No, we are not a "Christian" nation......

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1536 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
RyanD

climber
Squamish
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
Oh right, the FA thread is gone so I guess this is the closest thing now.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:42pm PT
Yeah, I can't believe that Ed started that, put up the final post to it, and then nuked it. "Consensus" was harder to achieve than originally thought. :-)
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
What about Heaven and Hell?
Do they exist?

I would say "yes" but not in the sense that most Christians believe. For example, the idea of a now-existing, eternally-burning hell is nonsense based upon a very few misinterpreted texts. Such a view of hell makes God an unjust MONSTER: infinite, beyond-words-horrific punishment for a finite number of what might well be relatively trivial sins??? It's astounding to me that so many otherwise intelligent people will take their sense or morality and justice, completely abandon them, and just "accept" that God is this monstrous.

The whole idea of an "immortal soul" is another borrowed-from-paganism fabrication that became mainstream-accepted in Christianity due to Catholicism. It does not exist in the Bible except in parable form designed to make entirely other points. The Bible is unambiguous and crystal clear that "the dead know not anything," etc. So, there are no "souls" in Heaven or in Hell now.

here is the question that made me become an Atheist

Is there life after physical death?
If there is, you will have to come up with a scientific explanation for how it works.

That question is worded in a loaded way. For our purposes, neither "life" nor "death" have been adequately defined.

Also, why should ANY responder to your question be constrained to a strictly "scientific explanation?" That loads the debate toward naturalism from the outset. As I said, I have rigorous philosophical reasons to deny the doctrine of naturalism prior to any such specific debate. Thus, I simply deny that the naturalistic-explanation constraint is valid from the start.

That is NOT to say that just any old touchy-feely, "I had a vision" sort of crap counts as an "explanation." When I say "rigorous philosophical reasons," I am talking about points that are non-naturalistic but still well-defined and rest upon cogent argumentation.

If there is no life after death, (which will be your answer if you really did critical thought on the subject)

then why do we need a God?
if there is No life after death: that there is No Godly plan, no Godly morals, No interaction with God in any way.

Again, the terms you are using (thus the context of your presumptions) are not well-defined. If you mean "life after death" in the sense that mainstream Christianity believes in it, I would respond that neither philosophy nor Scripture supports such a view. But there are other alternatives that cohere with both well-grounded philosophy and with what the Bible actually says (stripping out all the pagan doctrine that got mixed in with Christianity in the early centuries).

If you think of it, There is No reason to have a God, he does nothing
Why do we need a God if doesn't do anything
Occams Razor is the point of this idea, God is just an addition to the mix because Humans needed a God for the explanations of things they couldn't understand, since they didn't have science to investigate things they didn't understand, like lightening.

Now that we understand these things, God is just an unnecessary Conspiracy

All true, IF it is sustainable that God is just an unnecessary "bolt on" to an otherwise completely adequate and comprehensive account of reality. I don't believe that naturalism IS such an adequate and comprehensive account, however.

I got my Biology degree from UC Santa Barbara in 1981
when were you there?

I was physically there from 94 through 96 but then finished my dissertation off-campus.
RyanD

climber
Squamish
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
Well madbolter1,

If we used this thread as an example, & replaced the word Christianity with the words Trad climbing we would be having a pretty parallel conversation I think. My observations show that one side is denying the possibility of evolution and saying one brush is all that is needed to paint any picture if you follow specific rules, & the other is open to growing & using different ideas & changing rules to work for the situations that require them.


Same shet different pile.

But using climbing terms is more fun and generally less hateful.
RyanD

climber
Squamish
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
here is the question that made me become a sport climber?

Is there life after ground up?
If there is, you will have to come up with a scientific explanation for how it works.


There fixed it for you :-)
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:09pm PT
Liberal. Conservative.

I confess (... :D ...) madbolter1 is full of surprises.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:12pm PT
here is the question that made me become a sport climber?

Is there life after ground up?
If there is, you will have to come up with a scientific explanation for how it works.

Sure no problem.

Hike to the heavens. Establish a bolt anchor. Attach angel hair rope to said anchor and rappel from the heavens toward hell. On the way down drill and fill.

Once you hit rock bottom, redeem yourself and climb back to heavenly graces. You can red point if you like. You can even dog yer way to god!

This is The Rock. It is our pulpit, our bible, our church, our god. We will climb her. We will defile her. We will chip her to pieces and partake of her flesh.

More please!

DMT
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:16pm PT
*yawn*

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
My observations show that one side is denying the possibility of evolution and saying one brush is all that is needed to paint any picture if you follow specific rules, & the other is open to growing & using different ideas & changing rules to work for the situations that require them.

Well, I guess, then, that I'm not on either "side." LOL

One problem with a word like "evolution" is that it is typically ambiguously employed. I, for one, do not "deny the possibility" of it. But I do deny that "micro-evolution" (adaptation within genetic limits) equates to "macro-evolution" (speciation events). Micro-evolution is well-documented and understood, while macro-evolution has never been observed and is merely speculated to follow from a sufficient accumulation of adaptations. Further, there are many counterexamples indicating that there are stringent genetic limitations keeping true speciation events from occurring.

And please, let's not get off on fundamentally-interpreted subjects like the fossil record, etc. First, the empirical debate can rage forever and fruitlessly. Second, the reasons I am a believer are not based upon empirical arguments. Finally, the sorts of falsifications my perspective is subject to would not be empirical ones.

But using climbing terms is more fun and generally less hateful.
True, although I'm a very, very, VERY good Christian and would never, ever imagine anything hateful! ;-)
go-B

climber
Cling to what is good!
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:30pm PT
Matthew 25 :31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



...there is a Heaven and a hell!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
all that crapolla about definitions when you know exactly what I meant

No, actually I don't, and the definitions DO matter. This is a problem with debating YOU: you treat ambiguity as acceptable when it slants your way. I don't like it however it's slanted.

When most people talk about "life after death," they literally imagine some consciousness floating around on a cloud, or some such thing (or burning eternally in torment). I deny all that fluff and nonsense.

However, if by "life after death" you mean any sense in which something like my present consciousness can (at some point) be again conscious apart from my present physical body, I would say that this is certainly possible.

And why can't science be applied to life after death,

Simply because the nature of consciousness itself does not fall to a scientific explanation (see the "what is mind" thread). You obviously and flatly deny this. But there is a vast, rigorous, and very cogent literature denying your denial... and that among almost entirely non-Christian philosophers! In short, an adequate account of "mind" isn't arising from a purely scientific analysis. Thus, whatever it IS that is not logically dependent upon a particular physical body is what would have "life after death," and explaining how that might work is not going to be a scientific account.

That does NOT mean it is going to be a fluff and nonsense account. I, along with many, believe that Kant provided exceptionally good reasons to think that "mind" is not fundamentally embodied, although "consciousness" is. But this discussion is FAR afield from the topic of this thread.

If there is explanation for it, then it could be true
but since there isn't, it can easily be more mythology, which I contend

You are really helping yourself to your own position when you blithely state "but since there isn't...." Actually there is. It's just not the naturalistic one you insist upon.

I guess you didn't bother to do any critical thinking about life after death
I will give you some hints:

No need to start getting demeaning. I don't need your "hints." I've actually read thousands of pages and thought this stuff through at a level that's impossible to articulate in a forum setting. And whenever I even start to try, somebody or other starts moaning about my "long posts." Forums are a no-win for attempted rigorous argumentation, so I've given up trying. People here enjoy drive-by shootings rather than careful thinking. Edit: See Locker's post just above. LOL

Do animals get an afterlife? if no, why not?
How about bacteria? why not?
How crowded is the cosmos with the trillions of souls floating around, doing nothing.
Is there a giant computer up there somewhere deciding what you become after you die?
What lives on? Your soul?
What does it do for eternity? just sit around?

The answers to all these questions are systematically offered by Kant (and others). And a couple of them are laughably nutty. Crowded cosmos? Get serious.

and here is the kicker
Why do we need to believe in an afterlife? All Religions have this as part of their gospel....

No hope of an afterlife = no God.

Kant's account depends upon no such motivations nor presumptions.

I've now gotta finish a document I should have been working on for a customer. Sigh.

We're far off-topic anyway.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
In short, an adequate account of "mind" isn't arising from a purely scientific analysis.

Yet. We don't understand what gravity is, either. But I am confident that a purely scientific answer to both will arise.

Thus, whatever it IS that is not logically dependent upon a particular physical body is what would have "life after death," and explaining how that might work is not going to be a scientific account.

And you and largo seem equally confident in the negative.

Philosophically I cannot accept 'never' as a valid or logical statement of the capacity of science. What ever the mind is, its part of this reality ergo is subject to scientific inquiry.

DMT
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 27, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
Never, never, never give up!
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 27, 2014 - 03:46pm PT


"I'm sure the spirit is showing the monkey how to shoot!"...



They learn fast...

















































Credit: locker
...

go-B

climber
Cling to what is good!
Jun 27, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
Credit: go-B

...capish!
go-B

climber
Cling to what is good!
Jun 28, 2014 - 06:13am PT

DESTINATION, David Jeremiah
DESTINATION, David Jeremiah

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


...but we know; His appearance was marred more than any man (Isaiah 52:14 ), in showing what lengths He would take to save His own!
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 28, 2014 - 06:29am PT

"...capish!"...


LOL!!!...

go-B

climber
Cling to what is good!
Jun 29, 2014 - 04:41pm PT

Credit: go-B
Yosemite Valley and Jesus
http://ronerskine.typepad.com/weekly_tramp/page/3/

Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jun 29, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seem pretty clear to me.
Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1536 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews