Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Hm, I suppose he was slightly agnostic then.
Okay, then pick your favorite college professor. I'm sure he practiced a religion.
The point is that you are labeling all people that believe in a god as mentally incompetent. I don't feel like doing the research, but I'm sure I can find some microbiologist that discovered 100 breakthroughs about cell and germ development and is also fully religious.
Before you start labeling me as pro-incantation, I'll restate that I am agnostic. So I'm sort of on your side, but not fully.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beldaran
Yeah way to blow that einstein quote out of context. I have actually discussed this in person with a nobel prize winning chemist (Harold Kroto, discoverer of carbon-60 molecule, pioneer of nano-tech) and he explained that basically Einstein believed in physics, math, logic, order, and thought and he called the collection of those things "god". He did not believe in magic like most people.
See, I've had the same thought, honestly. That's where I get muddled, though, because technically, it means I believe in God, I'm just defining God differently than others would. Shoot, I don't even know how you're supposed to define God, anyway. I always defined God as the Creator, which means that if the universe created itself, then the universe is God, which just... Oh boy, I'm going cross-eyed. Once again, I think the moral of the story is that our limited viewpoints and narrow-mindedness hurts us.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beldaran
Because they fly planes into buildings. They try to make teaching evolution illegal. They burn people at the stake for making telescopes. They encourage a society of backwardness and non-thought. They make life miserable for smart people who realize that the universe, real or not, is real enough that it must be understood and lived in if we are to avoid pain and nothingness in our lives.
People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.
Good call, Jack Thompson...
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_nog
See, I've had the same thought, honestly. That's where I get muddled, though, because technically, it means I believe in God, I'm just defining God differently than others would. Shoot, I don't even know how you're supposed to define God, anyway. I always defined God as the Creator, which means that if the universe created itself, then the universe is God, which just... Oh boy, I'm going cross-eyed. Once again, I think the moral of the story is that our limited viewpoints and narrow-mindedness hurts us.
That's the point I was trying to make, I'm just way too lazy and uncaring to do so. :p Einstein still believed in a "god" even though that "god" was based on science, but a "god" is a "god" nonetheless... And when I get to this point in thinking (especially of the universe), I just want to grab some Cheez-Its and turn on SportsCenter.
But I have a feeling that neither I nor anyone else won't be able to convince Beld.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
There have been many people who are way more intelligent than I am who believed in god. I do not deny this at all. However, that doesn't mean believing in magic without evidence is correct. It is a disorder. That it was what I think.
I've lost track what each of us is even trying to prove or disprove anymore.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beldaran
There have been many people who are way more intelligent than I am who believed in god. I do not deny this at all. However, that doesn't mean believing in magic without evidence is correct. It is a disorder. That it was what I think.
And your opinion is completely fine with me, whatever I think of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beldaran
I've lost track what each of us is even trying to prove or disprove anymore.
I think it's turned into a virtual rave room of religious/scientific anecdotes, nothing more.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Yeah, well science's dick is bigger than religion's dick.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beldaran
Because they fly planes into buildings. They try to make teaching evolution illegal. They burn people at the stake for making telescopes. They encourage a society of backwardness and non-thought. They make life miserable for smart people who realize that the universe, real or not, is real enough that it must be understood and lived in if we are to avoid pain and nothingness in our lives.
People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.
Because I just hate that science is showing that we can't interpret the Bible literally.
YOU BASTARDS!!!!
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
Quote:
I've lost track what each of us is even trying to prove or disprove anymore.
I'm there too man, I'm there too. game_boy did provide a gem among his verses though so I feel compelled to discuss it.
To do what? Do you get more style points for finishing your post in a certain time period? Was there pressing business you should have been taking care of instead of posting on a forum? Don't you know circlejerks work better when you drag them out? I'm an hour late to bed and in a pretty big hurry to get there but I still take the time to ensure that the credibility of my points is not in question from my prose.
Go read the entire chapter. And the one after it. Even without commentary it is rather obvious by the conflict this action created that neither God or the nation of Israel endorsed the behaviors of any involved. Usage of this verse is a textbook case of cherry-picking and out-of-context verses.
Quote:
It encourages people to kill non-believers.
While there is ample Biblical evidence that God commanded the Jews to engage in warfare, you have yet to provide proof that the Bible commands either the Jews or Christians to murder non-believers on first sight. Such a command would contradict the sixth (fifth for Roman Catholics apparently) commandment. All I have ever seen is that the act of killing another human is only acceptable in warfare and as punishment for crimes.
This, I believe, is the result of a language barrier. My initial interpretation is that Jesus' intent (given the following subject matter) is that one must be fully committed to following Him and can let nothing, even familial bonds, stand in your way. This commentary suggests that the language did not support anything but extremes with regards to relationships: one was either hated or loved, and the word "hate" was often used in the sense of "loved less". Another, less in-depth source seems to agree with my initial interpretation.
Quote:
Entire Garden of Eden section of Genesis - original sin, etc.
First, remove original sin as a general Christian example. There has been conflict over the notion of original sin for centuries, and it is one of the reasons for the many denominations that exist today.
The reason for the existence of original sin (to those who subscribe to it) is to further support the need for man's atonement. Regardless of original sin, every man is responsible for every sinful action he makes. Jewish theology used blood sacrifice as the means of atonement; one who regularly performed sacrifice would gain atonement and be righteous. Christians see Jesus' sacrifice as atonement for the sins of all mankind with the condition that one must believe in His sacrifice to be saved by it. With this in mind, original sin serves to remind even the most pious that there is always sin on them and they should never feel as if they can approach righteousness without atonement.
In fact, Jesus Himself seems to reject the idea that one is punished for the sins of one's ancestors in John 9:
Quote:
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.
Verse 1 shows the disciples assuming the man's misfortune was possibly divine punishment for the sins of his parents. Jesus dismisses this and indicates the man was blind so he could be healed. This contradicts Exodus 20:5:
Quote:
you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
...but if you are careful to read further to verse 6:
Quote:
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
we see that the righteous are able to not only reverse the punishment of previous sin, but bestow blessings among their offspring.
I personally further believe the Exodus verse is weakened because Christian doctrine is established primarily in the New Testament, with the Old Testament serving as a record of the events leading to Jesus' birth, evidence that God fulfills his promises regardless of his followers' mistakes (Israel turned from God numerous times, but their savior was still provided), and establishment of behavioral standards both moral and ethical. The "old law" may not apply due to Jesus' atonement, but the law still remains God's commandments and it is unwise to ignore them completely. In this case, God is obviously suggesting that His wrath is great but His mercy is greater.
Re: Religion, or the lack thereof
God is evil if old testament law is his idea of justice. It's so screwed up and horrible. Puting a woman to death for commiting adultery is horrendous. So is putting a child to death for talking back to his father. Those people were screwed up morons.