Without it, it most certainly couldn't have been written
But it presumes that if something hadn’t happened, it would never have happened.
No, I'm making the opposite argument to that. Along came Christianity and it did happen. It may well have happened with a different religious belief (but that would be counter factual), but it did happen to the whole of Europe (sharing a set of beliefs) under Christianity. That was revolutionary.
It isn’t. Have you read this thread? The many, many previous others? Your own post?
Not saying it is at all, I am just standing up for the defence of free thought, my comment is part of the discussion. You are free to claim or believe that my comment is or it isn't. I don't mind.
My rather wayward but intelligent eldest son has become a fairly serious Christian, which is a significant about face to where he was as a teenager. My take on it was that there are far worse ways of leading your life.
That was revolutionary.
So what. This is part of the BS around awards and appeal to authority. If Newton had not theorised about physics , then someone else would have, in fact others were. So I don't particulalry revere him or any other discoverers. It's just like celebrity worship. He happened to be in the right place (intellectually) at the right time.