Are you religious? Now featuring a poll

[BrianNole777]

I'm not opposed to checking out things that question what I believe, but this comes across as a combination of confirmation bias and religion-influenced imagination. So unless you can convince me of its merit, I'll pass.

If you want a fun read on NDEs I'll re-recommend Connie Willis's Passage. It's fiction, but actually has interesting science on NDEs mixed in. Plus, mutiple award-winner Willis really knows how to tell a story.

g

Thanks.

If humans live forever and our fate is sealed at death and we spend FOREVER either in bliss or torment based on these 70, 80 years here...that's serious business. Nothing else really matters in the final analysis.

IMHO of course.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I disagree. Might depend on what you mean by "universe" but

1) there's no necessity for a creator, and

2) even if there was a creator, there's no reason to equip it with all the bells and whistles of religion.

So a creator that didn't create? What did it do that affords it worship? And I never equipped that creator with anything.

Our puny human brains get unhappy when asked to choose between

a) the universe has always existed (never came into existence) or

b) the universe came into existence from nothing.

There are lots and lots of people working on that very question. Right now, no one can even describe a period when there was nothing. What we know - beyond doubt - is that quantum fluctuations in space-time can and do produce virtual particles...REAL particles...that annihilate themselves almost as quickly as they form. Real matter from a quantum vacuum - what appears to be nothing. Except space-time itself is something. Where did THAT come from? That takes us back to one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Yeah...all the rules cease to exist there. Gonna need a working theory of quantum gravity to go beyond that.

Logical or not, we think the universe had to come into existence from something. So, for most of us, some sort of God-Creator relieves the stress of picking between those troubling "explanations."

We dismiss the critique that God, in turn, must have either always existed or come from nothing. I suspect, if pushed, most believers would go with God having always existed. If it can create the universe, living forever is a piece of cake.

Its hard to accept permanent existence in the real world. But easy in the imaginary world.

And that's the god of the gaps. We get back to one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang and current knowledge has us stuck.

There's God!

Well...why? How would we know? If we ever understand quantum gravity, we push further back and understand the natural processes that gave rise to space-time. What happened to God? *shrug* What do we find there? Who knows but if we don't understand that...THERE'S God...getting smaller and smaller with every advance in our understanding.

Looking for God in what we don't understand about the universe is a losing proposition. No stress at all if you refuse to play that game.

 

[BrianNole777]

@tarheelbybirth do you still attend weekly Quaker services?

Just curious.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

My point is that science is great at what it does.

Atheists don't have a monopoly on science, as they claim.

I don't know a single atheist who makes that claim but science itself is "atheistic" -as in there's no basis for EVER invoking God. There's not a single speck of room in science for the "supernatural".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Many do. I know they buy their own cars.

Joel Osteen is worth $30 million. No Catholic clergy has that.

You're comparing apples to bowling balls, my friend.

Dude...there's an internet.

1) Apologetic for failing to consider the pastoral implications of the construction of a $2.2 million residence, Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory is re-evaluating his recent move.

In a column Monday for the archdiocesan newspaper the Georgia Bulletin, he said he failed to consider the impression the new home sent to area Catholics who give to the church while struggling to pay their own bills and the example he set for what it means to follow Jesus' example. As a result, he said he will meet with his various councils for guidance; if they advise him to sell the home, he will seek a new residence elsewhere.


2) Mansions in heaven weren't good enough for this archbishop. Newark's Archbishop John J. Myers is facing criticism for pricey plans to expand his retirement home.

Myers is planning to add a $500,000 addition to a Franklin Township house that the archdiocese purchased in 2002, the Star-Ledger reports.

The New Jersey leader has been using the 4,500-square-foot home as a weekend residence. It already has five bedrooms, three full bathrooms, a three-car garage, an outdoor pool and 8.2 wooded acres.

But the 72-year-old archbishop, who insists on being called "Your Grace," has big changes in mind for his home.

Workers have laid a wooden framework for the 3,000-square-foot addition. The archbishop's fancy new digs will reportedly have an indoor exercise pool, a hot tub, three fireplaces, a library and an elevator, according to records obtained by the Star-Ledger.

They don't need $30 million.

 

[BrianNole777]

Dude...there's an internet.

1) Apologetic for failing to consider the pastoral implications of the construction of a $2.2 million residence, Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory is re-evaluating his recent move.

In a column Monday for the archdiocesan newspaper the Georgia Bulletin, he said he failed to consider the impression the new home sent to area Catholics who give to the church while struggling to pay their own bills and the example he set for what it means to follow Jesus' example. As a result, he said he will meet with his various councils for guidance; if they advise him to sell the home, he will seek a new residence elsewhere.


2) Mansions in heaven weren't good enough for this archbishop. Newark's Archbishop John J. Myers is facing criticism for pricey plans to expand his retirement home.

Myers is planning to add a $500,000 addition to a Franklin Township house that the archdiocese purchased in 2002, the Star-Ledger reports.

The New Jersey leader has been using the 4,500-square-foot home as a weekend residence. It already has five bedrooms, three full bathrooms, a three-car garage, an outdoor pool and 8.2 wooded acres.

But the 72-year-old archbishop, who insists on being called "Your Grace," has big changes in mind for his home.

Workers have laid a wooden framework for the 3,000-square-foot addition. The archbishop's fancy new digs will reportedly have an indoor exercise pool, a hot tub, three fireplaces, a library and an elevator, according to records obtained by the Star-Ledger.

They don't need $30 million.

It's not their asset.

They just live there. I agree they should try to live as modestly as possible.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

@tarheelbybirth do you still attend weekly Quaker services?

Just curious.

Just about every week.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It's not their asset.

They just live there.

I hope you're kidding.

 

[BrianNole777]

I hope you're kidding.

I'm not. Most priests live in a rectory which is like a large rental house. It's not fancy.

Joel Osteen lives here and it's his asset. He owns this mansion.

There's a huge difference. I agree Christians should live modestly, though.

Joel Osteen's House in Houston, TX (Google Maps) (#2)

Joel Osteen's House (Google Maps). The home of Joel Osteen is located in the River Oaks suburb of Houston Texas. The $10.5M house is the primary residence for the family. Joel Osteen is an American preacher, televangelist, and author of New York Times Bestselling books. He is most recognized as...

virtualglobetrotting.com

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not. Most priests live in a rectory which is like a large rental house. It's not fancy.

Joel Osteen lives here and it's his asset. He owns this mansion.

There's a huge difference. I agree Christians should live modestly, though.

Joel Osteen's House in Houston, TX (Google Maps) (#2)

Joel Osteen's House (Google Maps). The home of Joel Osteen is located in the River Oaks suburb of Houston Texas. The $10.5M house is the primary residence for the family. Joel Osteen is an American preacher, televangelist, and author of New York Times Bestselling books. He is most recognized as...

virtualglobetrotting.com

These bishops live in multimillion dollar homes. For free. Myers was using a 4,500-square-foot home as a weekend residence. Bought by the archdiocese. Not enough - he wanted to add another 3,000 sq. feet. And this was, apparently, going to be his "retirement home". I guess you'd be ok with Osteen if he took a small stipend and let his church buy everything for him. Then it wouldn't be HIS asset.

These guys are the Osteens of the Catholic Church...and, unlike Joel, there's more than one of them.

 

[BrianNole777]

These bishops live in multimillion dollar homes. For free. Myers was using a 4,500-square-foot home as a weekend residence. Bought by the archdiocese. Not enough - he wanted to add another 3,000 sq. feet. And this was, apparently, going to be his "retirement home". I guess you'd be ok with Osteen if he took a small stipend and let his church buy everything for him. Then it wouldn't be HIS asset.

These guys are the Osteens of the Catholic Church...and, unlike Joel, there's more than one of them.

None of them are worth $30 million like Osteen.

We'll just agree to disagree there's a difference.

Regardless, I wouldn't leave Jesus because of Judas.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

None of them are worth $30 million like Osteen.

We'll just agree to disagree there's a difference.

Regardless, I wouldn't leave Jesus because of Judas.

There. Is. No. Difference. What difference does it make if you live LIKE you're worth $30M versus actually having $30M? Serious question.

If Osteen lives in that house but let his church buy it for him...he's just like the bishop. Does that change his prosperity gospel?? That he doesn't own the house makes absolutely NO difference to him. The only difference is a bishop can't will his mansion to his children. Oh...wait...that's not a problem, is it?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So a creator that didn't create? What did it do that affords it worship? And I never equipped that creator with anything.

There are lots and lots of people working on that very question. Right now, no one can even describe a period when there was nothing. What we know - beyond doubt - is that quantum fluctuations in space-time can and do produce virtual particles...REAL particles...that annihilate themselves almost as quickly as they form. Real matter from a quantum vacuum - what appears to be nothing. Except space-time itself is something. Where did THAT come from? That takes us back to one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Yeah...all the rules cease to exist there. Gonna need a working theory of quantum gravity to go beyond that.

And that's the god of the gaps. We get back to one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang and current knowledge has us stuck.

There's God!

Well...why? How would we know? If we ever understand quantum gravity, we push further back and understand the natural processes that gave rise to space-time. What happened to God? *shrug* What do we find there? Who knows but if we don't understand that...THERE'S God...getting smaller and smaller with every advance in our understanding.

Looking for God in what we don't understand about the universe is a losing proposition. No stress at all if you refuse to play that game.

Two scientists are working in a lab with matter, antimatter and various rare elements, all held in small rack of containers made of the appropriate fields, materials, plasmas, etc. to keep them from doing dangerous things until the scientists are ready for them.

One scientist almost accidentally knocks the small rack to the floor. The other gasps and says "that was nearly a catastrophe!"

"What do you think would have happened if I hadn't caught myself" the first one asks.

"Very likely a profound explosion opening a rift in the space-time continuum and possibly creating a pocket universe," the other replies.

As the scientists leave the lab for lunch, neither notices the cat sneaking through the door. She hops up on the table and starts batting at the pretty rack....

 

[BrianNole777]

There. Is. No. Difference. What difference does it make if you live LIKE you're worth $30M versus actually having $30M? Serious question.

If Osteen lives in that house but let his church buy it for him...he's just like the bishop. Does that change his prosperity gospel?? That he doesn't own the house makes absolutely NO difference to him. The only difference is a bishop can't will his mansion to his children. Oh...wait...that's not a problem, is it?

The "prosperity gospel" isn't the Gospel, is my point.

That's all.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The "prosperity gospel" isn't the Gospel, is my point.

That's all.

And my point is that the Roman Catholic Church practices it. To a far, FAR greater extent than Olsteen is even capable of comprehending.

 

[BrianNole777]

And my point is that the Roman Catholic Church practices it. To a far, FAR greater extent than Olsteen is even capable of comprehending.

It's one thing to PREACH prosperity Gospel and another thing if SOME bishops live in large houses that they don't own.

Completely different.

No bishop has $30 million in the bank and preaches prosperity Gospel like Joel Osteen does.

Plenty of bishops live modestly but you seem to ignore that because of a bias.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker but I'm not going to judge you because of him.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It's one thing to PREACH prosperity Gospel and another thing if SOME bishops live in large houses that they don't own.

Completely different.

No bishop has $30 million in the bank and preaches prosperity Gospel like Joel Osteen does.

Plenty of bishops live modestly but you seem to ignore that because of a bias.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker but I'm not going to judge you because of him.

The Church promises an eternity in Heaven in exchange for 10%. You don’t have to pay but no one has to pay Olsteen, either. He promises happiness here they promise happiness there. And they own hundreds of BILLIONS in property and riches all over the world and the highest in the heirarchy live in opulent circumstances. I’ll give the current pope credit for eschewing much of that but I’d give him a lot more credit if he told the Church, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

I can’t recall who said that.

 

[BrianNole777]

The Church promises an eternity in Heaven in exchange for 10%. You don’t have to pay but no one has to pay Olsteen, either. He promises happiness here they promise happiness there. And they own hundreds of BILLIONS in property and riches all over the world and the highest in the heirarchy live in opulent circumstances. I’ll give the current pope credit for eschewing much of that but I’d give him a lot more credit if he told the Church, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

I can’t recall who said that.

What Church promises an eternity in Heaven for 10%??

The Vatican does own priceless artwork, that's true. It's still not the same as the prosperity gospel.

I donate $30 a month to Church.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What Church promises an eternity in Heaven for 10%??

The Vatican does own priceless artwork, that's true. It's still not the same as the prosperity gospel.

Well, of course it isn’t.

 

[BrianNole777]

@Jimmy McGill I know that verse. It always makes me think of someone else since it's been repeated so many times.

 

[BrianNole777]

@Hawki97 I left the other thread. You are definitely free to have your own beliefs, my friend.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

There's nothing "fence-sitting" about agnosticism. It's an understanding that, if there is some over-arching intelligence, it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable. It also acknowledges that if a "god" exists, it's less aware of humanity than we are of the individual cells in our little toe.

Interesting, so you think agnosticism only offers those two, very distinct possibilities?

No other possibilities exist? None at all?

Seems sorta narrow-minded no? And sorta contradicts the definition of agnosticism itself.

agnosticism

ăg-nŏs′tĭ-sĭz″əm

noun​

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Interesting, so you think agnosticism only offers those two, very distinct possibilities?

No other possibilities exist? None at all?

Seems sorta narrow-minded no? And sorta contradicts the definition of agnosticism itself.

agnosticism

ăg-nŏs′tĭ-sĭz″əm

noun​

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

Uhhh...your definition is exactly what I posted.

if there is some over-arching intelligence, it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

I'll retract the second part of my post as a reach - that a theoretical god would be unaware of us - but only because it implies knowing something about the nature of a god. And that's not truly agnostic.

 

[BrianNole777]

Uhhh...your definition is exactly what I posted.

if there is some over-arching intelligence, it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

I'll retract the second part of my post as a reach - that a theoretical god would be unaware of us - but only because it implies knowing something about the nature of a god. And that's not truly agnostic.

Why do you go to weekly Quaker services and then spend much of the rest of your time arguing that God doesn't exist?

Just curious.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

People say this as though it makes sense. But it can only make sense if you have a clear definition of your deities.

Pretty sure Zeus doesn't exist. But it's not impossible for some humanoid alien with advanced tech to have visited our world in the past and to have interacted with humans enough to plant the seeds that became the pantheon of Greek gods.

Implausible and, as far as I know, totally unsupported by fact. But not impossible.

On the other hand, many of the "features" of Christianity and claims about God or Jesus go well beyond being implausible.

The idea that God can do anything he wants - including miracles, stopping the sun, resurrecting dead people and so on - strays into supernatural territory. That is it strays into the NOT real.

If people want to hold the door open to alien beings, that's a form of agnosticism I can live with. Might mock it, or not, depending on how silly they get. But that concept of gods is still within the realm of the logically possible. The Christian god seems to stray well out of the rational realm, so people who claim to think that sort of god might exist aren't really agnostics, imo.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why do you go to weekly Quaker services and then spend much of the rest of your time arguing that God doesn't exist?

Just curious.

I've never once argued that there is no god. I'll argue against the concept of the God bound up in Christianity...or Islam...or any other man-made religion. Most of those dudes are psychotic.

BTW, there are Quakers who are "non-theists".

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Uhhh...your definition is exactly what I posted.

if there is some over-arching intelligence, it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

I'll retract the second part of my post as a reach - that a theoretical god would be unaware of us - but only because it implies knowing something about the nature of a god. And that's not truly agnostic.

So you reject, as an agnostic, that a God who is fully aware and interested in His creation is an impossibility? That “truth” is attainable according to you, correct?

 

[BrianNole777]

I've never once argued that there is no god. I'll argue against the concept of the God bound up in Christianity...or Islam...or any other man-made religion. Most of those dudes are psychotic.

BTW, there are Quakers who are "non-theists".

OK.

What's your concept of God?

Who was Jesus?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So you reject, as an agnostic, that a God who is fully aware and interested in His creation is an impossibility? That “truth” is attainable according to you, correct?

I didn't say I was agnostic. And I retracted the second part as obviously not being agnostic.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

I didn't say I was agnostic. And I retracted the second part as obviously not being agnostic.

Great thanks but I’m curious for your answer.

Do you accept or reject the idea that there could be a God that is fully aware and fully interested in His own creation? Or, is that an impossibility in your mind?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

OK.

What's your concept of God?

I'll go with Einstein: It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem-the most important of all human problems.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Great thanks but I’m curious for your answer.

Do you accept or reject the idea that there could be a God that is fully aware and fully interested in His own creation? Or, is that an impossibility in your mind?

Aware of creation? Sure. Aware of every aspect of every single living and non-living thing that exists in that universe? I'll come down on the "it's unlikely" side of that.

 

[BrianNole777]

I'll go with Einstein: It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem-the most important of all human problems.

Wow.

So, you're an atheist. That was my sense after reading your posts.

Einstein was an atheist although he rejected the label.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

What do you think about Jesus?

When do you think you'll die and what do you think will happen?

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Aware of creation? Sure. Aware of every aspect of every single living and non-living thing that exists in that universe? I'll come down on the "it's unlikely" side of that.

Thanks. Earlier in post #303 you said:

“ it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable.”

So you can see how I became confused.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Wow.

So, you're an atheist.

Einstein was.

What do you think about Jesus?

So - in your mind - refusal to believe in a personal god is the same as atheist. Interesting...but not all that surprising, I suppose.

Spinoza's god was - basically - the universe. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”. So, certainly not an atheist - neither was Einstein. Probably not a theist in any true sense. Smart guy, though.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Thanks. Earlier in post #303 you said:

“ it's so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable.”

So you can see how I became confused.

Not really. An entity that's truly aware of the universe would be "so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable." I would think that would be clear.

And before you get confused again, being aware of the universe doesn't mean it would be aware of every single tiny little item in that universe. Are you aware of your body? Are you aware of every single cell in your little toe?

 

[BrianNole777]

So - in your mind - refusal to believe in a personal god is the same as atheist. Interesting...but not all that surprising, I suppose.

Spinoza's god was - basically - the universe. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”. So, certainly not an atheist - neither was Einstein. Probably not a theist in any true sense. Smart guy, though.

Well yeah, that's literally the definition of atheist:


atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/

noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheist definition - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Not really. An entity that's truly aware of the universe would be "so far removed from us that it's profoundly unknowable." I would think that would be clear.

And before you get confused again, being aware of the universe doesn't mean it would be aware of every single tiny little item in that universe. Are you aware of your body? Are you aware of every single cell in your little toe?

Hmmmm…

Could you elaborate on your idea that a creator cannot be aware of what He creates?

That is a head-scratcher.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Well yeah, that's literally the definition of atheist:


atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/

noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheist definition - Google Search

www.google.com

And your definition, obviously, doesn't apply to Spinoza. He never once argued against the existence of God and in fact defined as the ultimate good the love of God. You might not like his presentation of God but he didn't like yours, either. He did rather like Jesus quite a bit.

 

[BrianNole777]

And your definition, obviously, doesn't apply to Spinoza. He never once argued against the existence of God and in fact defined as the ultimate good the love of God. You might not like his presentation of God but he didn't like yours, either. He did rather like Jesus quite a bit.

He made up his own definition of God being "the universe." So, he may have been a pantheist but he was an atheist in terms of his unbelief in a personal God.

Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist? | Issue 151 | Philosophy Now

Kenneth Novis says the case hinges on how you define ‘God’.

philosophynow.org