So I was reading this story and it got me really upset. Hence the entry below.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561
It always amazes me how people who say they believe in God take scripture or religious law over reality. Even when proven wrong. They would rather believe a book written by men who “supposedly” had things revealed to them (without any proof of course) then the reality of the world around them. If you ask me, this is like slapping God in the face.
Here God creates this universe with natural laws like gravity, the speed of light, the Fibonacci sequence and the fact that incest produces retarded kids. Hello! God’s absolute laws are written into the universe itself, not a fucking book. Every religious law can be debated. Including the ten commandments given certain situations.
We’re talking about the creator of the universe here. A being that created a perfect system. Yet instead of looking at the reality of the world around you, studying it and defining it by what it really is, you instead start with an archaic book as your basis for all truth and attempt to mold the world around what that book says.
When that book contradicts the reality of the world God actually created, you redefine what that book says. You go back and say “well actually it’s supposed to mean this” or “that was only relevant in the time it was written, not today.” Come on.
You don’t give God the credit deserved. The universe itself is a testament to its will? Facts and concrete reality. Something that does in fact stand the test of time. If the sky is blue today then the sky is fucking blue and no one in their right mind, no matter what their religious (or nonreligious) point of view is going to be able to debate that.
That is truth..
This is why a ascribe myself a deist rather than any revealed religion. Because yes I do believe in a God. Even if my atheist friends and contemporaries may cringe at that fact about me. But sometimes I think they’re closer to understanding the true nature of God more than many religious people.
If you ask them about it they always say that God can do whatever he wants so he doesn’t have to follow his own rules.
So I always wonder why he would create the rules to begin with…
@AibellFaeire – Of course. It’s so easy that way. It reminds me of kindergarten when kids say things like “Well my dad can beat up your dad.”
“No he can’t because my dad can lift up cars.”
“Oh yeah, well my dad can lift up the bridges those cars ride on”
and so on and so on. Until you get to a point of saying “well my dad created everything and thus can do anything and see everything and knows everything. So there… :p “
But so many of them are stuck in their own little world. Furthering the fantasy. Debating it and refining it like a well I well tuned story. It’s almost like stepping into the middle of a group of star wars fanboys who are stuck in their own little world debating the weight of an x-wing fighter and the power of the force. Then you say “you guys know none of those things really exist right? Kinda fruitless to even debate it. How about talking about how much thrust it takes to lift an F-22 off the ground instead?”
But no, it’s more fun to play in fantasy land and debate things that don’t really exist. Especially when you can pull out the whole “omni—-” card when you need to.
The text must be true for god to exist. For logic to be effective, it must begin with truth, or a supposition of truth. Please remember that these are metaphysical views (separated from physical reality). Natural laws like gravity are mere speculation when compared to the text, depending on the deity – the divinely inspired text, in which many of them god is stated as the truth. Starting with an empirical foundation gives far different insight into the world than that of one who strictly follows the text. You question the absurdities of the world, and turn to science to provide any plausibility. While the believers will turn to their text to discover plausibility. Science and religion are effectively at war: The discovery of life on other planets would strike a major blow against organized religion. Yes, some believers are morons, but some of them are respectable and capable of responding to each and every claim with marked intelligence, despite what you choose to see. Much of what is written here exemplify petty arguments which are traded like germs. Speaking as a raging atheist, this is not the best method to annihilate religion.
@schallerbrandon – You have a point. But I’m not sure reality is such a petty argument though. Maybe I’m wrong but I think reality is the best argument. It is what we are all familiar with after all.
@roxics – We are all familiar with separate realities, as none of us have the same experience. Therefore, the argument of reality works both for and against you, unless I am misunderstanding. If you would like me to refute any points in your original post, I easily could, but you would likely not be satisfied with any other answer than “god does not exist”. These answers, alike science, become more attractive only when they are presented intelligently. I do believe that we are simply adhereing to the best argument.
“The discovery of life on other planets would strike a major blow against organized religion.”
Ha, my agnostic friend once asked me, in a fit of annoyance or anger or whatever, “What would it take for your beliefs to seriously be shaken?”
And that was my answer.
Specifically aliens who say “Oh, we made you,” or “We know the people who made you.”
@schallerbrandon – “If you would like me to refute any points in
your original post, I easily could, but you would likely not be
satisfied with any other answer than “god does not exist”.”
I’d love it actually. I’m not sure though if I’d only be satisfied with “god does not exist” since I do in fact believe in a God. Unless I mistook that meaning.
@immortalwithout – The universe is huge. You never know. There could very well be intelligent beings well beyond our years (who perhaps even seeded our planet) who have such great knowledge it would completely blow our minds and yet not even come close to being the most intelligent things out there.
@roxics – Absolutely, I think there could be. I don’t even think that would negate my belief in a God… just my belief in the Christian God/Jesus (depending on what the aliens said). That would kind of be blown out of the water.
@roxics – “If the sky is blue today then the sky is fucking blue and no one in
their right mind, no matter what their religious (or nonreligious)
point of view is going to be able to debate that.”
What is blue? I would say that it is usually a teallish color. The question demands an arbitrary and subjective answer, it is rife with supposition. Will the sky be the same color tomorrow? You can make a judgment based upon your experience, but you have no concrete way of actually knowing other than offering an informed supposition. Using “fucking” and claiming that “no one in their right mind” will debate with you does not prove anything, either.
“When that book contradicts the reality of the world God actually
created, you redefine what that book says. You go back and say “well
actually it’s supposed to mean this” or “that was only relevant in the
time it was written, not today.” Come on.”
When does it contradict reality? I’ll give an example in your support as to progress the point. Radiocarbon dating. Sure, the bible may claim the earth to be only a few thousand years old, but based upon our knowledge of the C-14 isotope we can “prove” that it is much older. Still, it is arbitrary whether one ascribes to this claim or another. Again a supposition is made that our interpreted reality is concrete in the sense that it is indisputable and fit to be compared to the text which was divinely inspired, any theologian would jump all over this claim. Again with the argumentative language: “Come on.” Not all of them will “redefine what that book says”, either. Sure, mutations of (example) Christianity exist, but so do orthodox interpretations which give absolutely no rights to women.
Consistenly, argumentative language seeks to mask unproven points incorrectly heralded as facts and proofs which are debatable and supposed given the depth one perceives. A point can even be made that one can not trust their experiences, and as I supposed, still I believe correctly, the one in question is less interested in this concept and moreso with seamlessly conveying the point given.
@roxics – I hate that card. It’s such a cop out to an actual answer, but people use it all the time. And you’re right – we’d rather discuss fantasy than reality. It’s like there’s a buffer there – well it happens because God wants it to, so it’s really a good thing, no matter what it is.
@immortalwithout – I don’t even think that would negate my
belief in a God… just my belief in the Christian God/Jesus (depending
on what the aliens said). That would kind of be blown out of the water.
Why? The bible doesn’t say that we are the only intelligent beings that exist. Look at angels. If God has created angels and humans, why couldn’t he create other intelligent beings also?
@AibellFaeire – I hate that card. It’s such a cop out to an actual answer, but people use it all the time.
It’s not a cop-out just because you say so. How do you know it’s not true?
@schallerbrandon – “What is blue? I would say that it is usually
a teallish color. The question demands an arbitrary and subjective
answer, it is rife with supposition. Will the sky be the same color tomorrow.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think this way too. It’s in my nature to question everything to some extent. While writing my statement about that the thought crossed my mind about someone being color blind. But honestly at some point we do have to draw a line. We all have to commonly agree on certain realities. If the sky is blue right now and we’re agreeing that it’s blue right now, it doesn’t matter what shade of blue it is or the fact that come magic hour it could be all shades of red and purple and orange. At some point we give a little bit and agree. Otherwise none of us would ever agree on anything. So either I would give in and agree with you that it’s tealish or you would give and agree with me that it’s blue as it’s base color. But honestly if you and I were sitting on a hill top looking out over a blue sky and I said the sky was blue and you said “well actually it’s more like an aqua marine” and we debated it we’d probably both come out thinking each other as being difficult and kind of an asshole about it. Chances are that probably wouldn’t happen, one of us would probably just be like “yeah” because whatever it is, it’s close enough. However if one of us said it was red and the other said it was blue I would begin to question your eyesight or mine.
I get what you’re saying about perception though. To that extent any one of us to say that the entire universe is inside our head. That you and everyone else I’m talking to is simply a construction of my own imagination and now one could prove me wrong or for that matter right.
But generally we commonly agree that isn’t the case.
So now the question turns to religion, do we commonly agree this book is fact? If this book tells us the world is 6000 years old then either the book is wrong or our carbon dating methods are wrong. So lets dig for other evidence to prove one way or the other. At some point you do take a leap of faith.
I’m familiar with the argument about believing other people. Even a die hard scientist doesn’t know everything and often relies on the research of their peers. In other world they put trust into what their peers have found. So while they certainly can do the research themselves to come to the same or similar or even totally different conclusions, they often take a leap of faith based on their trust of their peer and what they have discovered.
But I think that if you put enough of the evidence and logic together you begin to discover that somethings don’t fit more often then others. In many cases that seems to be revealed religions.
@musterion99 – That’s why I said “depending on what the aliens said.” Lol. Read my comments.
This is a funny thing to be talking about anyway. I’ll deal with it when/if it happens.
@musterion99 – I don’t know that it’s not true. But how bout instead of saying something that has no evidence to support it, how bout people just say, “It’s not something I can explain” instead of pretending they have all the answers because God did it?
@AibellFaeire – I don’t know that it’s not true.
Exactly, so it’s not a cop-out.
But how bout instead of saying something
that has no evidence to support it, how bout people just say, “It’s not
something I can explain” instead of pretending they have all the
answers because God did it?
I agree with that. There are times when I say I don’t know. The thing about the the answer that you call a cop-out is that it’s based upon the premise that God exists, otherwise it’s moot. And under that premise, God can do whatever he wants.
@musterion99 – Just because I don’t know something’s true or not doesn’t mean it’s not a cop-out. When I asked my mother why I had to do something and she said “Because I said so” that was true, but it was also a cop-out. It wasn’t a real answer.
@AibellFaeire – Just because I don’t know something’s true or not doesn’t mean it’s not a cop-out.
That’s my point. You don’t know if it is or isn’t. So why say it is when you don’t know. You just said to me that Christians shouldn’t pretend that they have all the answers. Well, that applies to you too. Instead of saying it’s a cop-out, why not say that if God does exist, it’s possible that he can do what he wants? You’re being inconsistent.
When I asked my mother why I had to do
something and she said “Because I said so” that was true, but it was
also a cop-out. It wasn’t a real answer.
That has no analogy to discussing a premise of God being true and him being able to do what he wants. Your mom isn’t God.
@musterion99 – All right. What I was saying is, whether it’s true or not, it’s STILL a cop-out answer. It says, “I have no idea” while still pretending to be wise and have some answers.
I know my mom isn’t god. That’s why it’s an analogy.
@AibellFaeire – What I was saying is, whether it’s true or not, it’s STILL a cop-out answer.
Is that your idea of logic? That’s nonsense. I’ll explain it again for you. The answer is based upon the premise that God exists, otherwise it’s moot. And under that premise, God can do whatever he wants. What don’t you comprehend about that? It’s a cop-out for you to say it’s a cop-out.
It says, “I have no idea” while still pretending to be wise and have some answers.
?? – Saying God can do what he wants is not pretending to be wise. That is the answer. Just because you don’t accept that, does not make it a cop-out, unless you are all knowing. Again, you’re being inconsistent to what you said Christians shouldn’t do. You’re guilty of doing the very same thing.
I know my mom isn’t god. That’s why it’s an analogy.
haha – That is precisely why it’s a false and mis-used analogy. God is the only one capable of doing anything he wishes. Your mom is not capable of that.
@musterion99 –
Yeah, you’re hitting on it there. She finds people who believe in a God arrogant (“pretending to be wise and have answers”), and so of course anything they say is perceived as arrogant.
I think both sides see the other side as arrogant. Oddly, it comes with it.
@immortalwithout – I think both sides see the other side as arrogant. Oddly, it comes with it.
I agree.
Gods Word is above all. Besides it has good science in it(the water cycle, blood, ocean currents, etc.) The only thing is Creation vs Evolution. But no one observed both. Science strictly does not prove both. If only we had a time machine…