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

[Orange Wizard]

I know.

[Frumple]

Yeah, more or less. There's something to be said about the psychological comfort it grants some people, and there are inklings in neuroscience that we're physiologically inclined towards that sort of thinking to some degree, iirc, but no, there's not substantially meaningful justification for that sort of belief.

E: It can be pretty fun to talk about, though. There's value in that.

[Baffler]

Does the scriptural narrative - which is the only basis for believe in the christian god besides personal revelation - have any validly over other tribal and superstitious claims? No. Is there any evidence that this world, universe, or mankind was created? No, in fact the evidence disproves this. Is there evidence that there is an afterlife? No, I think the opposite is true, as I have been trying to discuss. Is it likely that a being of infinite complexity acreated then created the universe, or is it more likely that the universe acreated? Given the nature of quantum foam, the latter is very likely.

Christianity is the believe that a 'loving' god created us sick and demands for us to become well on pain of eternal punishment. It is the religion that says the only chance we have is a cage trap hallway in which we are best ignoring so we don't suffer forever. It is a religious believe system that has no more validity then any other.

I might add that I was a faithful christian for too much f my life, and this fact informs my repulsion. Despite my feelings about the religion itself I don't feel strongly against followers of it.

You misunderstand. I'd like to see the evidence that disproves these things, not simply be informed it exists. More importantly, I would like you to show how this evidence supports your claims. "Because quantum foam" doesn't explain why the universe was not created by God. Even looking into quantum foam myself, I can't see anything in it that suggests the universe was not created by God.

I can see where you're coming from though, on the lack of validity. If you disregard "tribal superstition," anyway. Dismissing the fundamental ideas behind an ideology as silly and irrelevant is an extraordinarily convenient way of making the ideology as a whole seem silly and irrelevant though, I'll give you that.

[Frumple]

Now, now, be specific. The concept of the soul is irrelevant to science and empiricism, not necessarily everything.

Mind you, most everything else isn't going to be held in equal regard until they manage something along the lines of a steam engine or penicillin or whatev', but that doesn't mean it's not there, and plenty of people prefer to put their trust in things not empirically verifiable. They're generally considered silly people and sometimes thrown in jail for getting folks killed (see: death toll of exorcisms), but they are what they are.

Maybe some point in the future the concept will actually become relevant, as observational capabilities expand. It's... incredibly doubtful, and near impossible, but it could happen.

... regardless, christianity [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible]doesn't really teach the doctrine of the immortal soul[/url], so outside of non-biblical interpretations of the concept I guess it's also largely irrelevant to this thread :V

[Baffler]

I was speaking in the broader sense of things like this, not on the subject of the soul specifically. I'm going to stay out of that discussion, I think.

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.

[Orange Wizard]

... regardless, christianity doesn't really teach the doctrine of the immortal soul, so outside of non-biblical interpretations of the concept I guess it's also largely irrelevant to this thread :V

We do, however, have verses like the one in Psalms (I think) that go along the lines of "I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever", and Jesus' line "today you will dine with me in paradise". There's also stuff in Revelation, but I'm hesitant in using that as evidence. Still, even if the idea of a "soul" isn't relevant, it sounds like an afterlife is.

[TheDarkStar]

... regardless, christianity [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible]doesn't really teach the doctrine of the immortal soul[/url], so outside of non-biblical interpretations of the concept I guess it's also largely irrelevant to this thread :V

Isn't there some stuff in 1 Corinthians 15? There's also a reference in the Old Testament (I can't remember what book, but it's the verse that talks about how God knew the prophet that he was talking to before he was born/conceived; it's in the first chapter in the first few verses, though) that says a similar thing.

PPE: Also, yeah, the stuff said to the other people dying on the cross.

[scrdest]

... regardless, christianity doesn't really teach the doctrine of the immortal soul, so outside of non-biblical interpretations of the concept I guess it's also largely irrelevant to this thread :V

Jesus' line "today you will dine with me in paradise".

Oh jeez. My brain just made the connection with the 300 line. CANNOT UNSEE!

[Gnorm]

Does the scriptural narrative - which is the only basis for believe in the christian god besides personal revelation - have any validly over other tribal and superstitious claims? No.

The Scriptures followed by the Christian people are believed to have been inspired by God, thus the Saved believe in them. That's what faith is. A Christian is going to believe in the Bible over any Pagan superstitions because he is a Christian. That you're arguing with Christians—or those with knowledge on what Christians believe—seems to have escaped your thoughts.

Is there any evidence that this world, universe, or mankind was created? No, in fact the evidence disproves this.

Your purported evidence is merely a statement that scientists theorize a means by which the world came to be. If you truly believe that you are in possession of hard evidence that will cause the established Christian religion to collapse, you certainly seem to either be withholding this evidence or are doing a terrible job of showing this evidence. Explain then, more thoroughly, how we have proven that Man and the world are not created; that no divine hand had any part in their formation in any way; that they formed purely by chance.

Is there evidence that there is an afterlife? No, I think the opposite is true, as I have been trying to discuss.

You have put more thought and argument into this, I will admit—I would not use the phrase "discuss," myself—so I will entertain you with an answer. You have argued that the soul cannot exist, for the mind and chemical make-up of the body control how one acts, thinks, and lives. You are correct that much of what is controlled by the brain was once attributed to the soul, but now that wee have more knowledge, such attributions can be removed. We are still, however, left with the fundamentals: that within every human being—saved or unsaved—has something inside him; a breath of life from God as a part of him that lives on through death. This is outside of the field of science, but you have refused to acknowledge this part of the soul in your arguments.

The human body was left imperfect after the Fall, thus its inner workings will vary, they will change, and they will break. But still the soul lives on, and is believed by the faithful to be immortal—barring a minority group which is inclined to disagree.

Is it likely that a being of infinite complexity acreated then created the universe, or is it more likely that the universe acreated? Given the nature of quantum foam, the latter is very likely.

I don't know; you seem to be the quantum foam expert here. Explain how this quantum foam is able to use made-up verbs to form the universe by its own will. I don't know anything about quantum foam, but I'm not inclined to believe whatever fancy-sounding words are thrown about just because they sound scientific.

Christianity is the believe that a 'loving' god created us sick and demands for us to become well on pain of eternal punishment.

Christianity states that God created us perfect in His image, but that He gave us free will. Our forebears were given a choice, and made the choice to defy their nature and allow Sin to enter Mankind. Christianity is also the belief that God continued to stand by His creation, entering into a covenant with Abram to father the Jewish people, and then sending a part of Himself to the world to undergo sacrifice to wash away the sins of the believers. Christianity is also the belief that the faithful will, when the time comes, be caught up into the clouds to be in Heaven, and that they will live eternally in the New Jerusalem.

I don't know about you, but such actions seem fairly loving to me.

It is the religion that says the only chance we have is a cage trap hallway in which we are best ignoring so we don't suffer forever.

I am honestly not sure what you are trying to say.

It is a religious believe system that has no more validity then any other.

How so? The supernatural aspects must be taken upon one's faith, but Christ hasn't any teachings that ought not be followed. Christ teaches generosity, humility, and peace to Man. With what do you disagree?

I might add that I was a faithful christian for too much f my life, and this fact informs my repulsion. Despite my feelings about the religion itself I don't feel strongly against followers of it.

How can you claim to have no strong feelings against Christians when you admit to feeling repulsion at the very thought of being part of the religion? In any case, you certainly have no strong feelings against going to the Christian discussion thread to argue that certain doctrines are inherently wrong because of mostly unrelated and unexplained reasons.

[scrdest]

1) A bit tautological. A Christian believes in the Bible, because he's a Christian. He's a Christian because he believes in the Bible, if he didn't, he wouldn't be a Christian.

2) 'Purely by chance' is a loaded term in these kinda discussions. Also, at the current state of knowledge divine intervention in how humanity came to be has been reduced to unfalsifiable claims.

3) If you remove consciousness from the equation, you've essentially removed everything that would make having - and saving - a soul worthwhile. If it's not linked to the personality, it's in essence no different from a more ethereal version of, say, isolated electrical potential of all the cells in your body.

5) There are tons of problems, notably the fact that it's downright abusive: God's asking people to atone for making him angry by not doing as he told you, and if you don't atone well enough, well, he's gonna have to divinely smack a bitch by sending you to a place of endless torment.

[BlindKitty]

1) A bit tautological. A Christian believes in the Bible, because he's a Christian. He's a Christian because he believes in the Bible, if he didn't, he wouldn't be a Christian.

2) 'Purely by chance' is a loaded term in these kinda discussions. Also, at the current state of knowledge divine intervention in how humanity came to be has been reduced to unfalsifiable claims.

3) If you remove consciousness from the equation, you've essentially removed everything that would make having - and saving - a soul worthwhile. If it's not linked to the personality, it's in essence no different from a more ethereal version of, say, isolated electrical potential of all the cells in your body.

5) There are tons of problems, notably the fact that it's downright abusive: God's asking people to atone for making him angry by not doing as he told you, and if you don't atone well enough, well, he's gonna have to divinely smack a bitch by sending you to a place of endless torment.

Ad. 1 This is not a tautology, this is pretty much the definition... One believes in the Bible <=> one is Christian. And since Bible states that tribal superstitions are false, than you do not believe them if you believe in Bible. The same argument can be made from the other side, because tribesmen probably believe in whatever they believe, not the Bible. Why should a person trying to choose which to believe decide one over another? This is that person's decision; if there was (as was multiple times explained...) some irrefutable proof that God exists, obvious to all, there would be no merit in believing. You do not believe in what you know; you simply know that. The fact that you can choose what to believe is pretty central to the Christianity.

Ad. 2 Again (and again, and again) if it was possible to prove beyond any doubt that God had a hand in creating humanity/world/universe/whatever, there would be no merit in belief.

Ad. 3 So, if a person suffers brain damage due to some kind of accident, and their personality changes, that person is no longer the same person as before? Are they two different people, who just happened to live in the same body one after another? Because it seems to me that personality can change over time, and soul is a part of a person that keeps the silly teenager you were and the serious older man you are now the same person, even if they make radically different decisions. So after a body dies, the person lives on, in form of the soul, until the Judgment Day.

Ad. 4 I think something got lost here?

Ad. 5 You are trying to imply here that God's rules are arbitrary, while they are not. Following your line of reasoning, you could state that parents are abusive when they want their kid to not inject heroin into their veins, and the countries are abusive for putting murders in jail...

[Helgoland]

Isn't 1) only partially true for Catholics? IIRC what the Vatican says is more important than what's written in the bible, if only because the Vatican's interpretation is kinda binding...

[Il Palazzo]

Ad. 2 Again (and again, and again) if it was possible to prove beyond any doubt that God had a hand in creating humanity/world/universe/whatever, there would be no merit in belief.

That's the whole point, though. That there is no merit in belief. Pretending to know something you can't possibly know is just not right.

[scrdest]

@BlindKitty

1) My point exactly. It's a bit tangential, sorry, I had literally two hours of sleep today. But anyway, it's sorta circular-reasoningy. You believe that the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says so, which you believe... yeah.

2) It's not about proving God real, it's about the fact that such claims couldn't ever be DISPROVED. At the level of knowledge we have, any interference by God would have to be as subtle as to be imperceptible, so it's kinda like I told you I have an invisible, intangible, non-heat-emitting, massless dragon in my garage. You can either take my word for it or not, and I might or might not be wrong. And then I'll tell you the invisible dragon demands virgin sacrifices to prevent the end of the world, so you have to decide either way.

3) It's an ooooold dilemma, and using soul as a stopgap here is an old Platonic trick, but then by the same logic you'd have to go all the way and claim that inanimate objects also have souls to maintain their identity.

4) Left out on purpose, I didn't have anything relevant to say.

5) Presuming God as an omnipotent creator, yes, they are by their very nature arbitrary. If they weren't, it would imply that God's subject to a higher-tier rules, making him non-omnipotent. And I utterly fail to see how some of the nuttier OT rules are for your own benefit in any significant way.

[TD1]

A child wakes up one morning and says: "Mummy! I have just had a conversation with my friend! He was in my room last night, talked to me, and I talked to him."

The mother says "That's ridiculous! You didn't have any friends up" then realises it's an imaginary friend. She knows it's not true, but can't refute it because the child is certain in his "knowledge"

You would justify what the child says over the mother's scepticism because it "constitutes significant articles of faith" that the child maintains his belief.

So, you come in and tell the child that, regardless of what the mother thinks, he does have a real friend, who just so happens to not appear to anyone else. You tell him that there is no evidence whatsoever because it wouldn't be true faith if there was. Faith is just that: something that requires absolutely no facts.

The child grows up believing in something not there. Is this unhealthy? Possibly. Harmful to others? Probably not. Wrong to do? Yes.

It is the same thing when you wake up, go to church and say "Father, I talked to God yesterday and....."