At 8/25/10 06:53 PM, Imperator wrote: Wondering what you guys think, and what your responses would be.

You know who also loves you?

Nurgle.

Provided you submit to him and accept his blessing, of course.

"In Nurgle's case, the source of power is the livings' fear of inevitable death and disease, and their unconscious response to that fear, which is the "power of life", the motivating power of mankind and other races. "

"His daemon servants and mortal followers usually demonstrate a disturbing joviality and joy at the pestilence that he inflicts, seeing the plagues as gifts and the cries of their victims as gratitude rather than agony."

"He is often referred to as Grandfather Nurgle, Father Nurgle or Papa Nurgle by his followers because of his paternal nature. "

- Lexicanum

I kissed a Spawn, and I liked it.

At 8/25/10 07:38 PM, zephiran wrote: You know who also loves you?

Nurgle.

Your god is FALSE!

I was thinking of posting Nahum 1:2-8, and then writing "....but he loves you!", as my homage to George Carlin.

At 8/25/10 06:53 PM, Imperator wrote:
Sounded like flowery Christian speak that dances around and doesn't actually make a clear point.

I think the main idea is that religion is not so much about the institute and how much you go to church and all. Religion is just something along the lines of a feeling. You shouldn't have faith in God because some people tell you to, but because you can feel He's real.

In the universe, there are always elements of awe and you can't just gaze at the stars and say "Oh just a collection of atoms, big deal." As a scientist it helps to at least think there is a greater scheme behind everything, even if you wilfully know that it's probably BS. Science without religion is dumb, remember?

At 8/25/10 08:16 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: In the universe, there are always elements of awe and you can't just gaze at the stars and say "Oh just a collection of atoms, big deal." As a scientist it helps to at least think there is a greater scheme behind everything, even if you wilfully know that it's probably BS. Science without religion is dumb, remember?

I think we can lose religion, or what is typically thought of when the word is used, and the universe will still be beautiful.

I think Einstein would agree. Feel free to interpret differently though.

But don't change the subject. We were talking about my magic sandwich....

At 8/25/10 08:16 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: In the universe, there are always elements of awe and you can't just gaze at the stars and say "Oh just a collection of atoms, big deal."

Well... you can... and people do, but its not cause they know its a collection of atoms. And there are tons of people who don't know shit about thing x and still aren't amazed by it.

Awe is not necessarily naive.
Knowledge does not extinguish joy or interest.

So fuck you for that one.

At 8/26/10 02:55 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Awe is not necessarily naive.
Knowledge does not extinguish joy or interest.

So fuck you for that one.

No.

You just insult people who don't think the way you do over something, that according to you, doesn't make a damn bit of difference; even if it means they lose "awe" and "happiness."

At 8/26/10 03:05 AM, Memorize wrote: You just insult people who don't think the way you do over something, that according to you, doesn't make a damn bit of difference

ceci nest pas une pipe

even if it means they lose "awe" and "happiness."

Except... Awe is not necessarily naive. Knowledge does not extinguish joy or interest. Or if you want to adjust the context, being an atheist doesn't automatically make one jaded and miserable - so no, it's not implicit in my positions that people should lose awe or happiness.

At 8/26/10 02:55 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Awe is not necessarily naive.
Knowledge does not extinguish joy or interest.

So fuck you for that one.

I wouldn't necessarily claim you have to be a theist to enjoy stuff. But people should still be allowed to fill in the background with whatever they want.

am i too late for the q and a?

At 8/25/10 07:55 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/25/10 07:38 PM, zephiran wrote: You know who also loves you?

Nurgle.

Your god is FALSE!

But I can feel him rotting my heart! He's decaying my mind! What is your proof that this isn't happening? You can see his power by observing an animate thing, and how it rots! This is SCIENTIFIC fact, are you trying to prove SCIENCE wrong?

LOL LOOK AT THE CRAZY BLUEBERRY TRYING TO DISPUTE MY SCIENCE!

I was thinking of posting Nahum 1:2-8, and then writing "....but he loves you!", as my homage to George Carlin.

I've been looking for that passage, bookmark'd for further reference.

At 8/26/10 09:10 AM, zephiran wrote:

But I can feel him rotting my heart! He's decaying my mind! What is your proof that this isn't happening? You can see his power by observing an animate thing, and how it rots! This is SCIENTIFIC fact, are you trying to prove SCIENCE wrong?

Don't change the subject. We were talking about the magic sandwich.

This is what you anti-magicsandwichists always do. Change the subject.
Now what is your proof and evidence that amagicsandichism is accurate and true?

Of course, from a philosophical point of view, what is more interesting is to pose the question:
In a fight between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the cancer curing Magic Sandwich, who would win?

thus was born the holiest of holy wars

At 8/25/10 07:55 PM, Imperator wrote: Your god is FALSE!

That video did pose an interesting thought about TC, other than he's a troll by nature simply because he can't understand anything he argues and thinks pine cones disprove evolution.

The thing that came to mind is, he appears to be using the exact same logic and rational thinking as some atheists do, but he does not for his own personal god.

How can he use one method of thinking for every other god but a different method for his own?

Odd, isn't it?

I have a question, and I know I'm probably not the first one to think of something like this, but I was just wondering: What if God created the world, intending for evolution to take place? Why can't the two beliefs coexist?

At 8/26/10 05:11 PM, Scarface wrote: Why can't the two beliefs coexist?

Because one is an establishment of scientific inquiry and the other is an unconfirmed belief.

The second reason is the coexisting would prove when a new discovery is made, the religious just accept it, alter their beliefs and say "god did it".

At 8/26/10 05:33 PM, The-universe wrote:
The second reason is the coexisting would prove when a new discovery is made, the religious just accept it, alter their beliefs and say "god did it".

It's not all that black and white, though. Wasn't the Big Bang theory credited to a priest?

At 8/26/10 11:21 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/26/10 09:10 AM, zephiran wrote:

SCIENCE

Don't change the subject. We were talking about the magic sandwich.

My Great Unclean Father is truer than your sandwich!

This is what you anti-magicsandwichists always do. Change the subject.
Now what is your proof and evidence that antimagicsandwichism is accurate and true?

LOL MOLD.

Of course, from a philosophical point of view, what is more interesting is to pose the question:
In a fight between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the cancer curing Magic Sandwich, who would win?

KHAIOS.

thus was born the holiest of holy wars

You play the Red Queen and I play the White Queen?

At 8/26/10 05:11 PM, Scarface wrote: I have a question, and I know I'm probably not the first one to think of something like this, but I was just wondering: What if God created the world, intending for evolution to take place? Why can't the two beliefs coexist?

Because anti-theists think supernatural entities are unnecessary and harmful, and really hardcore theists think supernatural entities are great and awesome.

Thus, conflict.

I'm totally FINE with attributing the creation of the universe to a demiurge, call it Rex Mundi or whatever, it's a simple way to defuse any confrontation with regular people who also happen to have an active "spiritual" belief, even if it probably IS bonkeyschtick.

But when I find people who say stuff like "Evolution isn't science!" _I_ see red.

It gives me a nice little PURPOSE, a SIDEQUEST to go out of my way to confront and verbally abuse people like these, because it feels GOOD.

"It's not like these are real, thinking people, they protest stuff like homosexuality, social liberalism and green technology!"

They make perfect antagonists!

And I'm pretty sure "they" feel the same way about "us", they LIKE getting the same smug satisfaction of beating down people that are less informed! It's like the lottery, but you win almost every time, and who doesn't like being a winner?

At 8/26/10 05:25 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: I wouldn't necessarily claim you have to be a theist to enjoy stuff. But people should still be allowed to fill in the background with whatever they want.

I guess since this is the response to my last post that I must believe that people shouldn't be allowed to fill in the background with whatever they want. Fancy that. I had no clue I was such a freedom hater on top of being miserable and jaded.

At 8/26/10 03:06 PM, The-universe wrote: The thing that came to mind is, he appears to be using the exact same logic and rational thinking as some atheists do, but he does not for his own personal god.

How can he use one method of thinking for every other god but a different method for his own?

You mean the exact same point made here?

Read my posts, read Pox's posts.

It's almost like we know....

Odd, isn't it?

To repeat, there's a word for that: morons.

At 8/26/10 06:16 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I guess since this is the response to my last post that I must believe that people shouldn't be allowed to fill in the background with whatever they want. Fancy that. I had no clue I was such a freedom hater on top of being miserable and jaded.

You forgot cold and emotionless.
See, we're not actually atheist, we're just looking for that one awe inspiring miracle to happen in our lives and open our eyes.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want any sort of vision of hell, guardian angel, or white light to come down, when Dionysus/Bacchus is just as plausible, and has the added bonus of being the god of getting shit-faced.

That'd be my mystical event to "bring me to the light"; Dio coming down and throwing a massive party with endless booze and debauchery.

I don't know why anyone would want a vision of the Judeo-Christian asshole, with a stick so far up his ass he has St. Peter sitting at the gate to run his bureaucratic bullshit check lists and hand out Heaven entrance form 3-B.

At 8/26/10 05:58 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: It's not all that black and white, though. Wasn't the Big Bang theory credited to a priest?

He's like Darwin. He didn't originated the processes that went into the theory nor is he the only contributor. Just someone you associate with the study, I suppose. Unless he was proposing idea's for the Big bang at age 16 and someone forgot to mention his name.

But that doesn't really address my point, my point is most believers will alter their interpretation of their religion when new knowledge arises. I've heard Muslims and Christians say the Big Bang was God's/Allah's doing and you must have a 'true' interpretation of scripture to see it, how many were saying that before the Big Bang was thought up? None.

That's because we rely heavily on knowledge and arguing against it with scripture is suicide. So to seem more legit they just switch their views around to incorporate it and say "we knew that all along".

At 8/26/10 07:18 PM, Imperator wrote: You mean the exact same point made here?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will now use the little free time I spend on this site rigorously following your posts so I don't utter something you've already said.

Besides, who in their right mind would listen to zoraxe? All he does is post the same links/pictures that he hasn't bothered to check or research, while the rare reply to an atheist goes along the lines of "well.... Stalin was bad, so take that!"

He's either unbelievably dishonest, knowing what he's saying is the purest of crap, or he's ridiculously stupid.

At 8/27/10 04:58 PM, The-universe wrote:

He's like Darwin. He didn't originated the processes that went into the theory nor is he the only contributor.

Excuse to justify an idiotic mindset that religious people can't or never could contribute to science in general.

I notice you didn't name who Darwin's natural selection came from.

But why would you if it, at the time, came from some delusional devout Christian?

At 8/27/10 04:58 PM, The-universe wrote: Just someone you associate with the study, I suppose. Unless he was proposing idea's for the Big bang at age 16 and someone forgot to mention his name.

Well, he was an astronomer and knew certain theories, took observations, did some calculations and formed a few hypotheses. Other people went along with it and that theory became the big bang model. But the guy was a scientist/astronomer and did research stuff and lecture people about it, as a priest in a catholic university.
He also had discussion with other scientists and so on.

But that doesn't really address my point, my point is most believers will alter their interpretation of their religion when new knowledge arises.

Though, I try to point out that believers won't just alter their theories because they can't circumvent science that has been stated. They can actively "abandon" scripture before the theories and postulate theories themselves. This goes against the idea that religion necessarilly means that science has to be stuffed away and only God may reign until enough voices arise so they have to find something. Even in the early ages, when religion was remarkably strong, religious people were encouraged to do science and find stuff out. Essentially, religion doesn't exclude science and religious reasoning doesn't exclude scientific reasoning. You can very well do both.
I would not claim, though, that every religious person wants to reason scientifically.

That's because we rely heavily on knowledge and arguing against it with scripture is suicide. So to seem more legit they just switch their views around to incorporate it and say "we knew that all along".

Well, yeah. but then you get to the point of what is actually been stated. Is the Bible a primordial science book, or a moralistic work?

At 8/27/10 06:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Well, he was an astronomer and knew certain theories, took observations, did some calculations and formed a few hypotheses. Other people went along with it and that theory became the big bang model. But the guy was a scientist/astronomer and did research stuff and lecture people about it, as a priest in a catholic university.
He also had discussion with other scientists and so on.

Your point? I've already stated, this has nothing to do with my point. My second point was, how is he more relevant than the other thousands of scientists who have and still are contributing to the research? He wasn't the originator of the research that went into it nor the the soul contributor.

Though, I try to point out that believers won't just alter their theories because they can't circumvent science that has been stated. They can actively "abandon" scripture before the theories and postulate theories themselves. This goes against the idea that religion necessarilly means that science has to be stuffed away and only God may reign until enough voices arise so they have to find something. Even in the early ages, when religion was remarkably strong, religious people were encouraged to do science and find stuff out. Essentially, religion doesn't exclude science and religious reasoning doesn't exclude scientific reasoning. You can very well do both.
I would not claim, though, that every religious person wants to reason scientifically.

I never said that science has to be stuffed away, nor did I say they can't abandon nor adhere to reason.

What I am saying is; 500 years ago, would any Christian say that god created the Big bang? No, because we haven't discovered it then (1910 I think was the earliest).

So how can Christians today say God made the Big Bang? Because it has been discovered and all they did was adjust their interpretation (compared to those 500 years ago) to incorperate the new knowledge. All the other reasons for someone alteingr/abandoning their faith is utterly irrelevant because I'm not talking about any other group except the sane ones who aren't young earth creationists and sign petitions to get kent hovind out of jail.

Well, yeah. but then you get to the point of what is actually been stated. Is the Bible a primordial science book, or a moralistic work?

Both and more, but that's my point. They interpret it the way they want to. In this case, it's to do with science.

At 8/27/10 05:09 PM, Memorize wrote: Excuse to justify an idiotic mindset that religious people can't or never could contribute to science in general.

Quote mine. Never said that.

The really funny part is I have a video's about Ken Miller (a catholic) in the favourites section of my youtube channel. I'm also subscribed to several Christians on there.

I notice you didn't name who Darwin's natural selection came from.

Because I was making a point, not giving a history lesson. Which is something you've totally missed, by a mile.

But why would you if it, at the time, came from some delusional devout Christian?

When you actually address what I've said, then I'll answer. Until then, I'm telling you what I told you in April, "so long as you act like a troll, you will be treated like a troll"

At 8/27/10 06:54 PM, The-universe wrote: My second point was, how is he more relevant than the other thousands of scientists who have and still are contributing to the research?

I haven't said he is more relevant or anything. I just want to point out he's a priest and a very skilled scientist as well. And he had a theory that might as well be as shocking as evolution.

What I am saying is; 500 years ago, would any Christian say that god created the Big bang? No, because we haven't discovered it then (1910 I think was the earliest).

Would any non-Christian have brought it up? No, cause no-one had discovered it yet.

So how can Christians today say God made the Big Bang?

What Christians say is not entirely new. For quite a while, quite a few Christians have conceded God didn't literally yell "There is light" and suddenly there was light and creation took 7 days. The idea that the world behaves the way we observe is because essentially that's how God made it, is not exactly new. Finding the Big Bang does fit in there neatly. Just not for people who said "Oh, but surely there was no Big Bang ever since God wouldn't allow it."

They interpret it the way they want to. In this case, it's to do with science.

Yeah they do, so?

At 8/27/10 07:05 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I haven't said he is more relevant or anything. I just want to point out he's a priest and a very skilled scientist as well. And he had a theory that might as well be as shocking as evolution.

So tell me why then it has to do with anything I've stated.

I'll let you know, it doesn't.

Would any non-Christian have brought it up? No, cause no-one had discovered it yet.

It's a good thing we're not talking about non-Christians.

What Christians say is not entirely new. For quite a while, quite a few Christians have conceded God didn't literally yell "There is light" and suddenly there was light and creation took 7 days. The idea that the world behaves the way we observe is because essentially that's how God made it, is not exactly new. Finding the Big Bang does fit in there neatly. Just not for people who said "Oh, but surely there was no Big Bang ever since God wouldn't allow it."

It's not new, but you still haven't address my point.

Would people 500 years ago say the big bang was caused by god? No.

Do some of them say it now? Yes.

Therefore all they're doing is just altering their beliefs when a new discovery is made.

You can't argue the fact that they don't do it simply because either the Bible would have explicitly mentioned it or they would all still be denying it. Which neither is the case.

Yeah they do, so?

Then there is nothing to stop them from just absorbing the new information and reinterpreting their beliefs. You have to stretch pretty damn far to correlate "God created the heavens and the earth" with "rapid expansion of space 13.7 billion years ago consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium".

There is no passage anywhere in the Bible describing or explaining anything in the big bang model. So instead all they do is just alter their interpretation to make the blocks fit.

At 8/27/10 07:05 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Would any non-Christian have brought it up? No, cause no-one had discovered it yet.

Assimilation and accommodation aren't inherently bad things and Universe certainly doesn't seem to be treating them as bad things. So why does this phrasing seem to be attempting to 'level the playing field'?

At 8/26/10 05:11 PM, Scarface wrote: I have a question, and I know I'm probably not the first one to think of something like this, but I was just wondering: What if God created the world, intending for evolution to take place? Why can't the two beliefs coexist?

They can. It's just dishonest and hypocritical.

The phenomenon you're using as an extension of God's hand is not the full implication of God's existence. And while the phenomenon is evident (or sometimes self-evident), God's existence is not. Furthermore, the implications of God's existence are arbitrary, because they are not evident.

By example, (but not so much by analogy)...
1. Things fall down when I drop them.
2. Science attributes this to gravity, however, it's God behind the scenes making sure gravity works right.
3. God also wants me to stop eating pork.
4. Since things fall down when I drop them, I will stop eating pork.

Anything supernatural will always be able to co-exist with anything falsifiable, because you can always make up some way for it to fit. Juxtaposing the supernatural with the natural in such a way as you are doing it is an underhanded means to paint the supernatural as something more than imaginary.

And that's regardless of whether you realize it's underhanded or not.

I see this in a lot (NOT all or most) of atheists attitudes, they translate "god doesn't exist" into "be pissed and take it out on everything else, cuz it feels good"

That shit pisses me off.

Religion is a personal thing, you keep it to yourself because you could be wrong.

Rejection of religion is a personal thing, you keep it to yourself because you could be wrong.

Science is a god-send (or is it?!) because it stops people from being scared of anything from thunder to ant colonies. All of the sudden we're in control, we know how shit works and we're on top of it.

But science doesn't explain everything, it explains the things that are important to our physical well-being... and as always we're scared of the things that can't be communicated to us so a lot of people turn to religion to fill in the blanks.

Can you really tell them they're wrong about intelligent design because you know what a toaster will do when you drop it? Well yeah, you can, but you're not proving them wrong you're simply proving you're right about something unrelated.

We're biased from the get go. The world would be a better place if everyone could except an others point of view while keeping their own intact.

At 8/29/10 03:13 AM, DJManifest wrote: Religion is a personal thing, you keep it to yourself because you could be wrong.

Rejection of religion is a personal thing, you keep it to yourself because you could be wrong.

No actually, you keep it to yourself because people are sensitive. Some abstract notion of general uncertainty is most certainly NOT a reason to avoid scrutiny. You could be wrong about fucking anything.

Science is a god-send (or is it?!) because it stops people from being scared of anything from thunder to ant colonies. All of the sudden we're in control, we know how shit works and we're on top of it.

You ever watch the discovery channel? They regularly run programs on how we're going to be destroyed by any number of things from weapons of mass destruction to meteors. Technology is almost always a major player in any conspiracy theory.

If it has the capacity to threaten, then people are going to be afraid of it.

Can you really tell them they're wrong about intelligent design because you know what a toaster will do when you drop it? Well yeah, you can, but you're not proving them wrong you're simply proving you're right about something unrelated.

No actually, that's both a shallow and myopic analysis of the relation between the two positions. Abstractly, it's a matter of epistemology.

We're biased from the get go. The world would be a better place if everyone could except an others point of view while keeping their own intact.

That is a position itself vocally against a form of entitlement. Hello hypocrisy.

At 8/28/10 05:42 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 8/27/10 07:05 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I haven't said he is more relevant or anything. I just want to point out he's a priest and a very skilled scientist as well. And he had a theory that might as well be as shocking as evolution.

So tell me why then it has to do with anything I've stated.

I started this whole shit up as a reaction to you stating:

At 8/26/10 05:33 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 8/26/10 05:11 PM, Scarface wrote: Why can't the two beliefs coexist?

Because one is an establishment of scientific inquiry and the other is an unconfirmed belief.

Essentially I try to point out that religious people are still capable of honest scientific inquiry. So you can have religion and science.

Would any non-Christian have brought it up? No, cause no-one had discovered it yet.

It's a good thing we're not talking about non-Christians.

Ugh, what are you missing here? You complain about Christians not endorsing Big Bang theory in the middle ages. But that's irrelevant since there as no thing like Big Bang then. On a lesser note, I got someone explaining that churches used to have telescopes at the top floor to study the stars. It's not like science and religion only going together since the time atheist came into existence. Not-Christianly speaking, Muslims used to be pretty advanced in science as well as the people in the East and so on...

Would people 500 years ago say the big bang was caused by god? No.

No, but irrelevant, there was no Big Bang theory back then. And I'm sure that a non religious person wouldn't have believed it either.

Therefore all they're doing is just altering their beliefs when a new discovery is made.

Well, science does so too, all Einstein did was altering the theory of gravity because observations required this. It's completely okay to do so, if it means not screwing with the essentials.

There is no passage anywhere in the Bible describing or explaining anything in the big bang model. So instead all they do is just alter their interpretation to make the blocks fit.

That's mostly because the Bible doesn't say anything how nature works individually. The Bible isn't a science book.