Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Gnorm]

Is curiosity and mostly separate from current discussion, but how did folks react to the whole virgin birth thing being a mistranslation? Don't think I've ever actually gotten around to checking what the general response was to that.

The original wording of the book of the prophet Isaiah is hotly debated, but the Gospel according to St. Luke makes it rather clear that Mary was a virgin.

[Descan]

... No? If anything, that raises more questions. If you're all knowing, evolution is kind of a bullshit tool to use. We use it in design because it brings things from out of left field that we'd almost certainly not think of ourselves, such as that antennae array that was iteratively designed and looks like Escher got high, but an all-knowing god wouldn't need that help, he'd know exactly what works where and where it would fail. And considerin' how much the human body fails... Yeah, didn't quite work out there. Like the whole "You need to be bi-pedal to use tools, because all mammals are quad-limbed, but whoops, your back isn't designed for that! Enjoy back-pain, you fuckin' humans!"

And again with the random dumb luck if your set of mutations helps or hinders you to survive, and the whole "You could be a peak specimen but die from a freak tornado" thing...

[k33n]

One of the main problems with a god of nearly any kind is it's non... disprovable? Argumentable? For the love of me, I can't remember what the words is.

So regardless, it's impossible to prove either way. All we've been doing right now is shrinking the ground around the existence of god, but there's a bit of ground that's unable to be shrunk.

EDIT: Unfalsifiable is what I was looking for!

The problem is the word 'God'. The theistic christian god is very easy to disprove, the deistic god is barely even a god, and needs not even be intelligent. Not to mention that the soul, afterlife, sin, virgin birth, and the very existence of Jesus are all either disprovable of very iffy.

[k33n]

Thing is, k33n, if there's an omnipotent and omniscient god that wanted to not be found, there's no way we'd be able to find them, because with their omniscience and omnipotence they'd be able to hide themselves from view forever.

Omnipotence and omniscience are fallacies created by the human mind - they have absolutely no bearing on reality.

[Graknorke]

The current position is : sciences says "how", religion says "why".

Well the two are inherently linked. You would have a hard time explaining to someone the 'why' when they don't even know about the 'how' or the 'what'.

[Neonivek]

Thing is, k33n, if there's an omnipotent and omniscient god that wanted to not be found, there's no way we'd be able to find them, because with their omniscience and omnipotence they'd be able to hide themselves from view forever.

Omnipotence and omniscience are fallacies created by the human mind - they have absolutely no bearing on reality.

Unbound omnipotence is a fallacy.

[PanH]

The current position is : sciences says "how", religion says "why".

Well the two are inherently linked. You would have a hard time explaining to someone the 'why' when they don't even know about the 'how' or the 'what'.

Hm, not really ? Like, I can know why you did something (eg. made a rocket to go to space), without knowing how you did it.

The problem is the word 'God'. The theistic christian god is very easy to disprove, the deistic god is barely even a god, and needs not even be intelligent. Not to mention that the soul, afterlife, sin, virgin birth, and the very existence of Jesus are all either disprovable of very iffy.

Nearly all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed (not that he did everything that's in the book). Stuff like theistic god, deistic god, souls, etc can't be disproved : you're not talking about a scientific point of view, but about something that is more philosophical, and you can't disprove most philosophical concepts, you'll just oppose your own.

[k33n]

The problem is the word 'God'. The theistic christian god is very easy to disprove, the deistic god is barely even a god, and needs not even be intelligent. Not to mention that the soul, afterlife, sin, virgin birth, and the very existence of Jesus are all either disprovable of very iffy.

Nearly all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed (not that he did everything that's in the book). Stuff like theistic god, deistic god, souls, etc can't be disproved : you're not talking about a scientific point of view, but about something that is more philosophical, and you can't disprove most philosophical concepts, you'll just oppose your own.

False.

The soul, in the abrahamic definition, is a description of person-hood that survives death. This is a scientific claim about the nature of a person - a person being the memories, opinions, beliefs, actions and essence of a human being. Science has completely proven that these are dependent on the biology and the brain. An injury on the brain can have an affect on these - get hit hard enough and you are a different person.  You lose your memories, and your soul is damaged. You take drugs, and your soul is high. There is no reason to assume that the soul survives the destruction of the brain given these medical facts.

"But wait! What about consciousness?!" you may ask. It is a mystery! It has not been proven to be the brain! Consciousness is the observation of the brains activity, the senses and the brain's processes feed into it, but in no way is it the person. Without the body, with the flesh and the sensory organs and brain destroyed, the consciousnesses is just a null point, absent of the human mind, and unthinking. That is the only room left for the soul to belong, and at this point it doesn't even really seem like a soul.

Without the soul the entire theology of abrahamic religion comes crashing down.

edit: the only wiggle room that theology has is blind, uncaring mathematics as the god who created the universe, and counciousness maybe as some dead and unfeeling universal force that the animal brain taps into for computing. No afterlife, no magic, no prayer, no super powers.

[PanH]

False.

The soul, in the abrahamic definition, is a description of person-hood that survives death. This is a scientific claim about the nature of a person - a person being the memories, opinions, beliefs, actions and essence of a human being. Science has completely proven that these are dependent on the biology and the brain. An injury on the brain can have an affect on these - get hit hard enough and you are a different person.  You lose your memories, and your soul is damaged. You take drugs, and your soul is high. There is no reason to assume that the soul survives the destruction of the brain given these medical facts.

"But wait! What about consciousness?!" you may ask. It is a mystery! It has not been proven to be the brain! Consciousness is the observation of the brains activity, the senses and the brain's processes feed into it, but in no way is it the person. Without the body, with the flesh and the sensory organs and brain destroyed, the consciousnesses is just a null point, absent of the human mind, and unthinking. That is the only room left for the soul to belong, and at this point it doesn't even really seem like a soul.

Without the soul the entire theology of abrahamic religion comes crashing down.

edit: the only wiggle room that theology has is blind, uncaring mathematics as the god who created the universe, and counciousness maybe as some dead and unfeeling universal force that the animal brain taps into for computing. No afterlife, no magic, no prayer, no super powers.

Your definition is quite funny, because it's a really recent concept that the soul is immortal. In its first Jewish definitions (inspired by the Greeks), there was not a body AND a soul, but a body becoming a soul upon living (God breathing into it transforming the body into soul). A soul was not even considered immortal ! There's various beliefs about it nowadays (the most popular is that the soul is indeed immortal) including immortality through grace, etc.

If you want a definition of the soul, I'm going to take a christian one (Augustine) : "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body"
The most recent of the Catholic church is :
"In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. "

[k33n]

Your definition is quite funny, because it's a really recent concept that the soul is immortal. In its first Jewish definitions (inspired by the Greeks), there was not a body AND a soul, but a body becoming a soul upon living (God breathing into it transforming the body into soul). A soul was not even considered immortal ! There's various beliefs about it nowadays (the most popular is that the soul is indeed immortal) including immortality through grace, etc.

If you want a definition of the soul, I'm going to take a christian one (Augustine) : "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body"
The most recent of the Catholic church is :
"In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. "

Recent being several thousand years? Either way you haven't addressed my points and they stand. There is no afterlife, and thus christianty is false.

[Graknorke]

The current position is : sciences says "how", religion says "why".

Well the two are inherently linked. You would have a hard time explaining to someone the 'why' when they don't even know about the 'how' or the 'what'.

Hm, not really ? Like, I can know why you did something (eg. made a rocket to go to space), without knowing how you did it.

Yes you can, but it won't have any significance. It would be a surface-deep knowledge rather than an understanding.

[Gentlefish]

up-goer five, away!

[PanH]

Recent being several thousand years? Either way you haven't addressed my points and they stand. There is no afterlife, and thus christianty is false.

Recent being from 10th to 16th centuries (for it to become the most important part of the believers).
Your point doesn't stand, because you are not talking about the definition those religions are using, but about the definition you think they are using. Ever heard about "soul sleep" ? Or "soul death" ?
I believe there is no afterlife, but that doesn't make it impossible. Just very unlikely (imo).

[Orange Wizard]

Um.

Just came back to this thread.

There is no afterlife, and thus christianty is false.

What.

Just a few pages back, people were citing their sources and having (mostly) rational discourse.

Guys, don't do the Greek philosopher thing and assume everything can be determined by mental deduction. And if you're going to make leaps in logic, please back it up.

[k33n]

Um.

Just came back to this thread.

There is no afterlife, and thus christianty is false.

What.

Just a few pages back, people were citing their sources and having (mostly) rational discourse.

Guys, don't do the Greek philosopher thing and assume everything can be determined by mental deduction. And if you're going to make leaps in logic, please back it up.

Interesting, and nearly an ad-hom. I backed it up, you just tuned it out. I would be willing to debate the idea, but only if you are willing to read.