Thread: Christianity wishes it could be mysticism and scientific

Originally Posted by JoannaB

If I had any evidence to give you that you would find persuasive I would. But you choose not to believe in God, and therefore no evidence will be persuasive.

There is plenty of evidence that would be persuasive. The only way evidence can fail to be persuasive is if it's not actually objective but only subjective, and that comes back to faith and belief as you just said. It looks like we're in agreement.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

There is plenty of evidence that would be persuasive. The only way evidence can fail to be persuasive is if it's not actually objective but only subjective, and that comes back to faith and belief as you just said. It looks like we're in agreement.

No, we are not quite in agreement, though there are points we agree on, but others we definitely disagree on. There is no such thing as objectivity, everything is subjective, and that is not a bad thing.

Actually there is more proof of Santa Clause existing than Jesus. Santa Clause is based off a real person, Saint Nicholas and we have historical records of Saint Nicholas actually existing as a real person. The evidence that Jesus existed as a real person is bit lacking. Even if you believe Jesus was a real person, there is more evidence supporting Santa Clause than Jesus.

Actually Jesus did exist according to historians whether Christian or not. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Man of Shred

Actually Jesus did exist according to historians whether Christian or not. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but there are no records of him during his lifetime, so I and many others remain unconvinced. Everyone who wrote about him was basically going on rumors. There were probably quite a few people named Yeshua back then, some of them rabbis. Maybe one of them made some crazy claims and was crucified. But we have little proof.

In order to be a VALID historical reference it has to be within 50 years of the person's lifetime. Many of those references are.

Let's all make peace (not that we were fighting) and discuss this exciting premise that Joanna brought up ^^

There is no such thing as objectivity, everything is subjective, and that is not a bad thing.

But if everything is subjective, then it's objectively truth that everything is subjective, meaning that not everything is subjective?
Are there objective truths?

/zoth apologies for further off topic and goes to try to find something to read regarding this subject. Edit: zoth finds treasure!

Originally Posted by Zoth

Let's all make peace (not that we were fighting) and discuss this exciting premise that Joanna brought up ^^



But if everything is subjective, then it's objectively truth that everything is subjective, meaning that not everything is subjective?
Are there objective truths?

/zoth apologies for further off topic and goes to try to find something to read regarding this subject. Edit: zoth finds treasure!

Ok, I think I misspoke or did not speak precisely enough. Yes, there are objective truths. But whenever we interact with any truth we bring our own emotions and believes and personal context with us to the question and answer. So while it is true that today is Monday, but when I state this I think "I wish it were Friday. Why did the weekend have to be so short?" Whereas someone else thinks "It is Monday. Yay, my boyfriend is coming home this evening." We believe we can take our emotions and preconceptions out, but I don't think we can. All of us believe what we believe because of who we are and who we were, and what we have experienced, and what we focus on. I don't believe that there are any people capable of truely objective thought, even if the subject of that thought is objective.

I don't know if this is popular opinion here or not, but I think all religion to a point is brainwashing. When a child hears something is true their entire lives their minds grasp the idea so strongly they believe without a doubt, then they feel so strongly in their belief they do they the same thing to their child. To me religion is a vicious cycle that very few people break out of. Is it a coincidence that most people believe what their parents believe if there was a God wouldn't he stop parents from teaching the wrong beliefs. So hopefully in the future humanity can leave the dark ties of religion behind them and try to find out more about the scientific origin of the universe (or universes) instead of just saying God did it.

We are in agreement - I said you don't have any actual evidence, only faith and belief, and you confirmed that. What you supplied as supposed evidence is totally ambiguous and in no way indicates the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or any other god. You see good and bad things happening in the world and through your Christian bias you see God operating behind the scenes. I see the same things happening and at no point does any of it indicate any god.

See - I'm not arguing that there is no God - only that there can be no actual evidence for God and that belief in God is simply a matter of faith alone - every attempt anyone has ever made to use science to prove any religion has failed because at some point the people always step away from science and insert their own subjective feelings instead - things like "I can feel him in everything around me" or "Nothing else can explain the miracle of life".

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

We are in agreement - I said you don't have any actual evidence, only faith and belief, and you confirmed that. What you supplied as supposed evidence is totally ambiguous and in no way indicates the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or any other god. You see good and bad things happening in the world and through your Christian bias you see God operating behind the scenes. I see the same things happening and at no point does any of it indicate any god.

See - I'm not arguing that there is no God - only that there can be no actual evidence for God and that belief in God is simply a matter of faith alone - every attempt anyone has ever made to use science to prove any religion has failed because at some point the people always step away from science and insert their own subjective feelings instead - things like "I can feel him in everything around me" or "Nothing else can explain the miracle of life".

And yet, I am very dissatisfied with a claim that I do not have any real evidence because I think I have evidence, but just am unable to express it / communicate it, and definitely not in a way that would persuade you. However, I am not going to agree with a statement that it is all based on feelings, and that all evidence points against the existence of God and none for his existence - I think that atheist do not have evidence against God's existence either, oh I know you think you do, but the arguments of atheists are as unpersuasive and illogical to us as arguments for the existence of God are to you. You hear my claims as fabrication without a firm grounding of truth, while I hear claims against faith as twisting of truth. Just because I am not adequate to the task of arguing does not mean though that there are no proofs of truth. I know that those who do not believe in God like to claim that if there were a God one could use logic to prove his existence, and some people who do not believe in God even claim that they can with logic disprove God's existence. However, logic is inadequate to either prove or disprove God, and logic is human logic and it is flawed no matter how much we like to think that we are capable of being truly logical.

By the way, I am not convinced that Judeo-Christianity is more correct than other religions. I have been reading about Buddhism, and I believe that one can be a Christian and a Buddhist, and in fact one might be a better Christian if one also were a Buddhist. I do not wish to disprove other religions because I believe that all religions have truth in them as well as fallacies, and I realize that we humans may not always be able to discern correctly which is which, but that does not mean that nothing in religions is true. I think it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater here: just because a lot is wrong, does not mean that a lot is not also right, even if we may not be able to communicate it correctly to those who think differently.

You're misrepresenting atheism. Atheists don't claim there's no god or that there's even evidence that there's no god. I've said many times that there can be no proof for or against a god who is supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural can't be observed. That's why earlier I called myself an agnostic atheist - while my personal belief leans away from there being any gods, I don't make the claim "There is no god", I simply say "I don't have any belief in a god". Strong atheism, the positive claim that no gods exist, is an extremist view, sort of the corollary of Creationism.

But I think you've just brought up something to make this thread much more interesting! The crossover between Jesus and Buddhism... somebody posted this video in here a while back and I sat mesmerized through the whole thing:

EDIT - sorry wrong video the first time, this is the one!


EDIT**

Joanna, since you agree that there can be no proof either for or against the existence of God, I suppose that makes you an agnostic theist. We're practically twinsies!! Just that one little letter A standing between us - which by the way means "without", not "against". If theism is religious belief, then atheism is simply a lack of religious belief, not a belief AGAINST religious belief.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You're misrepresenting atheism. Atheists don't claim there's no god or that there's even evidence that there's no god. I've said many times that there can be no proof for or against a god who is supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural can't be observed. That's why earlier I called myself an agnostic atheist - while my personal belief leans away from there being any gods, I don't make the claim "There is no god", I simply say "I don't have any belief in a god". Strong atheism, the positive claim that no gods exist, is an extremist view, sort of the corollary of Creationism.

But I think you've just brought up something to make this thread much more interesting! The crossover between Jesus and Buddhism... somebody posted this video in here a while back and I sat mesmerized through the whole thing:

EDIT - sorry wrong video the first time, this is the one!


EDIT**

Joanna, since you agree that there can be no proof either for or against the existence of God, I suppose that makes you an agnostic theist. We're practically twinsies!! Just that one little letter A standing between us - which by the way means "without", not "against". If theism is religious belief, then atheism is simply a lack of religious belief, not a belief AGAINST religious belief.

I do apologize for the misrepresentation. You are right, I was basing my statements on the extreme atheism. I guess sometimes I get so caught up with all those statements about logic applied to God's existence, and yes I do at times misunderstand the other side because I am approaching this with my own biases and thus at times misread or read between the lines things that were not stated and were not meant to be stated. And I do regret that. I appreciate your pointing out this mistake of mine.

Hey, trust me, I know! I've done the same thing many times. Don't worry about it.

Lol BAD op!! It was your responsibility to guide the thread! You could easily have brought the conversation around with a few well-placed comments here and there. The thread is your child - how could you just abandon it like this??!!?!

Dogs eat their children, spartans threw theirs off of cliffs. I kinda left it at wal-mart for a day so that didn't help. the things it saw at wal-mart corrupted it irreversibly.

Well, there was probably nowhere for it to go anyway really. You pretty much said it all in the OP, I don't know what more there is to say about it. The God of the Gaps keeps shrinking, till now he exists in the subatomic realm. He can only exist in the areas where science leaves room for him.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, there was probably nowhere for it to go anyway really. You pretty much said it all in the OP, I don't know what more there is to say about it. The God of the Gaps keeps shrinking, till now he exists in the subatomic realm. He can only exist in the areas where science leaves room for him.

While I agree, maybe the thread can go somewhere.
Somewhere i don't believe, but can maybe get less theology ideals and more logical ones.


Quantum physics only adds to the idea of the mystical presence of God, We are still dealing with a science we cannot understand and God's presence is only stronger here. Thought experiments like quantum immortality exist as a transition from mortality into heaven were we can join as a part of god. science itself gives into the ideal of a god not through creationism but by divine theory, that evolution exists because we are all part of an ever growing god. A god that many perceive as an physical being, but rather is, a spiritual and subconscious being of all that the universe contains. We are all part of, and are, god, since god is everywhere, so are we. We that is being, man, creature, plant, plasma, liquid, etc. all making up the god, we just perceive it through every possible reality and only once at a time.
So let's quantify God less as a physical being and more along the lines of universal subconscious.

Boom, 180 degrees and the thread is no longer about god, but rather believers of god and others, into the ideals behind a universal subconscious.

Originally Posted by Nhuc

Quantum physics only adds to the idea of the mystical presence of God, We are still dealing with a science we cannot understand and God's presence is only stronger here. Thought experiments like quantum immortality exist as a transition from mortality into heaven were we can join as a part of god. science itself gives into the ideal of a god not through creationism but by divine theory, that evolution exists because we are all part of an ever growing god. A god that many perceive as an physical being, but rather is, a spiritual and subconscious being of all that the universe contains. We are all part of, and are, god, since god is everywhere, so are we. We that is being, man, creature, plant, plasma, liquid, etc. all making up the god, we just perceive it through every possible reality and only once at a time.
So let's quantify God less as a physical being and more along the lines of universal subconscious.

So... pantheism?

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

So... pantheism?

yes. and yes...