The Afterlife... (And a little bit about human nature, too)

evenwolf · Sun 17/12/2006 01:07:52

Quote from: Erenan on Sat 16/12/2006 18:42:00
The Big Bang theory isn't an atheistic theory. It says absolutely nothing about whether God or something else caused the universe to exist. (I think.) In fact, there are already lots and lots of theists who believe in the Big Bang.

Erenan. I think you proved my point here. The reason why the Big Bang is acceptable is because some theists adopted intelligent design... EVENTUALLY. Intelligent design is a reaction to scientific fact that is hard to dispute. Proof that science is slowly but surely winning.

The problem with certain religious sects adopting Big Bang is that they have specific langauge that says "On the first day God created the universe. On the second day God created the earth, on the third day God created man, blah blah blah." And its this language that gets bastardized once science offers evidence to the contrary. People will say "Oh, well we didn't mean ACTUAL days. You children thought we meant Earth days? We meant GOD days Of course the earth wasn't created in one day. Duh!" And its the langauge in the form of a book that everybody is supposed to agree on! Or atleast believe in...

Surely you get the point here. Religion has a certain flexibility because the langauge and text can be twisted any such way. As to where the Big Bang can be squeezed in there... even when clearly it had nothing to do with the original text or context. The Bible is like the U.S. Constitution. It gets amended. The specific words don't change but their meaning becomes whatever suits the purpose. [edit] and the difference between the Constitution and the Bible is that the Bible is filled with historical events and an everlasting being's specific commands and suggestions. And its usually those commands and suggestions that get amended. Not to mention- nobody ever researches the authors of the specific passages where in some cases the passage was written hundreds of years after the event in the passage. (there are three accounts of the sermon on the mount - one called "sermon on the plain".) If those authors couldn't agree on the place where it happened... how in the world can a modern day Christian be confident of the order of events that happened there?? (where?)

Akumayo · Sun 17/12/2006 03:39:30

Amazingly said. You should write a paper, it'd be really good.
Kudos, really. I'm wordless. Awesomely said man.

-Respects, Akumayo

Andail · Sun 17/12/2006 19:32:42

Who, me?

Akumayo · Sun 17/12/2006 19:33:25

evenwolf, actually.

Erenan · Sun 17/12/2006 23:18:28

I have a few things to say to you, evenwolf...

I said "theists," not "Christians." There's a big difference between believing in some kind of God who created the universe through the Big Bang and believing in the Christian God specifically having done it.

I am not a Christian. I am also not a theist.

I was a Christian for a long time, however, and personally I don't find it at all a stretch to look at the creation account in Genesis and treat it as poetry, not intended to be understood literally. This isn't saying, "Well, we can't read it literally any longer because of scientific evidence. Let's look at it in other ways!" It does appear to be a poetical work. There are repeated themes, such as "And there was evening, and there was morning." Does this mean that if it didn't happen in six days that God doesn't exist? No. Does it even mean that the Christian God doesn't exist? No, I don't think it even means that. But this is stupid! I'm arguing this not out of personal conviction, but out of habit! I don't even believe it any more. So nevermind.

I've also been told (and here I must stress that I've heard this only from one person) that many Big Bang Cosmologists are becoming theists because of what they are finding out there. Apparently a lot of them are under the impression that a personal agent is the most likely reason that the universe exists. Obviously, there are a great many scientists who disagree with that.

I'm not a scientist. I'm a composer.

evenwolf · Sun 17/12/2006 23:43:07

I never intended to debunk the Bible as bad literature. It's truly inspiring and has done more good than harm in the world. Anything that joins so many people together in a common bond must be looked upon with respect. But it is literature. Regardless what's a poem and what's a fact.... it's a string of words in a book. It must give way.

Eranan, the example I chose was Genesis. We could toy with others if you' like. But I don't want you to feel conflicted. I like to debate because I am fleshing out what I believe by writing. If I didn't express them the thoughts and feelings would swim around aimlessly in my head. And it would weaken me with lack of direction and organization.

Christianity shouldn't be frowned upon for "twisting words around" due to the fact that most religions do. Before the advent of the printing press, and even before written language, religion was all the more flexible. In the native American tribes they used spoken language to pass down the myths and the names of the gods. The mythology would change with almost every generation. The stories would grow in complexity and be amended. So Christianity and every other religion has its fair share of exploiting language as a failsafe. But with written language there is now something new. Accountability.

Erenan · Mon 18/12/2006 00:56:00

What do you mean by "it must give way"? Give way to science? I don't think it's really in opposition to science, though. In any case, what I was talking with you about is old news now. So I guess I'm done for now.

LimpingFish · Mon 18/12/2006 01:11:06

So what have we learned from this thread?

That A is B, and B becomes H with a little help from Z.

Therefore, ie, eg. The answer to question one is the question to answer two, but only on Sundays.

A duck will not qualify for beatification unless water rolls off his back at a level perpendicular to the curvature of the Earth.

To err is to play skinny trombone in a small jazz band balanced on the head of a pin blessed by the pope.

God is in, but you can't afford his rates.

The views and opinions expressed in the magazines available in Purgatory are not those of God Inc, nor any of its affiliates.

Saint Peter says "Hi".

evenwolf · Mon 18/12/2006 08:45:36

Quote from: Erenan on Mon 18/12/2006 00:56:00
I don't think it's really in opposition to science, though.

Man descended from monkeys!* There was no Adam and Eve! How's that??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

*among other things

Helm · Mon 18/12/2006 13:57:35

It's an odd thing for me to see people who are atheists, like me, attack organised religion and get the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to stick up for the latter. I mean, it must really say a lot about the level of argumentation 'my side' has going on if I feel the urge to mutiny.

Becky · Mon 18/12/2006 14:48:29

Religion does not play by the same rules as science and doesn't stand in opposition to science. Unless you're buying into the idea that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, I can't see why you draw the conclusion that religion and science are two opposite points of view. Perhaps the "worldviews" attatched to the two things stand in opposition...but I don't really think religion and science are naturally paired opposites standing in opposition to each other.

QuoteBut with written language there is now something new. Accountability.

I don't think that the Bible makes any substantial comment upon the detailed workings of the majority of areas of science...it's not supposed to. If people use the Bible (or any religious text) to try and disprove elements of science, then that's an individual conclusion that the two oppose. Just because it's written down doesn't mean its true, or claiming to be scientific.

Akumayo · Mon 18/12/2006 16:42:56

I agree. Religion and science are separate entities, never specifically meant to oppose or rival one another. Religion seems to me, at times, to be like an escapist fantasy novel. Whenever life gets just a little too rough, or the books that provide a detailed account of war and death get a little too much for you, you turn to an escapist novel, you turn to religion.
For some reason that reminded me of a quote in Blood Diamond:
"Sometimes I look around this place [Sierra Leone] and I wonder how God can just look down here and not stop what's going on. And then I realize, God abondoned this place a long time ago."

My random thoughts, anyhow.

-Regards, Akumayo

Erenan · Mon 18/12/2006 17:45:29

What Becky said, really.

lo_res_man · Mon 18/12/2006 21:23:15

True, religion is rather escapist, we live with illusions all the time, we may be sober, but we are not 'knurd' the rules of society do not have to apply to you, they have no physical meaning. Psychopaths see that truth. That's why the act well, psycho. Religion is one of those things we live with that helps us live with the universe. Because the universe doesn't give a care, when our species goes extinct, no one will morn, for there will be none TO morn. That is not to say atheists are psychopaths, its just that religion is one of several rose colored glasses we use. There are many others.

Erenan · Mon 18/12/2006 22:23:03

Someone will mourn us when we are gone: The army of emotion-laden androids that I'm building for that express purpose.

lo_res_man · Mon 18/12/2006 22:38:46

good luck with that, but in effect, if these androids could morn our passing, and had the same psycology as us woudn't they BE us?

Erenan · Mon 18/12/2006 22:52:53

No, because these androids don't like pie.

lo_res_man · Mon 18/12/2006 22:56:33

okay, enough of THAT.

evenwolf · Tue 19/12/2006 05:23:59

I'm done resenting my Southern Baptist captors.

Seriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles. Helm, I think you had a little bit more laid back experience to understand.

Raggit · Tue 19/12/2006 14:36:30

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 19/12/2006 05:23:59
Seriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles.Ã,Â

The scary part is, I can't tell if that's a joke or the truth.