Donald Trump.

[JoeR]

Explanation for what?



That's certainly not true of agnosticism, nor, really, of atheism. Agnosticism relies in no way on faith. Very much to the contrary, agnostics simply decide to draw no conclusions without some rational basis to form one. To an agnostic, believing in any particular God, among the thousands of Gods who have been proposed over the millennia, is, without any evidence, no more rational or irrational than believing that a particular random named Jorik lived in a village in some random place 18,000 years ago. Could have happened. There's no reason necessarily to disbelieve it, but without evidence that someone named Jorik lived in that village 18,000 years ago, there isn't really a basis for believing it was true, either.

Now, you might think that the evidence for the God you believe in is a lot more plausible than the evidence that might exist for old Jorik, but an agnostic doesn't find your evidence persuasive, for largely the same reasons you don't find the evidence of other religions persuasive.

As for myself, I'm a Catholic, but my faith has really been devastated by the child sex scandals. I do operate more on reason than on blind faith, and that threw me for a loop, because one of the more egregious child sex predators was a priest that I absolutely adored as a kid. When I turned 16 and got a car, I had him bless it with holy water and all that (I totaled it and scarred my face for life in that car six months later). Finding out that he'd been buggering little dudes my age when I was 9 was devastating. It destroyed the whole underpinning of my faith, which was, essentially, the Invisible Hand theory. The non-existence of the Invisible Hand was pretty much proven to my satisfaction, and that means that everything I relied on in my faith was shown to be unreliable. I feel cheated, because I want to believe, but my faith is just not what it used to be.

That, and the Book of Job. Reading the Bible from cover to cover, especially the Book of Job, diminished my faith every time.



There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no atheists during an emergency repot.

I am not Catholic, and so I do not fully understand how Catholicism operates. But I do know most of the 'core' ideas.


Their 'rational basis' can be very faulty as well. For example, itt can be based on something put out by the scientific community, who is subject to human error and opinion. All scientists and the people they work for have some sort of an agenda that affects what data is put out and how it is skewed to fit their agenda.


Anyway.


I dont understand why the book of Job had such a negative impact? Maybe you only read the book of Job, not thinking or reading any further?
-Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. ...

 

[Bonsai Nut]

You didn't recognize how tougne in asscheek that statement was

And you don't realize how insecure and immature you sound online. There are two ways you could read my post; the way it was intended, or via a twisted, angry filter that assumes people always mean the opposite of what they say. You chose the latter.

 

[carp]

And you don't realize how insecure and immature you sound online. There are two ways you could read my post; the way it was intended, or via a twisted, angry filter that assumes people always mean the opposite of what they say. You chose the latter.

No, you took the "ass at me" statement literal, when it was sarcasm. The whole thing was a joke. Can't stump the Trump.

 

[coh]

The thing that is sad/ironic/stupid/many other adjectives about the rise of religious fundamentalism of all types, is that humans could potentially be on the verge of destroying the civilization they've built up...because of arguments and disagreements about a god that in all likelihood, doesn't exist, at least in the biblical form. If there is an alien civilization somewhere watching this play out from afar...it's gotta be the best reality show of all time.

 

[michaelj]

I am not Catholic, and so I do not fully understand how Catholicism operates. But I do know most of the 'core' ideas.
Their 'rational basis' can be very faulty as well. For example, itt can be based on something put out by the scientific community, who is subject to human error and opinion. All scientists and the people they work for have some sort of an agenda that affects what data is put out and how it is skewed to fit their agenda.

Catholicism operates like any other Christian church, except that it, like a couple of other offshoots of it, maintain a more thorough and linear catechism than other churches, and it has a history and governance that traces itself back to the original Apostles.

The difference between the rationality of science and the faith of religion is that when when new facts are learned, science will generally rewrite its body of knowledge to account for it. Religion will instead keep all of its body of knowledge, and will do one of several irrational things to account for the apparent conflict of evidence, such as presume some supernatural event that wasn't seen, discussed or written about before, revise a literal translation into a symbolic one, discredit or disregard the science unfairly, or something similar.

I dont understand why the book of Job had such a negative impact? Maybe you only read the book of Job, not thinking or reading any further?

I've read the Bible, cover to cover, four times in my life. Working on #5. Some chapters are really hard to take. Job is my least favorite. I finish reading Job and conclude that, if it was true, God is a petty God with no love of humanity whatsoever. For no reason other than a pissing match with Satan, God the all-knowing gives Satan permissible to destroy all that Job, a righteous and upright man, owns, to make people ill, to kill Job's servants and family, including his innocent children, and when Job remains faithful, like a sad little dog that still loves the master who beats him senseless, God rewards Job with even more property than he had before, and even more children to replace the dead ones. As if that solves anything.

If God did that to me, let Satan kill my children, etc., and I survived it with my faith intact, and then I had more children, and I found out that it was all over a stupid f***ing bet with Satan, I would not react as Job did. I'd want my first children back is what I'd want, not some "good little doggie" pat on the head and a bunch of replacement kids.

If you have difficulty seeing my point of view, cut and paste the Book of Job into a word processing document. Change the words "God" and "the Lord" to "Zeus" and change "Satan" to "Hades". At the end, honestly consider your opinion of Zeus and his people.

 

[Rid]

No, you took the "ass at me" statement literal, when it was sarcasm. The whole thing was a joke. Can't stump the Trump.

It's too bad you didn't inherit a comedy club!

 

[Tentakelaertje]

If you have difficulty seeing my point of view, cut and paste the Book of Job into a word processing document. Change the words "God" and "the Lord" to "Zeus" and change "Satan" to "Hades". At the end, honestly consider your opinion of Zeus and his people.

Except for Zeus and Hades are not even close to the same as god and satan.

 

[ianb]

I am not Catholic, and so I do not fully understand how Catholicism operates. But I do know most of the 'core' ideas.


Their 'rational basis' can be very faulty as well. For example, itt can be based on something put out by the scientific community, who is subject to human error and opinion. All scientists and the people they work for have some sort of an agenda that affects what data is put out and how it is skewed to fit their agenda.

.

I think the main human error here is in your understanding of the Scientific Method. Yes studies may be impacted by human error or opinion that is why replication, peer review etc are part of the SM. Your last sentence isn't worth responding to as it borders on slander and is purely informed by your bias.

Oh and I'll ask again what did you want a rational explanation for?

 

[JoeR]

The difference between the rationality of science and the faith of religion is that when when new facts are learned, science will generally rewrite its body of knowledge to account for it. Religion will instead keep all of its body of knowledge, and will do one of several irrational things to account for the apparent conflict of evidence, such as presume some supernatural event that wasn't seen, discussed or written about before, revise a literal translation into a symbolic one, discredit or disregard the science unfairly, or something similar.

I have never heard of any solid facts that directly conflict with Christianity, care to share some?

Other than theories like evolution or the BB that do rely on faith as much as anything else does. No facts there other than great supositions which may or may not coincide with religion.


There are Christian scientists, you do know this right? Contrary to common belief, Science does not conflict with Christianity. Quite the opposite.


As far as your view of Job, It appears I cannot change your opinion so I will leave that for you to decide yourself.


One book that you may find great interest in is Revelations. Many important prophecies can be found here; Have you ever looked into the them? I think you can associate many of the current and past world events with what is written there.

 

[JoeR]

I think the main human error here is in your understanding of the Scientific Method. Yes studies may be impacted by human error or opinion that is why replication, peer review etc are part of the SM. Your last sentence isn't worth responding to as it borders on slander and is purely informed by your bias.

Well you did respond to it anyway...


I think you are misunderstanding my point of view. I am in no way against science; I love science, especially Biology. I am against biased science and unsupported 'scientific' theories that get spread like wildfire in the community.


And Im sorry but I cannot believe that someone could think that scientists dont have an agenda.

 

[ianb]

So let me guess, you have no problem with Physics, Chemistry etc but only have issues with Evolution and possibly Climate change.

 

[JoeR]

So let me guess, you have no problem with Physics, Chemistry etc but only have issues with Evolution and possibly Climate change.

I do have an issue with evolution, I believe in a lesser degree of it (adaptation).

To tell you the truth, I am undecided on climate change. I have not looked into it enough to make a decision one way or the other. Might be part of a natural cycle, might not. Who knows.

 

[leatherback]

If there is an alien civilization somewhere watching this play out from afar...it's gotta be the best reality show of all time.

Reality TV 2.0

 

[leatherback]

I do have an issue with evolution, I believe in a lesser degree of it (adaptation).

To tell you the truth, I am undecided on climate change. I have not looked into it enough to make a decision one way or the other. Might be part of a natural cycle, might not. Who knows.

You have GOT to be jocking.

Naturalcycle? Evolution up fpr doubt?

Just a little side line: In Science, a theory is NOT something made up for the discussion over a coffeetable. It is an expanation of a phenomenon, which has stood up against several replicated tests, that all confirm the working. Do NOT confuse the 'street language' use of words with the scientific terms.

There is NO DOUBT in the scientific community about either evolution or climate change.

 

[JoeR]

You have GOT to be jocking.

Naturalcycle? Evolution up fpr doubt?

Just a little side line: In Science, a theory is NOT something made up for the discussion over a coffeetable. It is an expanation of a phenomenon, which has stood up against several replicated tests, that all confirm the working. Do NOT confuse the 'street language' use of words with the scientific terms.

There is NO DOUBT in the scientific community about either evolution or climate change.

Can you be this mislead/ ignorant, in the sense that you are blind or ignorant of the truth (not stupid)??

Yes I am jocking.


Do you just ignore all of the evidence against evolution or?

 

[ianb]

I have never heard of any solid facts that directly conflict with Christianity, care to share some? Ok when was the last time you saw a talking snake (while sober)?

Other than theories like evolution or the BB that do rely on faith as much as anything else does. No facts there other than great supositions which may or may not coincide with religion. I don't think that word means what you think it does. In science a Theory is the well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation - you know Gravity is just a theory too.


There are Christian scientists, you do know this right? Contrary to common belief, Science does not conflict with Christianity. Quite the opposite. Except when it does at which point scientists have an agenda...better hitch up those pants-your bias is showing


As far as your view of Job, It appears I cannot change your opinion so I will leave that for you to decide yourself.


One book that you may find great interest in is Revelations. Many important prophecies can be found here; Have you ever looked into the them? I think you can associate many of the current and past world events with what is written there. Which are so vague they could mean anything

Response in blue above

 

[JoeR]

You have GOT to be jocking.

Naturalcycle? Evolution up fpr doubt?

Were the ice ages caused by pollution and cars? Hmmm

 

[watchndsky]

the ice ages never happened - the earth is only 6000 years old.

just jocking....

 

[leatherback]

Do you just ignore all of the evidence against evolution or?

If you have actual evidence against evolution, that would be great.

As for your quotes of theory, as I said. Scientific theory is not the same as the street-language theory. But yeah, by all means, have an opnion about something you do not know even the basics about. Time for learning! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+scientific+theory .

 

[leatherback]

Were the ice ages caused by pollution and cars? Hmmm

Nope. They were caused by changed in the eath atmosphere. Increases of carbon dioxide and methanes, just like now. Unfortuantely, in all these situation, it has led to mass extinctions of species. Guess where the CO2 now is coming from..

I do not think many people are diputing climate change has happened before. However, this rate is fairly unprecendented. Humans are now driving it. And we are causing people huge problems in sustaining foor, liveability etc n the planet. Life will survive, and evolution will create a new wave of diversitifcation. The question is.. Do you want global hunger to happen in your lifetime??