# is religion merely an unproven theory, in particular the christian faith



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 10, 2018)

I really don't think anyone has tried to prove it...at least in the last 100 years.


----------



## Bugeye (Apr 11, 2018)

Faith based beliefs are, by their very nature, unproven and unprovable.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 11, 2018)

Bugeye said:


> Faith based beliefs are, by their very nature, unproven and unprovable.


just a thought here...But has anyone actually followed the basic steps? when jesus said follow me, wouldn't that mean every step of the way? If he turned right the follower would also have to turn right, or he would be on the wrong path.So before he actually began his preaching he went into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted. Anyway I would think that a person would have to do that very same thing even before they open their mouth about their belief.


----------



## SB85 (Apr 11, 2018)

I think many folks follow the religious belief system because it was taught to them at an early age. There is plenty of people making tons of profit from the worship of "Gods" from pastors -authors of these so called 'holy" books.


----------



## Rrog (Apr 11, 2018)




----------



## charface (Apr 11, 2018)

I think religion in general is a form of mental illness, one of the few that is contagious 

I had it a couple times. Lol


----------



## Bugeye (Apr 11, 2018)

charface said:


> I think religion in general is a form of mental illness, one of the few that is contagious
> 
> I had it a couple times. Lol


I see religion and spirituality as VERY different.


----------



## charface (Apr 11, 2018)

Bugeye said:


> I see religion and spirituality as VERY different.


For sure, and Im not bagging on people who are genuinely into their religion. Just the cock heads who don't believe but still use it to control well meaning humans.

Though ya gotta admit it sounds crazy. 
But then again thinking we arrived on accident sounds crazy too.

As per usual I have no answers


----------



## mmjmon (Apr 11, 2018)

Find all the answers you need at JW.ORG


----------



## charface (Apr 11, 2018)

mmjmon said:


> Find all the answers you need at JW.ORG


I scared but im going to go see what that is
Edit... 
Lol and now I know


----------



## racerboy71 (Apr 11, 2018)

theories are based on science and fact, religion is the complete opposite of science and fact, therefore not a theory, just some hocus pocus passed down through the years


----------



## charface (Apr 11, 2018)

racerboy71 said:


> theories are based on science and fact, religion is the complete opposite of science and fact, therefore not a theory, just some hocus pocus passed down through the years


I honestly buy into the whole accidentally ingesting hallucinogens started it all and what people learned was good, then people did what people do. 
They got high and started fucking. 
Then they got greedy


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 12, 2018)

"Theory" in the way that you're using, typically means "explanation based on the best available evidence".

If there was evidence to support religion, faith would not be a requirement.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> "Theory" in the way that you're using, typically means "explanation based on the best available evidence".
> 
> If there was evidence to support religion, faith would not be a requirement.


"explanation based on the best available evidence"...would obviously not be the people professing the belief, because they show no evidence. So would not the best available evidence be the bible it self...
it seems to me the faith that people claim is not the same faith that the bible speaks of, their faith is empty and shows no evidence which would prove they didn't do their homework [follow jesus to the t.] that is IF the bible were a fact...Now would these same people accomplish anything if they were scientist? also does not science it self require faith? 
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## Rrog (Apr 12, 2018)

Science does not require faith. Science is reproducible and peer reviewed


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Rrog said:


> Science does not require faith. Science is reproducible and peer reviewed


So what would be your definition of faith?


----------



## Rrog (Apr 12, 2018)

Blind


----------



## Sativied (Apr 12, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> "Theory" in the way that you're using, typically means "explanation based on the best available evidence".
> 
> If there was evidence to support religion, faith would not be a requirement.


It is even worse, they actually think there is “evidence”. Not something just religious folks do though, it’s quite common among cannabis growers as well, accepting wishful thinking or marketing or simplistic (mis)perceptions or something they read as evidence.



thepenofareadywriter said:


> I really don't think anyone has tried to prove it...at least in the last 100 years.


But you do think 101 years and longer ago anyone tried to prove christianity?


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Rrog said:


> Blind


I think that the problem is, [blind] because what I am seeing biblically, is that biblical faith is not blind and that biblical faith should produce evidence...


----------



## Hotwired (Apr 12, 2018)

Religion is big business. That's all it is.

Who do you think it is that supplies all the candy, puppies and vans?


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Hotwired said:


> Religion is big business. That's all it is.
> 
> Who do you think it is that supplies all the candy, puppies and vans?


Everyone knows it's big business


----------



## Rrog (Apr 12, 2018)

It’s faith exactly because there’s no evidence nor science to explain any of it. 

Nada


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Rrog said:


> It’s faith exactly because there’s no evidence nor science to explain any of it.
> 
> Nada


Ok, scientifically explain this bible verse...Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## Rrog (Apr 12, 2018)

Sounds like what I just posted. You can hope like a motherfucker, but you ain't gonna ever see jack shit


----------



## Sativied (Apr 12, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Ok, scientifically explain this bible verse...


That’s like asking someone to translate french into english using a spanish dictionary...



thepenofareadywriter said:


> Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


When you jump you hope you don’t float into space because you have faith in gravity. While you can’t see gravity itself, you can observe its work. Same with Jesus and God.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 12, 2018)

Sativied said:


> That’s like asking someone to translate french into english using a spanish dictionary...
> 
> 
> When you jump you hope you don’t float into space because you have faith in gravity. While you can’t see gravity itself, you can observe its work. Same with Jesus and God.


nobody that jumps is hoping that they don't float into space, it doesn't even cross their mind...But this is how I see this verse
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen... [here is my example] I have before me a empty bowl, my hope is that the bowl will be filled with some white widow... now my bowl is filled with white widow [the actual substance that I hope for]... the evidence of things not seen ...So as I see it, real faith would have substance and evidence... so the bowl filled with white widow would be proof of faith


----------



## Rrog (Apr 12, 2018)

I’d bag this thread and smoke the bowl


----------



## abalonehx (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 13, 2018)

Religion does two things. First it helps pacify those who are scared of dying and secondly it helps control huge portions of the population. 

Fear and control = Religion.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 13, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> nobody that jumps is hoping that they don't float into space, it doesn't even cross their mind...


Really? Have you ever tried to scientifically prove that statement? Ironically it is religious folks who have such a lack of imagination. Try some good haze instead of stupifying white widow.



thepenofareadywriter said:


> my hope is that the bowl will be filled with some white widow... now my bowl is filled with white widow [the actual substance that I hope for]... the evidence of things not seen ...


If your bowl is filled with white widow you see the white widow and there is thus no evidence of the things not seen. Same with Jesus. If you hope for Jesus to return and Jesus suddenly appears, then it’s not the son of a god but some Mexican. No, your bible verse interpretation is besides nonsensical just wrong. It is merely meant to mutate the word evidence so the rest becomes easier to swallow for the non-scientific minded.

And... that’s the archaic King James version you quote, popular in the US, based on translations of one of the most brilliant dutch ever, Erasmus, a word wizard. The Dutch and English language too is filled with expressions introduced by Erasmus, which if taken litterally would be silly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagia

Not only is the original translation wrong, it is not to be taken literal either, other, technically better, versions/translations of the bible use “assurance” or better “conviction” instead of “evidence”. Suggesting faith = evidence excludes you from having a sensible thought, action or discussion and participate in a useful manner. Not something only religious folks do though. America is infected with anti-intellectualism by evangelical protestants who were too dumb for europe. Proof of that you can find easily in the politics and led forums where faith=evidence too.

Instead of wasting time on the bible, read this non-fiction book and save thyself from the path to idiocracy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 13, 2018)

the thing about faith, is it doesn't need proof. that's a dangerous thing. you convince the general populace of something strongly enough, and it will unthinkingly follow it's faith...and the leaders of that faith. no matter that those leaders are usually not rational, reasonable people with the best of intentions, their followers have already voluntarily blinded themselves, because their leaders can obviously see things that they can't


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 13, 2018)

Sativied said:


> Really? Have you ever tried to scientifically prove that statement? Ironically it is religious folks who have such a lack of imagination. Try some good haze instead of stupifying white widow.
> 
> If your bowl is filled with white widow you see the white widow and there is thus no evidence of the things not seen. Same with Jesus. If you hope for Jesus to return and Jesus suddenly appears, then it’s not the son of a god but some Mexican. No, your bible verse interpretation is besides nonsensical just wrong. It is merely meant to mutate the word evidence so the rest becomes easier to swallow for the non-scientific minded.
> 
> ...


If your bowl is filled with white widow you see the white widow and there is thus no evidence of the things not seen. Hope is a wish for something that you don't have...the hope or wish is the unseen...the white widow is the evidence or proof of the persons faith. NO FAITH...NO WHITE WIDOW


----------



## SB85 (Apr 13, 2018)

I'm not into religious doctrine myself. I don't think a person needs a book written by whomever in-order to have personal responsibility/morals/love and etc. I have no issues with the religious folks long as they aren't pushing others to obey by their way of life from a "God" they worship. I feel people should do good/treat each well because it's the right way to go about things/not because expect some reward coming in the after death.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 13, 2018)

god helps those who help themselves. he quit the whole feeding the multitudes thing after the flood. 
i haven't been in a church since before most of you were born, and i seem to remember more than you all have ever learned to begin with


----------



## Sativied (Apr 13, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> If your bowl is filled with white widow you see the white widow and there is thus no evidence of the things not seen. Hope is a wish for something that you don't have...the hope or wish is the unseen...the white widow is the evidence or proof of the persons faith. NO FAITH...NO WHITE WIDOW


Your logic and conclusion is incorrect. The main error is that your bowl is magically filled with white widow, you present that magical happening as a given, and then contribute it to faith. In reality you or someone else fills the bowl with something already seen to at least some. The same thing religious folk do when convincing themselves prayers got them what they wanted. Just because there was faith before and in white widow it does not follow that white widow appeared _because_ of white widow as you claim in caps. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc The main reason why nobody tries to scientifically prove scripture is because it’s already irrational. If you claim 1+1=3 no scientist will feel compelled to prove that.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 13, 2018)

SB85 said:


> I have no issues with the religious folks long as they aren't pushing others to obey by their way of life from a "God" they worship. I feel people should do good/treat each well because it's the right way to go about things/not because expect some reward coming in the after death.


I agree but unfortunately evangelism is inheritly a part of every religion. If it’s not pushed on to others, it’s not a religion. Every healthy child is born as an intellectual critical thinking genius. Religion prevents a proper development of the brain and results in malfunctioning people like trump supporters.


----------



## SB85 (Apr 13, 2018)

Sativied said:


> I agree but unfortunately evangelism is inheritly a part of every religion. If it’s not pushed on to others, it’s not a religion. Every healthy child is born as an intellectual critical thinking genius. Religion prevents a proper development of the brain and results in malfunctioning people like trump supporters.





That's the problem with folks being taught how/what they should think instead of using critical thinking to reach their own views. There's a lot cult minded my way or be cursed type of mentality in religion.. I've ran into many/even family members who can't speak for themselves but instead repeat what their pastor said or even quote scriptures over having own original thoughts/views


----------



## Rrog (Apr 13, 2018)

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...... 

Why not debate the tooth fairy while we’re at it


----------



## charface (Apr 13, 2018)

Here is a weird thought. 

They ask you to use faith as a follower
But they use very well known manipulation tactics. 

Why don't they just put the money jar in the Middle of town and use faith to fill it. 

Because 

Faith, that's why?

Nah, they figured out it is much more effective to have you sit in small groups being threatened that you will be separated from your loved ones for eternity. 

Then the basket comes.

Sorry Im just feeling evil today. Lol


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 13, 2018)

Sativied said:


> Your logic and conclusion is incorrect. The main error is that your bowl is magically filled with white widow, you present that magical happening as a given, and then contribute it to faith. In reality you or someone else fills the bowl with something already seen to at least some. The same thing religious folk do when convincing themselves prayers got them what they wanted. Just because there was faith before and in white widow it does not follow that white widow appeared _because_ of white widow as you claim in caps. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc The main reason why nobody tries to scientifically prove scripture is because it’s already irrational. If you claim 1+1=3 no scientist will feel compelled to prove that.


LOL...one thing you are for sure [sativied] and just like all those faith people [you] don't get it.my whole point is that there is NO FAITH on this planet.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 13, 2018)

Rrog said:


> Zzzzzzzzzzzz......
> 
> Why not debate the tooth fairy while we’re at it


HEY! hands off the tooth fairy, some things aren't open for debate.


----------



## Bugeye (Apr 13, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> HEY! hands off the tooth fairy, some things aren't open for debate.


No doubt! That money didn't appear out of thin air. Somebody put it there. Totally plausible.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 13, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> "explanation based on the best available evidence"...would obviously not be the people professing the belief, because they show no evidence. So would not the best available evidence be the bible it self...


Disagree. The bible isn't evidence that anything in the bible happened anymore than a spider-man comic is proof that anything in the comic happened.



> it seems to me the faith that people claim is not the same faith that the bible speaks of, their faith is empty and shows no evidence which would prove they didn't do their homework [follow jesus to the t.] that is IF the bible were a fact...


There's never been a christian alive that's actually lived like Jesus, because it's not possible. I'm not sure where you're getting these two types of faith from though... Faith is belief without evidence, it doesn't change from instance to instance.



> Now would these same people accomplish anything if they were scientist? also does not science it self require faith?
> Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


What people? The people in the bible? lol

Science is demonstrable. We can use science to test the validity of the world around us. You cannot do that with the bible, or faith.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 13, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> Disagree. The bible isn't evidence that anything in the bible happened anymore than a spider-man comic is proof that anything in the comic happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I talking about religious people...So how did this jesus live? and why couldn't they live like him...And once again, faith, biblically speaking is NOT belief without evidence! lol... you actually sound like one those christians that's always got an excuse for their lack of belief, the so called word of faith.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 13, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I talking about religious people...So how did this jesus live? and why couldn't they live like him...And once again, faith, biblically speaking is NOT belief without evidence! lol... you actually sound like one those christians that's always got an excuse for their lack of belief, the so called word of faith.


Are you talking about Jesus the real person that may or may not have existed, or Jesus the mythological person?

Faith, biblically speaking, as in what it takes to believe in the bible, is absolutely faith without evidence. If you mean the people IN the story, yeah I guess they didn't need faith because they could see the miracles happening. It'd be the same as a bystander on the sidewalk in a comic book; they can see the superheroes fighting crime, they don't need faith that "spidey" exists.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 13, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> Are you talking about Jesus the real person that may or may not have existed, or Jesus the mythological person?


I am talking about the jesus that christians profess


Beefbisquit said:


> Faith, biblically speaking, as in what it takes to believe in the bible, is absolutely faith without evidence.


no that is not true!


Beefbisquit said:


> If you mean the people IN the story, yeah I guess they didn't need faith because they could see the miracles happening.


Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. 
Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 
Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 

Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 
Mat 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: 
Mat 9:21  For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. 
Mat 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. 
MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT...if people are going to preach the bible pay attention to what it says...there are way to many verses that contradict what they preach...If you say you follow jesus, then according to the book [bible] you would have to have go into the wilderness for 40 days without food because according to the book that is what he did, if you didn't follow him to the wilderness fast for 40 days then you didn't follow him...It would be like he turned left but you went right...So as I said in the beginning has anyone ever put the book to test I say no...Is the book true I don't know I have never tested it...not yet anyway,...oh and sorry for all the colors thought maybe it might be easier to read


----------



## Rrog (Apr 14, 2018)

This thread sucks badly


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 14, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I am talking about the jesus that christians profess


Which one? Every denomination has a different idea of what Jesus is or represents.



> no that is not true!


Explain yourself.

There is no physical evidence for anything that happened in the bible, the only thing there is to go on is fables and wives tails passed on for generations orally before they were even written down. Then you have to take into account that the bible was re-written countless times, edited, culled, etc. There's nothing that can be called 'factual', or at least nothing that can be verified as true. Therefore, you need faith to believe what it says.



> Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
> Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
> Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
> Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
> ...


Anyone who has any wealth isn't going to heaven according to Jesus. - So, give away your wealth or you'll never get to heaven.

Jesus also said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - AKA the old testament still counts, AKA, no shellfish, cotton blends, working on the sabbath, etc., etc.

He also said, "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

What's your point? I can quote all kinds of stuff Jesus said that contradicts the "holier-than-thou non-violent" version of Jesus people hold.



> MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT...if people are going to preach the bible pay attention to what it says...there are way to many verses that contradict what they preach...If you say you follow jesus, then according to the book [bible] you would have to have go into the wilderness for 40 days without food because according to the book that is what he did, if you didn't follow him to the wilderness fast for 40 days then you didn't follow him...It would be like he turned left but you went right...So as I said in the beginning has anyone ever put the book to test I say no...Is the book true I don't know I have never tested it...not yet anyway,...oh and sorry for all the colors thought maybe it might be easier to read


There's a difference between following Jesus in an ideological sense, and following Jesus in a literal sense.I am not aware where it says you have to do the exact same things as Jesus in order to follow him, and I've read the bible front to back multiple times.


----------



## whitebb2727 (Apr 14, 2018)

Sativied said:


> I agree but unfortunately evangelism is inheritly a part of every religion. If it’s not pushed on to others, it’s not a religion. Every healthy child is born as an intellectual critical thinking genius. Religion prevents a proper development of the brain and results in malfunctioning people like trump supporters.


I'm sure that's true. I've seen it with my own eyes. On the other hand, the church I was raised in was full of college educated people. From lawyers to doctors. Go figure. 


Myself. I believe in God. I don't subscribe to organized religion anymore. I've seen some aweful things church people have done.

I believe in science. I believe that the earth is millions of years old. I believe it possible for evolution as well. I know that may be blasphemy. Adam and eve were ignorant. Had no knowledge. Didn't even know they were naked. We were more animal like in the beginning. There were giants back then as well. Dinosaurs? Neanderthals? Sure.


----------



## whitebb2727 (Apr 14, 2018)

I will say that I've seen certain denominations say dinosaurs weren't real. That baffles me.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> Which one? Every denomination has a different idea of what Jesus is or represents.


all of them claim the word of faith thing


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> Explain yourself.


their belief in the book is not the faith...the fact that they read it is the evidence of their belief, the evidence is the faith!


----------



## Rrog (Apr 14, 2018)

There is evidence of faith, but faith has no evidence 

I like turtles


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 14, 2018)

the Merriam-Webster definition of faith...
*Definition of faith*
plural faiths play  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\
1 a *: *allegiance to duty or a person *: *loyalty

lost faith in the company's president
b (1) *: *fidelity to one's promises
(2) *: *sincerity of intentions

acted in good faith
2 a (1) *: *belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) *: *belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) *: *firm belief in something for which there is no proof

clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2) *: *complete trust
3 *: *something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially *: *a system of religious beliefs

the Protestant faith
— on faith
*: *without question

took everything he said _on faith_
i think 2b covers this situation.....
or did you just want to quibble about semantics the whole thread?


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 14, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I am talking about the jesus that christians profess
> 
> no that is not true!
> 
> ...


the reason jesus could fast for 40 days is that he had divine support, you go try to fast for 40 days and see what happens to you. "following" a leader isn't fucking simon says, you don't have to emulate their every act.
you follow their examples, and when they do something extraordinary, that doesn't mean it's a challenge for you to try to do it too, its something that should inspire you to try harder, to reach farther. 
i don't think the bible is a work of nonfiction. i think it is and always has been a book of lessons and parables, written by many people at different times, and i'm sure many of them had good intentions, but anything can be subverted by unethical leaders


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Rrog said:


> the Merriam-Webster definition of faith...
> *Definition of faith*
> plural faiths play  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\
> 1 a *: *allegiance to duty or a person *: *loyalty
> ...


I am talking about the bible definition...
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thin


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Rrog said:


> There is evidence of faith, but faith has no evidence
> 
> I like turtles


Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 14, 2018)

so am i....believing in something with no proof of it is THE definition of biblical faith. you can argue anything you want, but you're wrong if you don't agree. you can call it strength, but where does the strength come from? the belief in something you have no proof of.
thats the whole point of religion, believing in something you'll never see till you die (and probably not then, either)....that's what faith is in the religious sense.


----------



## Rrog (Apr 14, 2018)

Circle jerking semantics


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 
[1] substance is the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has tangible,solid presence. [2] hope is a desire or wish for something to happen or be the case. [3] evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion also we must remember that Heb. 11:1 is NOT MY definition, but a verse from the book telling the readers what faith is.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 14, 2018)

why are you arguing with me, when all you're saying is what i'm saying, in different words? that seems a pointless, profitless endeavor.
and it's not the point of the whole thread. the word we should be trying to define here is "theory", because i doubt most people are even aware of the actual meaning of the word. so let's visit merriam-webster again.
*Definition of theory*
plural theories
1 *: *a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

the wave theory of light
2 a *: *a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b *: *an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase _in theory_

in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3 a *: *a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b *: *an unproved assumption *: *conjecture
c *: *a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

theory of equations
4 *: *the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

music theory
5 *: *abstract thought *: *speculation
6 *: *the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

so in the sense of 2b, 3b and 5, yes, all religions are unproven theories. in the broader scientific sense, i don't think religion really qualifies as a scientific theory, as there is no provable physical evidence, no observable phenomena to document, so it would seem that it depends on the sense of the word "theory" that you are trying to imply.


----------



## Rrog (Apr 14, 2018)

The dude is the jerk in the circle jerk


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

*What is a Theory?*
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 14, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> why are you arguing with me, when all you're saying is what i'm saying, in different words? that seems a pointless, profitless endeavor.
> and it's not the point of the whole thread. the word we should be trying to define here is "theory", because i doubt most people are even aware of the actual meaning of the word. so let's visit merriam-webster again.
> *Definition of theory*
> plural theories
> ...


*What is a Theory?*
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 14, 2018)

Back to the original Q. Is religion an un proven theory? No, as its not a theory. The Bible, as an example is just a violent novel.

Hubbard wrote a novel to and we now have Scientology.... Its not a theory either.


----------



## OldMedUser (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Back to the original Q. Is religion an un proven theory? No, as its not a theory. The Bible, as an example is just a violent novel.
> 
> Hubbard wrote a novel to and we now have Scientology.... Its not a theory either


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Back to the original Q. Is religion an un proven theory? No, as its not a theory. The Bible, as an example is just a violent novel.
> 
> Hubbard wrote a novel to and we now have Scientology.... Its not a theory either.


Is that a guess or is that just another one of your hunches?


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

no, that seems to be a fact to me. religion is not scientifically quantifiable, so it cannot be a theory according to the definition of the word.
it's a theology, not a theory.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

So how did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

by reading the definitions of theory and faith that i already posted. why don't you read them? maybe they'll clear up some of the confusion you seem to be having


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Lets make it a little bit more simple...Have you or anyone else in this thread read the bible and or prayed to the god of the bible through the name jesus?


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

yes, i have read the bible, from cover to cover, more than once. no, i do not pray to god through Jesus. I'm not a christian. I'm not a member of any organized religion. I've slowly developed my own ideas, and i try to stay true to them.
I'm not sure what your point is, what point you're trying to make? the original question of the thread is "is religion an unproven theory?"
i think we've pretty much answered that, we defined what a theory is, and religion does not fit that definition.
so what are you trying to get at? what point are you trying to make? that most of us aren't good Christians? i can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not any kind of christian. i'm a heathen, i have a faith, but i made it up myself. it has very little mythology attached to it, no trappings, and no Sunday services (no services of any kind)...and yet, it is as real to me as your faith is to you. the tenets of my religion are simple.
treat people the way you want to be treated.
mind your own business.
if you see someone truly in need of help, help them.
try to be tolerant of others, and if you're having trouble at it, walk away.
that's about it.....pretty easy to understand, yet hard to achieve sometimes.
i just explained my whole religion in one paragraph...how about you explain what you're trying to get at?


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 15, 2018)

Using an article of doctrine to prove itself is circular reasoning and never a valid method. You can't use things in the bible to prove the veracity of the bible.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> yes, i have read the bible, from cover to cover, more than once. no, i do not pray to god through Jesus. I'm not a christian. I'm not a member of any organized religion. I've slowly developed my own ideas, and i try to stay true to them.
> I'm not sure what your point is, what point you're trying to make? the original question of the thread is "is religion an unproven theory?"
> i think we've pretty much answered that, we defined what a theory is, and religion does not fit that definition.
> so what are you trying to get at? what point are you trying to make? that most of us aren't good Christians? i can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not any kind of christian. i'm a heathen, i have a faith, but i made it up myself. it has very little mythology attached to it, no trappings, and no Sunday services (no services of any kind)...and yet, it is as real to me as your faith is to you. the tenets of my religion are simple.
> ...


Ok...maybe I chose the wrong word [theory]...the point I am getting at is has anyone tested the book not just read it...but gotten down to the nitty gritty of it...I not a religious person either...I may not be the brightest light in the room but I'm sure as hell not the dimmest.


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Ok...maybe I chose the wrong word [theory]...the point I am getting at is has anyone tested the book not just read it...but gotten down to the nitty gritty of it...I not a religious person either...I may not be the brightest light in the room but I'm sure as hell not the dimmest.


So you want someone to actually follow all the teachings in the bible to the letter? That person should be prepared to go to prison for the rest of their life. Pretty sure most modern societies frown upon things like stoning your children to death for disobedience, selling and owning slaves, and cutting off a woman's hand if she touches a man's privates without permission, selling one's daughter as a sex slave.... The list goes on....


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

NanoGadget said:


> So you want someone to actually follow all the teachings in the bible to the letter? That person should be prepared to go to prison for the rest of their life. Pretty sure most modern societies frown upon things like stoning your children to death for disobedience, selling and owning slaves, and cutting off a woman's hand if she touches a man's privates without permission, selling one's daughter as a sex slave.... The list goes on....


Only the new testament!!!


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Only the new testament!!!


Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Ok...maybe I chose the wrong word [theory]...the point I am getting at is has anyone tested the book not just read it...but gotten down to the nitty gritty of it...I not a religious person either...I may not be the brightest light in the room but I'm sure as hell not the dimmest.


i tried "testing" God when i was younger...didn't work out. "if you're real, do this"....if God is real, he has very little to prove to any of us.
i'm not sure how you would test the bible? what is it you want to test? anything that's not ordinary and mundane is a miracle, and it's pretty hard to reproduce genuine miracles. they've proven that some of the events in the bible have occured, and as far as they can prove, others didn't. i'm even pretty satisfied that a real man named Jesus lived, and had a following, i'm just not convinced of his divinity.
you're going to have to be more specific, what exactly is it you want to test? what are you trying to prove or disprove? it's a big book, you gotta narrow it down some.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

as far as following the book to the letter, as nano said, thats's pretty much impossible in this society. the closest thing to biblical law that i can think of is sharia, and i'm not impressed with them at all. i think God, if he exists, realizes that we change and grow as people, and the rules in a 2K+ year old set of instructions don't apply anymore. i highly doubt he'll be disappointed that we aren't stoning people that don't agree with us anymore. 
i'm curious, what would you expect to happen if someone could follow the book to the letter, without legal consequences? what result would you expect? some kind of enlightenment? spiritual purity? communion with God? not asking that in a snarky way, either, i'm really curious what you would expect to happen


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

NanoGadget said:


> Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Get busy lol


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> as far as following the book to the letter, as nano said, thats's pretty much impossible in this society. the closest thing to biblical law that i can think of is sharia, and i'm not impressed with them at all. i think God, if he exists, realizes that we change and grow as people, and the rules in a 2K+ year old set of instructions don't apply anymore. i highly doubt he'll be disappointed that we aren't stoning people that don't agree with us anymore.
> i'm curious, what would you expect to happen if someone could follow the book to the letter, without legal consequences? what result would you expect? some kind of enlightenment? spiritual purity? communion with God? not asking that in a snarky way, either, i'm really curious what you would expect to happen


You have to admit it would be pretty cool if after all there was a god, and you could communicate with him. Have your loved ones healed from all matter of disease. No more handicap . That is a list that could go on. But that maybe just like the book, merely wishful thinking.


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Get busy lol


That's the bible quoting Jesus.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> You have to admit it would be pretty cool if after all there was a god, and you could communicate with him. Have your loved ones healed from all matter of disease. No more handicap . That is a list that could go on. But that maybe just like the book, merely wishful thinking.


according to christian authority, God no longer speaks to humans, as that is the purpose of the bible.

http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/stop-saying-god-told-me/

this guy explains it better than i can. and he's a Christian.
so we're pretty much on our own, God gave us an employ handbook, use it.
if that's your thing.


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> Lets make it a little bit more simple...Have you or anyone else in this thread read the bible and or prayed to the god of the bible through the name jesus?


Yes, I was in the choir and went to private Catholic schools. 

I'm not sure why that has a bearing on what the definition of Theory is? Maybe you are getting it confused with Theology.


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Yes, I was in the choir and went to private Catholic schools.
> 
> I'm not sure why that has a bearing on what the definition of Theory is? Maybe you are getting it confused with Theology.


go to post #75...


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 15, 2018)

NanoGadget said:


> That's the bible quoting Jesus.


Oh sorry I thought it was you quoting the bible...lol


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 15, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> go to post #75...


Only way to "test" the bible is probably to die. 
The 10 commandments of the Torah are hard to follow and don't have room for any grey areas.

Thou shalt not kill for eg. Lots of solders kill. People even kill in Gods name. People command others to kill. People command others to kill in Gods name. Are all these people damned. (Rhetorical question as none of us can answer it)


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (Apr 17, 2018)

So wut would make christianity any less then other religions?

Can I ask you one simple question? Does your name have any equivalents in other languages?

Can code be written with same outcome with different coding languages?

I rest my case


----------



## thepenofareadywriter (Apr 17, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> Can I ask you one simple question?


you just did...


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (Apr 18, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> you just did...


Great dodge the answer some more!!!


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 18, 2018)

i don't think any religion is a good thing. a lot of people involved in religions do good things, and are good people, but i doubt any leader of any religion would be able to stand up to a thorough investigation of their personal lives.
unscrupulous people will use any means available to take advantage of people, and religion is just too good a scam for them to ignore.
and i think that's the case with all religions. because all religions have people in them, and as soon as you add people to anything, they start to fuck it up.


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (Apr 18, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> i don't think any religion is a good thing. a lot of people involved in religions do good things, and are good people, but i doubt any leader of any religion would be able to stand up to a thorough investigation of their personal lives.
> unscrupulous people will use any means available to take advantage of people, and religion is just too good a scam for them to ignore.
> and i think that's the case with all religions. because all religions have people in them, and as soon as you add people to anything, they start to fuck it up.



Anyone can manipulate the masses with something good to throw you off and make it bad then get the whole thing stereotyped

My point was made, different languages just translate to the same ends.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 18, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> Anyone can manipulate the masses with something good to throw you off and make it bad then get the whole thing stereotyped
> 
> My point was made, different languages just translate to the same ends.


i'm not trying to be dense (it come's naturally) but what exactly is your point? that the bible is the same in whatever language it's printed in? or that other religions are still religions, even though they use a different language?
i apparently missed the post you're talking about.


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (Apr 18, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> i'm not trying to be dense (it come's naturally) but what exactly is your point? that the bible is the same in whatever language it's printed in? or that other religions are still religions, even though they use a different language?
> i apparently missed the post you're talking about.


Bible?

Keep on guessing

Am I talking only about Win 7? What about 3.1 and Vista?

Different interface same outcome.....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 21, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> their belief in the book is not the faith...the fact that they read it is the evidence of their belief, the evidence is the faith!


The belief that the book exists isn't faith, but believing what the book says is true is 100% faith.


----------



## alltatup (Apr 27, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I really don't think anyone has tried to prove it...at least in the last 100 years.


How the heck can you prove faith-based beliefs??????


----------



## alltatup (Apr 27, 2018)

Sativied said:


> It is even worse, they actually think there is “evidence”. Not something just religious folks do though, it’s quite common among cannabis growers as well, accepting wishful thinking or marketing or simplistic (mis)perceptions or something they read as evidence.
> 
> But you do think 101 years and longer ago anyone tried to prove christianity?


I agree100%!! People like some practice, and then it turns into "evidence" in their minds. Look at the never-ending debate about flushing cannabis...


----------



## Sexx Pistils (Apr 27, 2018)

There is no objective scientific evidence for a "god" of any kind, no. Not any more than there is for the existence of unicorns or Loch Ness monsters. But in my experience people are either wired to accept religion or reject it--sort of like an orientation. There's no point in arguing with an atheist or a theist about their views because it won't change their minds. 

Organized religion is what I object to, but I have my own personal beliefs about how things came into being, what happens when we die, etc. The difference is, I believe it's personal rather than something to be preached about & ritualized. That's where me & religion part ways, lol.


----------



## hybridcheef (Apr 27, 2018)

you guys are gonna suck a fat one when you die and it turns out there is a god lol. do you know how unlikely it would be that this is all random? its pretty obvious to see that there is a design of sorts. a master creator if you will. this is a pretty cool article. doesnt prove theres a god but its interesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#276e5045adae


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 27, 2018)

hybridcheef said:


> you guys are gonna suck a fat one when you die and it turns out there is a god lol. do you know how unlikely it would be that this is all random? its pretty obvious to see that there is a design of sorts. a master creator if you will. this is a pretty cool article. doesnt prove theres a god but its interesting
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#276e5045adae


I don't see anyone here saying there is not a god or gods or something else we cannot explain. Your now talking about an afterlife which is a different topic.

You are assuming there is a God ,and one you can relate to from what you believe, that there is an after life and there is a judgement day and there is a heaven and a hell. Considering the Catholic God forgives all I don't see the point of a judgement day..... If its a Jewish God it wont matter unless your Jewish anyway as they are the only chosen people.

Maybe there is a creator of some sort but when we die...we die. We carry on by enriching the soil of mother earth. Maybe..


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 27, 2018)

hybridcheef said:


> you guys are gonna suck a fat one when you die and it turns out there is a god lol. do you know how unlikely it would be that this is all random? its pretty obvious to see that there is a design of sorts. a master creator if you will. this is a pretty cool article. doesnt prove theres a god but its interesting
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#276e5045adae


That argument (the article you linked) has already been torn to pieces by people far smarter than myself, but even I know that it's a bullshit line of reasoning. We only think it's indicative of something because we happen to be sentient beings who happen to exist in a universe that has conditions suitable for life to develop. It's really just circular reasoning.


----------



## alltatup (Apr 27, 2018)

hybridcheef said:


> you guys are gonna suck a fat one when you die and it turns out there is a god lol. do you know how unlikely it would be that this is all random? its pretty obvious to see that there is a design of sorts. a master creator if you will. this is a pretty cool article. doesnt prove theres a god but its interesting


That is a weird thing to say: "god's" gonna laugh at us and say you fucked up? That's one fucked up god...


----------



## NanoGadget (Apr 27, 2018)

alltatup said:


> That is a weird thing to say: "god's" gonna laugh at us and say you fucked up? That's one fucked up god...


Seems consistent with the judeo-christian god... you know, the one that sends to to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't love him enough or say naughty words.... yup, seems about right.


----------



## alltatup (Apr 28, 2018)

I personally find comfort in my belief in infinity, which makes our entire universe a speck on a speck of star dust in the cosmos. Which leads me to assume that we aren't the only life forms around. What the amazing telescopes are able to map out in our "corner" of the cosmos is a speck. There is no totality in infinity: this gives me comfort, because it demonstrates the extreme limitations of human knowledge. 

As for institutionalized religion: it's been the bane on human existence for the past 2,000 years give or take a few years. When Christianity got "institutionalized" in Europe during the Dark Ages, it became an extraordinarily repressive force. No one was allowed to learn to read and write outside of the clergy. (Printing press was about 1,000 years in the future.) Our species is still so brutish and primitive: it has used all the technological advances to flush the planet down the toilet. When you stop to think what 2 thousand years means in the evolution of our species, it's just a speck of time. 

But "mother nature" persists around us, and will clean up after we're gone. That's my spiritual refuge...


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 28, 2018)

it's not that no one but clergy was allowed to learn to read and write, nobility was not only allowed to learn, it was encouraged. the common folk could have taught themselves pretty easily, IF, as you said the printing press was extant. no press means books are very rare, and valuable. so the guys digging shit all day don't have any. 
the clergy was taught to read and write so they could spend most of their days copying books, for the nobility and higher ups in the church


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 28, 2018)

Masses were even done in Latin, which the common man didn't speak.


----------



## alltatup (Apr 29, 2018)

alltatup said:


> I personally find comfort in my belief in infinity, which makes our entire universe a speck on a speck of star dust in the cosmos. Which leads me to assume that we aren't the only life forms around. What the amazing telescopes are able to map out in our "corner" of the cosmos is a speck. There is no totality in infinity: this gives me comfort, because it demonstrates the extreme limitations of human knowledge.
> 
> As for institutionalized religion: it's been the bane on human existence for the past 2,000 years give or take a few years. When Christianity got "institutionalized" in Europe during the Dark Ages, it became an extraordinarily repressive force. No one was allowed to learn to read and write outside of the clergy. (Printing press was about 1,000 years in the future.) Our species is still so brutish and primitive: it has used all the technological advances to flush the planet down the toilet. When you stop to think what 2 thousand years means in the evolution of our species, it's just a speck of time.
> 
> But "mother nature" persists around us, and will clean up after we're gone. That's my spiritual refuge...


Right, I forgot about the nobility. My point was that the church was extremely repressive and controlling; you can pretty much look at any time in history and see that. It really didn't want anyone else reading the Bible. It wanted control over everyone.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 29, 2018)

that's the purpose of all religions. to control people. spirituality and religion are two very separate things. the church still wants to control everyone. it always will, as that is its only purpose. how do you control what people think? teach them from childhood that the myths you believe (possibly) are real, and that you are their direct conduit to God.....people that believe that will do pretty much whatever you tell them.


----------



## alltatup (Apr 29, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> that's the purpose of all religions. to control people. spirituality and religion are two very separate things. the church still wants to control everyone. it always will, as that is its only purpose. how do you control what people think? teach them from childhood that the myths you believe (possibly) are real, and that you are their direct conduit to God.....people that believe that will do pretty much whatever you tell them.


Institutionalization is death to free, creative thought: we've seen it over and over throughout history. The pressures to conform seem to drive all institutions; I can't think of one that doesn't demand conformity: education, military, religion, politics.... 

But this is *my* world view and these are my beliefs and perceptions; I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right. I've always been an outsider, which is why I never joined in any organized religion or any other kind of group for long. And why I critique institutionalization. I couldn't stand the pressures to conform, and how threatened people can feel by those who think and act differently. _Mejor andar solo que mal acompañado: Better to walk alone than in bad company._


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 29, 2018)

some things require conformation, but that doesn't have to be a life long habit. if you're in the military, you're expected to follow the same rules, the same way, as everyone else, every time. there's a reason for that, and i not only understand it, i support it. but when you leave the military, there's no requirement to maintain that habit. 
nor does that apply to all things, religion and education should be personal experiences. people shouldn't have cookie cutter lessons shoved down their throats. there's no way to have a room with 20 or more students all keeping pace together. some people will pick up on things right away, some will take a little longer, some will have to have flash cards with pictures to take home, and a few will just never get it. to treat them all the same way doesn't make sense. the ones that get it right away are held back, bored. the ones that will never get it should be in other classes, the ones that need flash cards should be using them with each other....


----------



## alltatup (Apr 30, 2018)

Roger: I teach college students and I agree that I can't teach them all the same way, but I wouldn't ever want to segregate them into groups like you describe. The classroom is a micro model of the world they'll be entering after they graduate, and in the real world, we have to cooperate with people who are very different from us. I teach outsiders; many of them come from extreme socio-economic disadvantage--I live in a southern state that leans towards numbering among the least progressive southern states. 

I just spend a lot more individual time with the ones who struggle, and it seems to make all the difference in the world to the majority of them. Many college kids still need a lot of mentoring, guidance and remedial instruction.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 30, 2018)

i agree with you as far as the sociological aspects go. i wasn't suggesting segregation because of social stratification, i was suggest it because of intellectual disparity. the more intelligent are held back by the less, and the less intelligent feel inadequate next to the more intelligent


----------



## alltatup (Apr 30, 2018)

Roger A. Shrubber said:


> i agree with you as far as the sociological aspects go. i wasn't suggesting segregation because of social stratification, i was suggest it because of intellectual disparity. the more intelligent are held back by the less, and the less intelligent feel inadequate next to the more intelligent


I'm not sure we can separate social stratification from "intellectual disparity": I think they go hand in hand in a white supremecist society and culture.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (Apr 30, 2018)

i don't feel like any kind of supremacist. i never suggested that i'd be in the "more intelligent" segment.....i'd just be glad to fall in that middle ground.

social stratification is artificial, people can buy their way into a different, "higher" social strata, and lose their standing and be forced into a lower strata, with no regard to intelligence or ability. even if you're part of a "layer" you're still mobile within that layer.

intellectual differences are real. the reason they measure IQ is that they can....(not that its a useful metric in the real world)
some people learn faster. that's real. makes no difference that the slower learners feel bad, it's still real.
people should have to earn self esteem. if you hand it to someone on a little certificate, they didn't earn it, and it's not real. earned self esteem is what gives you the ability to deal with adversity later in life. holding people back from their potential so that others won't feel bad, is supremely stupid.
separate them, give them separate curricula, give them different goals to reach, and they can all feel that they've earned what they have.


----------



## Lucky Luke (Apr 30, 2018)

Interesting convo. My mum once told me that when she went to school there was three scools in the local area. 1 was for "smarter" kids. 2 was for the avg and 3 was for the trade school kids.

Not sure if that model has a place today but sometimes we need to look at the past for answers to the future.

Was a headmaster on the news/current affairs here last night that the students pick their own subjects (over 100 to choose from including robotics, coding etc) and can even pick there teacher. Idea is that the kids are more engaged and feel in control and therefore have better results that suit them. My internet is playing up but I believe it was this episode https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project


----------



## alltatup (Apr 30, 2018)

Roger, I never meant to imply that you were a supremecist!!! I'm talking about our society, which I perceive as white supremecist. And most white people don't have the slightest idea of just how priveleged they are in our society, or how disadvantaged some minorities are because the middle class and above are so economically segregated and distant from impoverished communities. It never ceases to amaze me how sheltered the vast majority of white folks are.

Reminder: these are my views, my perspectives, so I assume nothing about yours. 

"IQ" differences are not the only kind of differences, and intelligence does not have merely one measurement because there are many ways that it manifests. Being able to read Shakespeare or do calculus is only one measure. Humans possess so much more intelligence (or lack thereof) on various levels and in various capacities. 

I value emotional intelligence highly, and I value all kinds of artistic intelligence very highly as well.


----------



## Beefbisquit (May 3, 2018)

NanoGadget said:


> Seems consistent with the judeo-christian god... you know, the one that sends to to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't love him enough or say naughty words.... yup, seems about right.


You mean, the god who knew exactly what you were going to do before you did it, had the power to stop you, chose not, then chooses to punish you based on his plan that he put in motion?


----------



## alltatup (May 3, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> You mean, the god who knew exactly what you were going to do before you did it, had the power to stop you, chose not, then chooses to punish you based on his plan that he put in motion?


That god, as well as the one who says, "I'll make a deal with you. If you accept me as your personal savoir, I will send you to heaven. If, however, you decline this offer for whatever reason, you will burn in hellfire for eternity."


----------



## Bugeye (May 3, 2018)

Beefbisquit said:


> You mean, the god who knew exactly what you were going to do before you did it, had the power to stop you, chose not, then chooses to punish you based on his plan that he put in motion?


Ha ha! Can God make a rock so big and heavy that even He can not lift it?


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (May 3, 2018)

it's the exclusionary clause that puts me off. makes no difference if you've led an exemplary life, done good deeds with no hope of personal gain, helped others whenever you could, made the world a better place, if you die without accepting jesus christ as your personal savior, you're going to hell. that hardly seems fair to me.


----------



## alltatup (May 4, 2018)

A god shouldn't have to cut deals with humans! What kind of god is that? Sounds more like a mafia boss. Not to mention all the millions of human beings who were born before JC, or born in Africa, Asia, etc.: "Sorry: they all have to go to hell." This is not a god that I'd want anything to do with.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2018)

hybridcheef said:


> you guys are gonna suck a fat one when you die and it turns out there is a god lol. do you know how unlikely it would be that this is all random? its pretty obvious to see that there is a design of sorts. a master creator if you will. this is a pretty cool article. doesnt prove theres a god but its interesting
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#276e5045adae



You've given us Pascal's Wager, which is bad logic and was debunked a couple of hundred years ago. The problem with Pascal's wager is that there are hundreds of Gods to choose from, and many of them do not want you to worship any God but themselves. So, the odds that you happen to have picked the right God are pretty slim, meaning you'll most likely be sucking a fat one with the rest of us.


----------



## Rrog (May 4, 2018)

There’s always the flat earth. That’s a good one, too


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I really don't think anyone has tried to prove it...at least in the last 100 years.


Technically religious "theories" are actually something called immunized hypotheses. This is when an explanation is constructed in such a way as to avoid any attempt at falsification. IOW the hypothesis is immune to criticism. This is done by special pleading/moving the goal posts to the point of being supernatural, or by conspiracy mongering. In the case of religion it's special pleading. Any test you perform on religion can only confirm it, never disconfirm it. For example: if we pray for something and it happens, it's because God exists. If we pray for something and it doesn't happen, it's all part of God's plan, because he exists.

https://hatepseudoscience.com/2017/06/23/immunized-hypothesis/


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (May 4, 2018)

sounds like politics, if you say it didn't happen enough, then it must not have happened...


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (May 5, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> I don't see anyone here saying there is not a god or gods or something else we cannot explain. Your now talking about an afterlife which is a different topic.
> 
> You are assuming there is a God ,and one you can relate to from what you believe, that there is an after life and there is a judgement day and there is a heaven and a hell. Considering the Catholic God forgives all I don't see the point of a judgement day..... If its a Jewish God it wont matter unless your Jewish anyway as they are the only chosen people.
> 
> Maybe there is a creator of some sort but when we die...we die. We carry on by enriching the soil of mother earth. Maybe..


Since when is catholic god and jewish diferent? Seems inspid to think Windows 98 is really that different to xp....


----------



## Lucky Luke (May 5, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> Since when is catholic god and jewish diferent? Seems inspid to think Windows 98 is really that different to xp....


Because in the Jewish faith the Jews are the chosen people. Only they can go to heaven.

Anyone not Jewish are good enough to be their servants except were food preparation is concerned.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (May 6, 2018)

thats one reason its hard to get a jew to talk about the after life. i've tried a couple of times, and they just won't talk about it. guess its because they don't want us all to be bummed out about having to be their slaves for eternity


----------



## Bugeye (May 6, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Because in the Jewish faith the Jews are the chosen people. Only they can go to heaven.
> 
> Anyone not Jewish are good enough to be their servants except were food preparation is concerned.


I don't think so. An after life in heaven is really Christian dogma, not Jewish.


----------



## Roger A. Shrubber (May 6, 2018)

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/heaven-and-hell-in-jewish-tradition/


----------



## Lucky Luke (May 6, 2018)

Bugeye said:


> I don't think so. An after life in heaven is really Christian dogma, not Jewish.


Yes and no but in the context I was using to the quote I think the point was made.


----------



## alltatup (May 7, 2018)

Heisenberg said:


> Technically religious "theories" are actually something called immunized hypotheses. This is when an explanation is constructed in such a way as to avoid any attempt at falsification. IOW the hypothesis is immune to criticism. This is done by special pleading/moving the goal posts to the point of being supernatural, or by conspiracy mongering. In the case of religion it's special pleading. Any test you perform on religion can only confirm it, never disconfirm it. For example: if we pray for something and it happens, it's because God exists. If we pray for something and it doesn't happen, it's all part of God's plan, because he exists.
> 
> https://hatepseudoscience.com/2017/06/23/immunized-hypothesis/


Another part of the problem is how hard it is to get someone to at the very least examine the contradictions in what they believe. I've seen some Christians left speechless when I argued that a god who would send everyone born before Jesus to hell, as well as everyone who was never exposed to Christianity, was not a loving or just god. I concluded that each person I had this discussion with was both intellectually and emotionally incapable of dealing with the consequences of my argument, and anyone who cannot engage in rational discussion is also "immunized" by their one irrationality. So I would add that irrationality and denial are the icing on the cake of a religious immunized hypothesis.


----------



## eye exaggerate (May 7, 2018)

Heisenberg said:


> Technically religious "theories" are actually something called immunized hypotheses. This is when an explanation is constructed in such a way as to avoid any attempt at falsification. IOW the hypothesis is immune to criticism. This is done by special pleading/moving the goal posts to the point of being supernatural, or by conspiracy mongering. In the case of religion it's special pleading. Any test you perform on religion can only confirm it, never disconfirm it. For example: if we pray for something and it happens, it's because God exists. If we pray for something and it doesn't happen, it's all part of God's plan, because he exists.
> 
> https://hatepseudoscience.com/2017/06/23/immunized-hypothesis/


If you brought your post(s) (heh..) to Lennox at Oxford, what would he say? Not in the sense of afa, instead, a sit down to discuss. Can you create the scenario in your mind?

Lennox talks about belief in intelligence as risen from matter, and sees it (still) as having been created.

It's up to the individual to add the -or, by extension, or by common sense.

The only thing not tainted by meaning is meaning. You cannot test religion in the same way that you cannot test science - they are. f.e. "god" isn't the scale of attributes, it is the attribute itself. It can't be anything.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 7, 2018)

eye exaggerate said:


> If you brought your post(s) (heh..) to Lennox at Oxford, what would he say? Not in the sense of afa, instead, a sit down to discuss. Can you create the scenario in your mind?
> 
> Lennox talks about belief in intelligence as risen from matter, and sees it (still) as having been created.
> 
> ...


I imagine what he would say is that God is not a theory or explanation, but a person. God gave us science and so science cannot disprove God. This is, at least, what he says in some of his debates.

I'm not sure how much weight should be given to the fact that Lennox considers intelligence to be evidence of design. He seems to misunderstand some basic concepts, or else he's being intellectually dishonest. He confuses atheism with naturalism, repeats the trope that Einstein believed in God, and reduces the Big Bang to "something came from nothing" while not seeming to notice that his God would also have had to come from nothing (or need a creator himself, which came from nothing). I don't see anything that sets him apart from the typical apologist. Lots of strawmen, arguments from authority, and misleading rhetoric. 

So, Lennox is either decades behind the current conversation or else he purposefully latches on to sophistry. Either way, I'm not sure anything he has to say is worth listening to. If you want to give me a specific argument I will consider it on its own merits, but I don't think you do any argument any favors by connecting it in name to Lennox.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 7, 2018)

alltatup said:


> Another part of the problem is how hard it is to get someone to at the very least examine the contradictions in what they believe. I've seen some Christians left speechless when I argued that a god who would send everyone born before Jesus to hell, as well as everyone who was never exposed to Christianity, was not a loving or just god. I concluded that each person I had this discussion with was both intellectually and emotionally incapable of dealing with the consequences of my argument, and anyone who cannot engage in rational discussion is also "immunized" by their one irrationality. So I would add that irrationality and denial are the icing on the cake of a religious immunized hypothesis.


The mechanisms behind what you described are known as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. These are demonstrable, repeatable and well documented features of human intelligence. One wonders why God would need to include built-in hurtles to rationality when he designed intelligence, unless, of course, these mechanisms (and others like them) gave rise to God rather than God giving rise to the mechanisms.


----------



## alltatup (May 7, 2018)

Heisenberg said:


> The mechanisms behind what you described are known as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. These are demonstrable, repeatable and well documented features of human intelligence. One wonders why God would need to include built-in hurtles to rationality when he designed intelligence, unless, of course, these mechanisms (and others like them) gave rise to God rather than God giving rise to the mechanisms.


I'd say that first, they are emotional/psychological phenomena against which intelligence forms an irrational defense. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an idea threatens something that's repressed, so various and sundry defense mechanisms kick in. And if you can structure an entire institution around those defenses--the more elaborate the better--you're in the driver's seat as far as upholding truth goes. The Spanish Inquisition was quite eloquent in that way, and got everyone to act like they believed. Human consciousness can be a terrifying thing. 

And don't forget the Cartesian evil demon who could be foisting all of this upon us...


----------



## eye exaggerate (May 7, 2018)

Heisenberg said:


> I imagine what he would say is that God is not a theory or explanation, but a person. God gave us science and so science cannot disprove God. This is, at least, what he says in some of his debates.
> 
> I'm not sure how much weight should be given to the fact that Lennox considers intelligence to be evidence of design. He seems to misunderstand some basic concepts, or else he's being intellectually dishonest. He confuses atheism with naturalism, repeats the trope that Einstein believed in God, and reduces the Big Bang to "something came from nothing" while not seeming to notice that his God would also have had to come from nothing (or need a creator himself, which came from nothing). I don't see anything that sets him apart the typical apologist. Lots of strawmen, arguments from authority, and misleading rhetoric.
> 
> So, Lennox is either decades behind the current conversation or else he purposefully latches on to sophistry. Either way, I'm not sure anything he has to say is worth listening to. If you want to give me a specific argument I will consider it on its own merits, but I don't think you do any argument any favors by connecting it in name to Lennox.


Always for the sake of contemplation.

Both are valid threads; one of the thinking function, the other of the feeling function. I suppose it's the fine line between feeling materials and material with feeling. One is "the word", the capability to elevate intelligence with a kind of speech. The other is also "word", call science *the word - the actuality. Underlying these actualities are potentialities.

Again with a smattering of afa, but still worth contemplation, what is at the bottom of Heisenberg's glass? The point is that it's a mix, both modes are valid if you start at the right place.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 7, 2018)

eye exaggerate said:


> Always for the sake of contemplation.
> 
> Both are valid threads; one of the thinking function, the other of the feeling function. I suppose it's the fine line between feeling materials and material with feeling. One is "the word", the capability to elevate intelligence with a kind of speech. The other is also "word", call science *the word - the actuality. Underlying these actualities are potentialities.
> 
> Again with a smattering of afa, but still worth contemplation, what is at the bottom of Heisenberg's glass? The point is that it's a mix, both modes are valid if you start at the right place.


My views do not depend on eschewing emotions, but rather, carefully navigating them. Emotions are a wonderful and valuable tool of the human intellect. I believe that if one does not pay attention to emotion, one cannot be fully informed. 

The problem is that the more we learn about human intellect the more we learn that emotions can be false. In particular, the problem is that false emotions do not feel any different to us in terms of accuracy. Something can feel so very right while in fact be very wrong. Emotions can be helpful as a sort of executive function indicating what we should do with information once it is verified, but they cannot be relied on to separate what is so from what is not. This isn't just because they are unreliable, but also because, in so many cases, they seem geared to lead us in the opposite direction of truth. 

That emotions are useful is actually part of the problem. I say that because in terms of evolution what's useful is not necessarily what is accurate. Protecting ego, ensuring social status and succumbing to superstition are also useful in the right situations. The older parts of our cognition, the ones that rule silently and supremely, are not interested in rationality, they are interested in what's useful. 

So yes, thinking and feeling should never be separated, but the fact that something feels right is indication that the something is useful, not that it's true.


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (May 7, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Because in the Jewish faith the Jews are the chosen people. Only they can go to heaven.
> 
> Anyone not Jewish are good enough to be their servants except were food preparation is concerned.


Are you really that insipid?

Wtf are Himmlerites doing on this forum? Ohh wait KKK tokes now... 
I dont blame them, being angry and pissed at having a small penis I would toke too lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (May 7, 2018)

Heisenberg said:


> My views do not depend on eschewing emotions, but rather, carefully navigating them. Emotions are a wonderful and valuable tool of the human intellect. I believe that if one does not pay attention to emotion, one cannot be fully informed.
> 
> The problem is that the more we learn about human intellect the more we learn that emotions can be false. In particular, the problem is that false emotions do not feel any different to us in terms of accuracy. Something can feel so very right while in fact be very wrong. Emotions can be helpful as a sort of executive function indicating what we should do with information once it is verified, but they cannot be relied on to separate what is so from what is not. This isn't just because they are unreliable, but also because, in so many cases, they seem geared to lead us in the opposite direction of truth.
> 
> ...


I'm struggling with not distilling this to outcome, especially that of being wrong. Do you know what I mean? The mind is a powerful tool, and with its counterpart, real brilliance is achieved. We can stay away from the messy stuff by assigning structure to it. Recently a friend of mine (PhD in a couple of fields related to cognitive functions and hierarchies recently said to "let go of the wheel a little". I could tell she was wanting me to drift some, and so I've tried. Other PhDs I know claim that this is how new discoveries are made.

Either way, it's all pretty cool.


----------



## Lucky Luke (May 7, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> Are you really that insipid?
> 
> Wtf are Himmlerites doing on this forum? Ohh wait KKK tokes now...
> I dont blame them, being angry and pissed at having a small penis I would toke too lol


Its hard to have a discussion on Religions if you are going to confuse facts with hatred. Pardon the pun but its not Kosher.


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (May 7, 2018)

Lucky Luke said:


> Its hard to have a discussion on Religions if you are going to confuse facts with hatred. Pardon the pun but its not Kosher.


You seem to be hating to me...


----------



## alltatup (May 7, 2018)

I'm out of this forum: I can't believe the anti-Jewish sentiment being expressed. Very sad.


----------



## Z3r0Z3r0 (May 7, 2018)

alltatup said:


> I'm out of this forum: I can't believe the anti-Jewish sentiment being expressed. Very sad.


Ppl need to stop stereotyping, the problem is nationalism whether you want to call it fascism, national socialism, Trumpism, Populism, Zionism.

All forms of a patriotic delusion that somehow there needs to be borders to seperate human beings

There are cultures that are trully oppressed and they even never had a recognized land, like Irish, Bereber tribes, Basque and Native americans who truly have the right to call a land their own yet where is their flag?


----------



## Lucky Luke (May 7, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> You seem to be hating to me...


How is what I said hating?

Q, Do Jewish people believe the are the chosen people?

Q. Does the Jewish faith say only they will got to "heaven" or its equivalent? 

Q. Are none Jewish people allowed to handle the processing of food for Jewish people? 


How is talking about the Jewish religion any different than talking about Christianity or Islam? Why do otherwise normal people suddenly start to throw un founded accusations the moment the word Jew is used? 
If we insert Islam into the above questions we get similar answers apart from the third one. Interestingly enough Muslims can eat Kosher food.


----------



## Lucky Luke (May 7, 2018)

Z3r0Z3r0 said:


> Ppl need to stop stereotyping, the problem is nationalism whether you want to call it fascism, national socialism, Trumpism, Populism, Zionism.
> 
> All forms of a patriotic delusion that somehow there needs to be borders to seperate human beings
> 
> There are cultures that are trully oppressed and they even never had a recognized land, like Irish, Bereber tribes, Basque and Native americans who truly have the right to call a land their own yet where is their flag?


Irish?
Ireland....Dublin's a great town. I recommend it.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (May 11, 2018)

thepenofareadywriter said:


> I really don't think anyone has tried to prove it...at least in the last 100 years.


Christianity has it's roots in Hellenistic philosophy (believe it, or not). Basically keep your desires in check so you do not overstep into the passions. 

In other words be happy with a joint, and a beer instead of doing crack.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/66/f6/ef66f62c0b143f310f467b743877226a.png


----------

