Christian Threats of Damnation

[Pete]

Science theories start with demonstrable evidence and are built of further empirical study. All theories and understanding can change with further evidence. That is science. 

The bible is a bronze age book with nothing more than it's self to justify its nonsense. That is why religion is not science. It does does not change no matter what the evidence against it. It's a bit like other books like the Koran and the book of Morman in this.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Pete

[Pete]

I also note Dan that you say that agnostics and atheists don't believe in nothing. If that was true science would be back in the dark ages. We believe what we see as evidence and as there is no evidence that you can produce other than your  bronze age book then it is reasonable not to believe it. That said, both atheists and agnostics believe in life and caring for people along the way. We just don't ram religious dogma down their throats as we do it. If you can help someone then we believe  that is the human thing to do. We don't need religious books to tell us what we should do.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Science theories start with demonstrable evidence and are built of further empirical study. All theories and understanding can change with further evidence. That is science. 

The bible is a bronze age book with nothing more than it's self to justify its nonsense. That is why religion is not science. It does does not change no matter what the evidence against it. It's a bit like other books like the Koran and the book of Morman in this.

 

 

Yes.  We don't want any silly answer.  We want correct answers, subject to verification.  An honest -- I don't know -- is better than a ludicrous answer.  

 

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, Pete said:

I also note Dan that you say that agnostics and atheists don't believe in nothing. If that was true science would be back in the dark ages. We believe what we see as evidence and as there is no evidence that you can produce other than your  bronze age book then it is reasonable not to believe it. That said, both atheists and agnostics believe in life and caring for people along the way. We just don't ram religious dogma down their throats as we do it. If you can help someone then we believe  that is the human thing to do. We don't need religious books to tell us what we should do.

 

I'm aware that Atheist & Agnostics accept things by evidence, but that doesn't require belief. My inference was that they don't accept anything spiritual, because they reject what can't be proven. You simply trust books that support theories like the big bang, evolution, etc, while I trust another book. Life consist of more than a list of facts that we can prove, there are many unanswered questions, and that's where that old bronze age book fills a void that is absent from the human knowledge base. God exist outside of time, outside of space, and is immaterial, so He is not revealed or defined by scientific method or observation. 

[cuchulain]

Most religious nonsense fills the knowledge gap.  But as we learn more, the religious nonsense fills less and less, shrinking deities are not that impressive.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware that Atheist &

Agnostics accept things by evidence, but that doesn't require belief. My inference was that they don't accept anything spiritual, because they reject what can't be proven. You simply trust books that support theories like the big bang, evolution, etc, while I trust another book. Life consist of more than a list of facts that we can prove, there are many unanswered questions, and that's where that old bronze age book fills a void that is absent from the human knowledge base. God exist outside of time, outside of space, and is immaterial, so He is not revealed or defined by scientific method or observation. 

 

 

You infer a lot.     

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware that Atheist & Agnostics accept things by evidence, but that doesn't require belief. My inference was that they don't accept anything spiritual, because they reject what can't be proven. You simply trust books that support theories like the big bang, evolution, etc, while I trust another book. Life consist of more than a list of facts that we can prove, there are many unanswered questions, and that's where that old bronze age book fills a void that is absent from the human knowledge base. God exist outside of time, outside of space, and is immaterial, so He is not revealed or defined by scientific method or observation. 

In fact God is not revealed full stop. If people have never heard of your religion they often invent another god or no god at all. That is because your god is not evident or revealed. Man kind has evolved to know that they eventually die. So they create myth to calm their fears of this. None  of these myths are provable or evident. It is just a stop gap to them to balancing meaning in their life and the fact that they die. Jung called this process individuation. It is just a mental process. It has no place in scientific thought because you cannot prove the god, the spirit or indeed any life after death. All stories about the god are human inventions. So yes as Jonathan said it is more scientific to say you don't know than fill the gap with myth and psycho babble.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

In fact God is not revealed full stop. If people have never heard of your religion they often invent another god or no god at all. That is because your god is not evident or revealed. Man kind has evolved to know that they eventually die. So they create myth to calm their fears of this. None  of these myths are provable or evident. It is just a stop gap to them to balancing meaning in their life and the fact that they die. Jung called this process individuation. It is just a mental process. It has no place in scientific thought because you cannot prove the god, the spirit or indeed any life after death. All stories about the god are human inventions. So yes as Jonathan said it is more scientific to say you don't know than fill the gap with myth and psycho babble.

 

 

 

This is good.  I would take it further.  Even if everything we know about evolution was proven false.  Even if everything we know about the Big Bang was proven false.  Even if it could be proven, with objective evidence, that a Creator God had been behind it all -- it would still not be proof that Christian Scripture was true -- or that the Christian God was real -- or had anything to do with it.

 

To the contrary.  We would still have Polytheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism and other ideas and beliefs, to select from.  It is not the Abrahamic God or nothing.  That is a false binary.

 

 

 

The following video continues that thought.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

 

[Pete]

I am not sure of the definition of agnostics not knowing what to do with the information.  For me I just don't see any of the religious beliefs as information or accessible In any conclusive evident form. For me there is no credible evidence  and I therefore suspend my knowing to when I can see credible evidence.  That maybe never and I am happy with that. 

One thing for sure for me is I don't feel obligated to anyone's idea of an unproven god.  I may respect people have these beliefs but that is no onus for me to share them. 

In short, whatever rocks your boat, but until you can prove anything,  don't come to me.

I hope you all understand me. I am directing my comments at no one, but possibly Dan.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Pete

[Seeker]

I think there is another form of agnostic, who says that God may or may not exist, but if (s)he does, they are in principle unknowable. We can have no more understanding of God than an ant could have of a whale.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I am not sure of the definition of agnostics not knowing what to do with the information.  For me I just don't see any of the religious beliefs as information or accessible In any conclusive evident form. For me there is no credible evidence  and I therefore suspend my knowing to when I can see credible evidence.  That maybe never and I am happy with that. 

One thing for sure for me is I don't feel obligated to anyone's idea of an unproven god.  I may respect people have these beliefs but that is no onus for me to share them. 

In short, whatever rocks your boat, but until you can prove anything,  don't come to me.

I hope you all understand me. I am directing my comments at no one, but possibly Dan.

 

 

The original meaning, as stated by the words creator -- Thomas Huxley -- was that God was unknowable.  It wasn't meant as personal I don't know.  It was meant as  nobody could know.  In the real world, words change their meaning over time.  It's common for people to self identify with Agnostic in the new -- I don't know sense.

 

To my own experience, I have used the different labels.  I have found that each label becomes the foundation of different silly arguments.

 

When I say Atheist, people want to argue about the burden of proof.  The word, Atheist, simply means -- I don't believe.  Religious people -- people like Dan, insist on hearing something else.  What they insist on hearing is -- I believe that no God/god exists.  When I say Atheist, I also get confronted with mind numbing, stupid arguments about meta-physics.  I'm challenged to prove that God does not exist.  I get outlandishly stupid arguments about Cosmology and the Big Bang -- and Evolution -- as though they were in any way relevant.  You know the rest.  First Cause arguments; Pascal's wager; Objective Morality; the watch maker; all the rest of them.  Silly, stupid arguments.  I don't want to do it any more.  I've lost the fire in the belly.

 

When I say Agnostic, I get different stupid arguments.  Much of it from Atheists.  Arguments about what is knowable.  Arguments about what is probable.  Asking if I'm Agnostic about unicorns and fairies.  Of course the old -- What would it take for you to grow a spine and make up your mind?  The more recent Dawkins scale.  I'm tired and bored with all of it.

 

The label that I have become fond of, is Apatheist.  I don't care whether or not God exists.  A God which can not be detected or discerned is irrelevant and meaningless.  Even the question of God's existence is irrelevant and meaningless.  A silly, metaphysic.  I can't be bothered and I'm done arguing about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 minutes ago, Seeker said:

I think there is another form of agnostic, who says that God may or may not exist, but if (s)he does, they are in principle unknowable. We can have no more understanding of God than an ant could have of a whale.

 

 

Alright.  Let's take your example.  What possible difference could it make to the ant?  Or the whale?

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Seeker said:

I think there is another form of agnostic, who says that God may or may not exist, but if (s)he does, they are in principle unknowable. We can have no more understanding of God than an ant could have of a whale.

That to me is a contradiction.  To say god  is unknowable is to put a qualification on something you don't even know exists or see any evidence for. Okay to say there is similarities to saying you have no evidence for a god and therefore that god is unknowable but that to me is like me saying that there is possibly creatures on the moon sipping tea at the moment but you cannot see them.  Most accept the qualification that if something has no qualities then they don't exist and it is up to the believer to prove otherwise. Which I have not seen anyone do.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

That to me is a contradiction.  To say god  is unknowable is to put a qualification on something you don't even know exists or see any evidence for. Okay to say there is similarities to saying you have no evidence for a god and therefore that god is unknowable but that to me is like me saying that there is possibly creatures on the moon sipping tea at the moment but you cannot see them.  Most accept the qualification that if something has no qualities then they don't exist and it is up to the believer to prove otherwise. Which I have not seen anyone do.

 

 

The position here is that God exists (Theism) -- but -- is unknowable  (Agnosticism).

 

That is Theistic Agnosticism.  Or Agnostic Theism.  

 

The position of non-belief is Agnostic Atheism.  Or Atheist Agnosticism.  

 

Oh, the hours I've wasted caring about this stuff.   All that hair splitting.    

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

My position is how can we talk about the nature of a god when one has not established that there is one.

Does Santa Claus really wear red and white or the older traditions of browns and greens?

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

48 minutes ago, Pete said:

My position is how can we talk about the nature of a god when one has not established that there is one.

Does Santa Claus really wear red and white or the older traditions of browns and greens?

 

 

 

 

 

My answer to that is simple.  Since Santa only exists as an expression of culture -- what Santa wears depends on that culture.   It would be different if Santa actually existed.

 

I remember looking at a department store Christmas display.  I found myself thinking -- "This is silly.  They don't know the difference between a gnome and an elf."   Neither gnomes nor elves exist -- but I can tell the difference.  

 

For that matter, I don't believe in the Devil.  But he exists in culture.  We all know what he looks like.           

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Yet, in many films the devil appears in many forms. Because there is no recognizable evidence other than culture I guess that gives people artistic license. 

As there is no recognizable evidence other than culture then I am sure there is artistic license.  Yet, artistic license is not evidence of an accurate description, so for me, until there are qualities to truly discuss then I suspend the knowing about a god  or its qualities. 

[Dan56]

18 hours ago, Pete said:

In fact God is not revealed full stop. If people have never heard of your religion they often invent another god or no god at all. That is because your god is not evident or revealed. Man kind has evolved to know that they eventually die. So they create myth to calm their fears of this. None  of these myths are provable or evident. It is just a stop gap to them to balancing meaning in their life and the fact that they die. Jung called this process individuation. It is just a mental process. It has no place in scientific thought because you cannot prove the god, the spirit or indeed any life after death. All stories about the god are human inventions. So yes as Jonathan said it is more scientific to say you don't know than fill the gap with myth and psycho babble.

 

God is Spirit, so He is not seen, but Christians believe that God was revealed through Christ. God is revealed in His works,  in His Word, and in  events.  “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him. But God hath revealed it unto us by his Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10).  As Jesus told Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (john 14:9). But of course, belief and faith are necessary components.

 

13 hours ago, Seeker said:

I think there is another form of agnostic, who says that God may or may not exist, but if (s)he does, they are in principle unknowable. We can have no more understanding of God than an ant could have of a whale.

 

That's true, but what they miss is that God is knowable in Christ. We understand God through Christ. Seeing is not the real proof, understanding is. Of course, we can't fathom the depths of God (Isaiah 55:8-9), but we can learn enough through His Word to know Him.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Yet, in many films the devil appears in many forms. Because there is no recognizable evidence other than culture I guess that gives people artistic license. 

As there is no recognizable evidence other than culture then I am sure there is artistic license.  Yet, artistic license is not evidence of an accurate description, so for me, until there are qualities to truly discuss then I suspend the knowing about a god  or its qualities. 

 

 

   Of course.  Imaginary beings are subject to creative imagination.  In different movies, George Burns played both God and the Devil.   In both instances, an excellent performance.  Not really proof of anything supernatural. 

   

 

Not so well done --   -- Santa Claus meets the Martians.  Also, not proof of anything.  🎅   👽