Conversation
Notices
-
♻ @thisisabore: That's the problem with the idea of #God: it can be used to justify anything http://ur1.ca/04m1j !atheism #animalrights
-
@tioduke Every one gets theirs. Especially those that misrepresent God.
-
@brotherred Bit hard to *accurately* represent god ;-)
-
@brotherred "Misrepresenting God" implies there is a correct representation. My I ask you which one and why do you think it is the one?
-
@tioduke You can't misrepresent something that doesn't make itself known to even exist... ;)
-
@tioduke Fundamental Christian. What is truth? Well if I do not know then it is on me to find it or go to hell.
-
@mattyv By living we are but a imperfect reflection of God. We are created in God's image. But we chose sin over obedience.
-
@brotherred It's remarkable that the correct representation matches your own religious beliefs. Also, may I ask you how you found the truth?
-
@brotherred Wait... I bet you were raised a Christian (and I'd venture you were even raised a FC). What will happen with people that weren't
-
@brotherred ... like, for instance, hindus, buddhist, jews, mahometans, krishnas, etc.? Are they all goind to hell? !atheism
-
@brotherred What *objective truth* are you taking about?
-
@brotherred of course you realise you're an !atheist (just as @tioduke and me) pertaining to 1000s of gods? we just go one god further.
-
@tioduke This conversation is making less sense by the minute… I can't understand or see the point in half of @brotherred's messages :/
-
@rysiek Nice remark!
-
@thisisabore Neither do I, but isn't that the case with theism in general? !atheism
-
@tioduke yeah, I stole it off of Teh intertubes some years ago. ;)
-
@tioduke What I do not know I do not know. Sorry to sound trite but I and only know what I am responsible for.
-
@tioduke To who much (knowledge or conviction) is given much is required. The truth of God is found in nature if people are not blind to it.
-
@tioduke Any discussion of a god or gods or the God involves what that person thinks truth is. But for truth to be real it must not change.
-
@brotherred That's exactly the definition of.. wait... *subjective* Oo
-
@brotherred @tioduke That is why I made the reference to #sports it is one thing where obvious truth and be known but does not matter.
-
@brotherred Where in nature did you find the prove of: "3 people in 1", "virgins giving birth", "the age of the world being < 6000 years"?
-
@tioduke Subjectives are the attempt to deny any rock solid understanding of any certain thing. It sits at the crux of any anti God idea.
-
@brotherred A fellow Fundamental Christian's dixit "fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again" !atheism
-
@tioduke heey, I know this. that's Bush Junior, isn't it? :)
-
@brotherred You fail at exactly this: !atheism isn't about being anti God. It easier than that: it is about not believing in God.
-
@tioduke In nature or in all of science I do not find much *proof* of any of what science is said to have answers for.
-
@brotherred now see, “it is one thing where obvious truth and be known but does not matter.” is one of those sentences that dont make sense…
-
@thisisabore it does make perfect sense because the only time people get objective is to find out if a ball crossed a line or something like
-
@teddks strong atheism is a belief there is no god, weak atheism is a lack of a belief in god. being an…
-
@brotherred I was ref. to your convoluted and treacherous grammar… Otherwise, I get the idea. Try harder not to sound like Yoda on crack pls
-
@teddks Well, for me being anti- something whose existance one doen't believe in is a contradiction in itself.
-
@teddks being anti-religion is another thing.
-
@rysiek who else?
-
@tioduke anti-religion as religion is done or observed for its own sake... I defy as well. Anti-authority in in favor of anarchy that is...
-
@teddks maybe not the nastiest, but surely killed the most...
-
@teddks fwiw, I'm fairly sure most Christians are anti-God about the same God you are.
-
@teddks (cont) If you were to describe God I would probably say "I don't believe in that God, either."
-
@openuniverse I am a strong !atheist anti-theist, but part of my not believing in god is the refusal to believe in god.
-
@hexmode A god that creates the universe? A god that designs species? A god that makes any sort of actions that determine future events?
-
@teddks You'd have to clarify your first two items. The third, well, that's not much different than you or I.
-
@hexmode 3: it's different because it's another entity doing it, not us. The first are intuitive.
-
@teddks Does another entity determine our future? No. We are responsible for our own actions and their results.
-
@teddks First are not intuitive. Ima guess you mean "literal Genesis story". No, I don't believe that.
-
@hexmode If that's true, than god is not omnipotent, and all Abrahamic religions are false.
-
@hexmode Any story where a god-entity creates the universe is unacceptable for me.
-
@hexmode Really, 1&2 are "is science a way we can understand the universe"; any worshipped god gets in the way of that
-
@teddks "omnipotence"--is this a rehashing of "free will" vs "predestination" that continues today under the guise of deterministic physics?
-
@hexmode There's no respected deterministic physics anymore. The clockword universe is dead; Heisenberg killed it.
-
@teddks fwiw, whether you mean omnipotence or non-theistic physics, we experience self-determinism.
-
@teddks Understanding ourselves through abstract concepts like the laws of physics or "omnipotence" isn't very useful for anyone.
-
@teddks Physicists haven't shown a link between physics at the quantum level and macro-level physics. But I'm cool w/ being wrong abt this.
-
@teddks (that is, if I'm wrong about it, I'm perfectly happy that way, too.)
-
@hexmode There's no unified theory, but quantum physics is definitely correct.
-
@tioduke Well here's an interesting thing: God exists, he just isn't real :) It's the same for all fictional characters really…
-
@teddks Science is def how we understand the universe. I don't believe in a "god of the gaps".
-
@teddks Unfortuantely religion is a concept that has tangible roots in the real world.
-
@hexmode If that's true, then every major religion is wrong.
-
@teddks What I try to say: for me the relationship between religion/god is the same as the one in literature/ficitional character.
-
@tioduke I see the point, but I think it's useful to be able to characterize non-organized religions
-
@teddks While many fundamentalists put god/religion & science at cross-purposes, god/religion isn't nec. opposed to science.
-
@hexmode but if the existence of a god is to make any difference, it must change the world in some observable way...
-
@hexmode ...and if that happens, then you end up with a god of the gaps, and eventually, a toothless god, because you can disprove claims.
-
@teddks science has helped us understand how apophatic (negative) theology (common in the East) is much better than trad Western theology
-
@teddks since Thomas Aquinas, we Westerners have tried to make god a subject of study. That doesn't work. God can't be experimented on.
-
@hexmode If that's true, than god has no observable effects on the universe, which means it doesn't exist.
-
@teddks I have no scientific proof of god. Only subjective experience.
-
@teddks point was: u describe what it is that you don't believe in, I wld prbly say "I 2 don't believe" So far, that seems true.
-
@teddks for the record, I'm really pretty conservative: believe in things like Godhood of Jesus, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
-
@teddks (just so you know I'm not just say "well, I don't believe that, either" to everything :) )
-
@hexmode then you do believe that god changes the universe in observable ways, and there is no distinction between science and religion
-
@teddks has the ability to affect us? yes. no distinction? no (best to ask if I believe something rather than telling me what I have to blv)
-
@hexmode claims about the observable universe are claims about the observable universe; once you have that, you can do science to it
-
@teddks the miraculous is, by definition, non-reproducible. Saying "can't be reproduced" isn't the same as saying "didn't happen"
-
@hexmode If that's true, than science cannot be used to understand the universe.
-
@teddks obviously science can be used to understand the universe, though. I'm fine with that and I don't see that means god is or is not.
-
@teddks perhaps a helpful q would be: is god part of the universe? I would say "no".
-
@hexmode Not if your religious beliefs are true, because then there are no orderly laws we can reduce things to beyond the whims of a deity
-
@teddks but, obviously there are laws. Though, a lot of us are like Einstein and don't understand quantum and the dice-playing it implies.
-
@teddks (e.g. quantum doesn't "feel" orderly)
-
@hexmode if god can break the laws of the universe, than they aren't actually laws. that's my point.
-
@hexmode quantum physics is probabilistic, but they are still invariants. Getting around them means they aren't true.
-
@hexmode For instance, if God can observe the position and velocity of a particle, the heisenberg uncertainty principle is untrue
-
@teddks "aren't actually laws"? if the law doesn't apply to god (who is not part of the universe) then that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
-
@hexmode if God interacts with the universe, it is a part of the universe.
-
@teddks "part of" I understand to mean "inside of" or "subset of" or "is dependent on" none of which apply. This doesn't exclde interaction
-
@teddks yeah, anti-theist is definitely the word that was missing a moment ago (well, in the time frame…
-
@teddks If I interact with a cat, am I a part of the cat?
-
@teddks How would you design a controlled experiment to test for a god? Seems to me that is impossible, and you're using the wrong tool.
-
@jgoerzen You're part of a system including you, the cat, and the environment.
-
@jgoerzen I can't test for any god, but I can test for every proposed god. For instance, the god of the bible doesn't exist.
-
@teddks Most scientists & philosophers disagree, I think. How would you craft such a controlled experiment?
-
@jgoerzen Most scientists and philosophers agree you can test factual claims. The bible makes incorrect factual claims.
-
@teddks Many disagree that the Bible is iin the business of making many factual claims. Borg for insta ce.
-
@teddks Also you changed the question. Testing a Biblical claim != testing for God.
-
@jgoerzen But christians assert that the bible makes factual claims, otherwise they would be atheists.
-
@jgoerzen It means testing for the god presented in the bible.
-
@hexmode But if it doesn't describe something that exists, then you're believing in nothing.
-
@teddks You're free to think that. I can't prove you wrong. Main point: it looks like your 'a' doesn't really know about my 'theism'.
-
@teddks fwiw my frustration comes from many atheists who rejected their birth theism and think all theism mimic it.
-
@hexmode You can't appeal to my ignorance forever. If the bible doesn't describe something that exists, it might as well be LotR.
-
@teddks lack of proof of existence isn't proof of truth (e.g. Gödel's incompleteness theorems) Feel free to disbelieve
-
@teddks also, I never said the bible describes something that doesn't exist.
-
@teddks two back: s/truth/untruth/
-
@teddks this is the cornerstone of my thinking about religion- popular fiction
-
@teddks Test for a god defined only by eternality and being too advanced for humans to understand. Good luck.
-
@teddks Your paintbrush is too wide. *SOME* Christians may assert that, but not all. I agree with you that Biblical literalism is trouble.
-
@hexmode: just FYI, I was born (and later raised, but that's tangential) as an atheist.
-
@teddks very interesting. I was raised fundamentalist and converted to Orthodoxy for some of the same problems you outline (eg literalism)
-
@hexmode >isn't very useful >implying it is not.
-
@brotherred To find proof for answers science gives, you have to learn science. In the physics course we did the experiments *ourselves*.
-
-
@hexmode you are wrong about physics. Quantum Physics can be traced to our normal size (decoherence). We don’t have the math for all, though
-
@hexmode Did you try finding alternate theories for your subjective experience? Would a pagan or eastern god or unpersonal force fit, too?
-
@arnebab Me, wrong about physics?!?! say it ain't so!
-
@arnebab I converted to Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity, so yes, I looked outside my immediate context.
-
@arnebab Xianity claims revelation not objectivity. Story of love in God-become-Man remains compelling to me over other interpretations
-
@gegoxaren if you think physics is useful for understanding yourself, more power to you. I don't find it useful in that way.
-
@hexmode So, you found „truth“ at another place → you were wrong once → you could be wrong now → why believe? Why not say „current theory“?
-
@arnebab I'm well aware that my understanding is incomplete. I could be wrong. I never said otherwise.
-
@hexmode So your current theory is „there’s a god“. It explains some experiences which other theories explain, too, so you can’t verify it.
-
@arnebab sounds like you understand. Revelation is inherently unverifiable and subjective.
-
@hexmode that’s not what I mean. I mean: Your „revelation“ is simply a theory for experiences. It doesn’t show anything about deeper truths.
-
@hexmode all „truths“ in „revelations“ are stabs at explaining things you don’t understand. They are not *inherently* unverifyable.
-
@arnebab What I call "revelation" is an experience with a person. Its subjective, not objectively verifiable.
-
@hexmode the important part there is to always keep in mind, that any „revelation“ has the exact same value.
-
@hexmode so the sole distinction between jedi knights, christians and atheists is „how does it affect society if people believe that?“
-
@hexmode does it help society if people believe in a god and adhere to arbitrary rules which were created over thousand years ago?
-
@arnebab "To find proof for answers science gives..." The church goer and the scientist end up dealing with things that can not be proven.
-
@brotherred You can prove that something is true in given bounds. Relativity is true as far as it concerns the Myons we could measure.
-
@brotherred the church goer and the mathematician want absolute truth, but only the mathematician can find it ;)
-
@brotherred a physicist is happy to know a theory to be valid in given bounds — and pushes the bounds in the hope to find it wrong :)
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the