Gyroscopic Investing

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: And we are back to what I said is the fundamental question.  Or, why do you belive billions have been duped and you have it right?

Bandwagon effect The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.

P.S.  That list Greg posted showed 1.2 billion or so atheists/agnostics.  Why are they all duped and you have it right?

I don't know.  You have more expertise than I in this area.   
... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

You do realize what you're doing, right?  You're continuing to presuppose in the truthfulness of a particular religion, then you're trying to find the evidence after the fact to back up what you feel.  That's not how logic and reason works.

Personally speaking, I don't buy into the Christian narrative because I have found my own evidence that reality just does not work that way and neither does the afterlife.  It's a seductive story, sure: the Son of God coming to save mankind and then suffering for their sins...  and then brutally tortured and executed -- it has to be, to be emotionally convincing and hit you right in the gut!  There's no doubt as the competitive winner of many such "whack job religions" of the time, Jesus' ministry changed the world; it was an epic transformation that turned us from barbarians into the larval form of civilized.  But, all the corrupt church doctrines?  Sorry, I'm just not wired in whatever way to be a believer in that authoritarian nonsense.  As an curious intellectual, I do not make decisions regarding which over-arching theories to adopt into my belief framework based on emotional appeals or such flimsy evidence.  The errors/ambiguity are incidental.  You don't need to know all the exact minor details to know if something passes the B.S. meter or not.

Skepticism is a useful tool to have (i.e. B.S.-ometer), but I've found at times myself that having it on all of the time really strips me from being able to believe someone outright and always the trust but verify kind-a deal and makes life at times more difficult and sometimes easier.

Here were some sites I was looking at recently that I liked:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~acf/faq08.html

From the Harvard link:

"Christianity is also not a religion set up by God. Although it had its beginning with Christ who was God, it also has deviated from the main line of what God wanted to do. It still has the name of Jesus and the Bible and talks about the death of Christ for man's sin. However, it has degraded so much that it is of little value and usefulness to God. "

I read this as what God originally intended for us, even if it was with absolute clarity back during Jesus's time, could get warped overtime as humans keep passing down the texts, much like the game "grape-vine". That's why I like looking more at general themes and reading the Bible to better myself from its teachings.

As for presupposing, you're right MG. I was born into a Christian home and I have an emotional response from it. Here's a story below:

I had prayed many years ago that God would start sending me more signs or communicating with me more so that I would understand what he would want from me. On July 30th, 2012, I ended up watching a video on Youtube of a man born with no arms or legs who was swimming (his name was Nick Vujicic, a christian motivational speaker, but that was just coincidence). I broke out in uncontrollable crying from that and it kept going for 10-15 minutes.

I can't remember the last time I cried before that, it had been years. After some searching in myself, I found that this was how God would communicate with me. Whenever I might see someone paralyzed, or a physical disability, I might shed a tear and in my heart (mind you, emotion again, not fact driven), I knew this is what God was leading me towards for my passion to help those with physical disabilities.

I then asked God sometime later to let me know if my wife (my girlfriend at the time), was the right one for me. Again, I eventually after prayers just started sobbing and again was realizing this was God's way of subtlety pushing me in the direction I should be going.

While all of this is totally non-science related, it was extremely emotionally powerful for me and God gave me that. I felt first that Christianity was correct, and now I'm searching for truth to understand why I feel the way I do. Just so that I'm not pigeon-holing myself though, that's why I'm on this website and trying to learn about other religions to become more well-rounded to give ideally additional support as to why I believe I am correct.

Mountaineer wrote: MG, I think I sort of get where you are coming from.  I would pose if one thinks there is no sin or sinner, then there is no need for a Savior.  Thus the worldview of eat, drink and make merry because that is all there is and do good only when it is to ones personal benefit.  It is a religion of self.  And, if you really believe that, hey, it is a worldview.  Am I even close?

Not really.  Reality is far more complex than everyone will just act as a selfish hedonistic baboon which I think is more reflective of your religious fears/restrictions than anything else.  Without Original Sin and the Resurrection, all of Christianity would collapse overnighjt and there goes any inducement to behave non-selfishly?  At least, the various church doctrines would.  Jesus's ministry itself is already out of Pandora's box and cannot be put back.  It's always amazing to me the stark contradictions between the ministry (help/love out of inherent goodness) and church doctrine (command you to do this or suffer eternal torment).

Mountaineer wrote:

madbean2 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Sorry. I was not clear. I meant making science a god - i.e. depending on it to answer questions which are outside the boundaries of things provable using the scientific method. More or less.
...Mountaineer

No problem. Apparently I wasn't clear either. I don't think I was making a science into a god. I just thought the explanation scientists had for earthquakes was more plausible then the Christian one that you are making.

I largely agree with you.  The question is "why" do the tectonic plates shift, why does the earth "have" to have earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.  The Scriptural case is not in my mind really intended to be a case at all.  From Scriptures, it just says all creation is cursed and that all creation groans in anticipation of the new earth (post Last Day).  Groaning is not specified.  Lots of stuff in between is not talked about as it is not necessary for Salvation of men/earth/creatures.

... Mountaineer

Isaac Newton has the very unique position in history of being both a very devout (some would say fanatic) Christian and the father of modern physics. I suspect he knew absolutely nothing about tectonic plate shifts, let alone the "why" of it. Interesting to think how he would have separated the two things in his mind.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: While all of this is totally non-science related, it was extremely emotionally powerful for me and God gave me that. I felt first that Christianity was correct, and now I'm searching for truth to understand why I feel the way I do. Just so that I'm not pigeon-holing myself though, that's why I'm on this website and trying to learn about other religions to become more well-rounded to give ideally additional support as to why I believe I am correct.

Sounds like a Revelation to me!

I can't help but asking, do you think that guy with no arms and leg is a sinner?  This is where you'll find the huge dichotomy between believers and non-believers.  Because you really can't get much more stark than something like that for "objective evidence" either way.

It's interesting stuff, Desert. And for all I know, maybe there was an intelligent designer. Maybe aliens seeded the first life, or maybe God did. Maybe things started off being designed and then started evolving from there. Or maybe it really is all 100% evolution, right from primordial combinations of amino acids or something. I don't know. I'm open to any of those being true. However, what I am unwilling to do is assert with perfect certainty that one is true and all the other are false, especially given imperfect information about any of them, or even especially one of the mire implausible ones.

If I wanted to argue passionately and vociferously for the "aliens seeded Earth with life" hypothesis, people would probably regard me as a crank, even though it might be true, because there's just no evidence for it. It's a cool theory, a nice idea, and it may even be true, but that's a long way from it being a defensible and debate-worthy assertion.

Pointedstick wrote: It's interesting stuff, Desert. And for all I know, maybe there was an intelligent designer. Maybe aliens seeded the first life, or maybe God did. Maybe things started off being designed and then started evolving from there. Or maybe it really is all 100% evolution, right from primordial combinations of amino acids or something. I don't know. I'm open to any of those being true. However, what I am unwilling to do is assert with perfect certainty that one is true and all the other are false, especially given imperfect information about any of them, or even especially one of the mire implausible ones.

If I wanted to argue passionately and vociferously for the "aliens seeded Earth with life" hypothesis, people would probably regard me as a crank, even though it might be true, because there's just no evidence for it. It's a cool theory, a nice idea, and it may even be true, but that's a long way from it being a defensible and debate-worthy assertion.

God created Aliens. Aliens created life on earth. Seems simple enough.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's interesting stuff, Desert. And for all I know, maybe there was an intelligent designer. Maybe aliens seeded the first life, or maybe God did. Maybe things started off being designed and then started evolving from there. Or maybe it really is all 100% evolution, right from primordial combinations of amino acids or something. I don't know. I'm open to any of those being true. However, what I am unwilling to do is assert with perfect certainty that one is true and all the other are false, especially given imperfect information about any of them, or even especially one of the mire implausible ones.

If I wanted to argue passionately and vociferously for the "aliens seeded Earth with life" hypothesis, people would probably regard me as a crank, even though it might be true, because there's just no evidence for it. It's a cool theory, a nice idea, and it may even be true, but that's a long way from it being a defensible and debate-worthy assertion.

God created Aliens. Aliens created life on earth. Seems simple enough.

Sure, maybe so.

The thread is getting interesting with all the talk of chum, sharks, aliens, cranks, Lucy, Neanderthals, Survivor temptations provoked by plate hitech-tonics, brisket and wine (although I think beer is a better match with brisket).

... Mountaineer

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

MediumTex wrote: If you think about it, what's with the preoccupation with ritualistic suffering across most religions?  I think there must be some deep spiritual sadomasochistic urge that humans have that religion taps into.  There is the sadism of comfortably condemning those of other faiths to an eternity of suffering because they didn't choose as wisely as you in the mortal realm, and then there's the masochism of feeling like self-imposed suffering somehow gets you closer to God and it pleases God to see you suffer for him.  Ask Job about that one.  Was anyone else reminded of the movie Trading Places when they read Job?

Some of this is explained in that the wages of sin is death. Any sin we do is punishable via death according to a perfect being who can't tolerate sin. The only way they were able to get back on God's good side was through sacrifices which involved death, blood, etc. God eventually decided that even though he hated sin, that he'd want to send his son to earth to pay the wages of humanity's sin through his death.

I wouldn't say God is sadistic. He has exceptionally high standards for his kingdom for entry which would be no sin and it is an absolute. You either have no sin and go in, or have sin and get cast away.

If God can't tolerate sin, why did he create it?  That's a strange thing to do.

Desert wrote: argue that sometimes major leaps forward in an organism’s complexity can occur very quickly. This, of course, is an argument that directly conflicts with the central faith of evolution, that all biological complexity can be created through gradual mutation and selection over millions of generations. This looks like nothing more than special pleading on the part of evolutionists. Similarly, the Cambrian explosion (the sudden arrival of complex life forms in the fossil record) matches very well with a creation model, but requires a lot of tortured logic to defend in an evolutionary framework.

There are thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record.  And punctuated equilibrium is what you're trying to conflate with Creationism.

The burden of proof isn't on evolution...  the theory is based on inference from real world evidence all around you that you can see, touch and feel objectively.  What objective evidence does Creationism have to better explain what already evolution does?

And it should be said that if there is/was an intelligent designer, that in no way, shape or form translates into anyone's personal anthropomorphologocal religious cult preference.  That fact (of being anthro...) seems to be constantly overlooked by believers.

MediumTex wrote:

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

MediumTex wrote: If you think about it, what's with the preoccupation with ritualistic suffering across most religions?  I think there must be some deep spiritual sadomasochistic urge that humans have that religion taps into.  There is the sadism of comfortably condemning those of other faiths to an eternity of suffering because they didn't choose as wisely as you in the mortal realm, and then there's the masochism of feeling like self-imposed suffering somehow gets you closer to God and it pleases God to see you suffer for him.  Ask Job about that one.  Was anyone else reminded of the movie Trading Places when they read Job?

Some of this is explained in that the wages of sin is death. Any sin we do is punishable via death according to a perfect being who can't tolerate sin. The only way they were able to get back on God's good side was through sacrifices which involved death, blood, etc. God eventually decided that even though he hated sin, that he'd want to send his son to earth to pay the wages of humanity's sin through his death.

I wouldn't say God is sadistic. He has exceptionally high standards for his kingdom for entry which would be no sin and it is an absolute. You either have no sin and go in, or have sin and get cast away.

If God can't tolerate sin, why did he create it?  That's a strange thing to do.

Might you not say he permitted it because he did not create puppets and we were the ones who are responsible for the sin?  What do you think?

... Mountaineer

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I wouldn't say God is sadistic. He has exceptionally high standards for his kingdom for entry which would be no sin and it is an absolute. You either have no sin and go in, or have sin and get cast away.

Unless we're talking about King David, who could apparently do all of the lying, scheming, murdering and whoring that he wanted, and he was still God's Man.  It's true that God snatched one of King David's newborns and killed it to send him a message of disapproval, but to a murderer like David a dead baby probably wasn't that big of a deal.

moda0306 wrote: So if anyone is in denial, perhaps it is you.  I definitely think someone is in denial. 

Telling a person they are in denial is rarely a good way to get them to see that they are in denial.

Pointedstick wrote: If I wanted to argue passionately and vociferously for the "aliens seeded Earth with life" hypothesis, people would probably regard me as a crank, even though it might be true, because there's just no evidence for it. It's a cool theory, a nice idea, and it may even be true, but that's a long way from it being a defensible and debate-worthy assertion.

Creationism is the crank as there is no evidence for it.  On the other hand, scientists recently found one of the essential amino acids on a meteor.  Oops!

So I predict what will happen is all religious believers will just start to expand their narrow worldview to beyond the Earth and onto the entire multi-verses.  It's not as if they will ever admit they are wrong, right?  Eventually they too will arrive at a secular understanding and drop all the hokey and primitive religious mysticism.  But probably not in my lifetime!

dualstow wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

dualstow wrote: Just had a thought: What if Jesus, the bible, and a few carefully placed artifacts were planted by an alien intelligence in order to test us? Those of us who believe are those who fail the test and those of us who rise above it all are rewarded. It's like escaping North Korea and all of its propaganda.

I saw Christopher Hitchens speak at an event shortly before he died, and he compared Christianity to North Korea as well--i.e., in Christianity if you don't follow the Leader and what he says, no matter how absurd it may seem to you, you go to the labor camps.  In Christianity, you don't go to the labor camps, but Hell is probably just as bad (if not worse)
....

I should've guessed it's already been done.
Okay, how about Rush 2112.

What about 2112?  I have all Rush albums through Grace Under Pressure and I saw them a couple of weeks ago when they came through town, so I can probably help you with anything Rush-related.

Original Sin - what do you think?  Does it describe our human condition?  Does it describe us in this conversation?  What is your explanation of the human condition if not original sin?  Pose something that is a better solution, please.

... Mountaineer

“Original sin is the complete lack or absence of the original concreated righteousness of paradise or of the image of God according to which man was originally created in truth, holiness, and righteousness, together with a disability and ineptitude as far as the things of God are concerned.  Original sin in human nature is not only a total lack of good in spiritual, divine things, but … at the same time it replaces the lost image of God in man with a deep, wicked, abominable, bottomless, inscrutable, and inexpressible corruption of his entire nature in all its powers, especially of the highest and foremost powers of the soul in mind, heart, and will. As a result, since the Fall man inherits an inborn wicked stamp, an interior uncleanness of the heart and evil desires and inclinations. By nature every one of us inherits from Adam a heart, sensation, and mind-set which, in its highest powers and the light of reason, is by nature diametrically opposed to God and his highest commands and is actually enmity against God, especially in divine and spiritual matters. True, in natural and external things which are subject to reason man still possesses a measure of reason, power, and ability, although greatly weakened since the inherited malady has so poisoned and tainted them that they amount to nothing in the sight of God.  Original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but … it is so deep a corruption that nothing sound or uncorrupted has survived in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers.

Mountaineer wrote: I have a question for us to ponder but it might turn the thread in a slightly different direction.  For those who do not like Christianity as a worldview, what worldview is more appealing to you and why do you believe that?  Worldview being the best explanation of what you see happening in the world and why it is happening, why we are here, where did we come from, where are we going, our place in the world, etc.

I would propose a belief system called "Jesusanity", and it would focus on modeling one's life after the life of Jesus as it is recorded in the New Testament, sans the supernatural window dressing.

MediumTex wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I have a question for us to ponder but it might turn the thread in a slightly different direction.  For those who do not like Christianity as a worldview, what worldview is more appealing to you and why do you believe that?  Worldview being the best explanation of what you see happening in the world and why it is happening, why we are here, where did we come from, where are we going, our place in the world, etc.

I would propose a belief system called "Jesusanity", and it would focus on modeling one's life after the life of Jesus as it is recorded in the New Testament, sans the supernatural window dressing.

Basically like the Jefferson Bible?  Make the religion a pragmatic moral system for only while we are on this side of death?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: There are a few more than 44 religions: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... traditions

Pray tell, how did you arrive at Lutheranism out of all the multitude of possibilities?

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

I am sure that Jesus is loving and can save us from ourselves, and that's why we have his teachings right there in front of us to follow when we decide to.

It's spending eternity with him that is a different matter, since I am mortal and have no idea what eternity even means.  It's clearly another dimension from the one we inhabit, and thus I don't think it's possible for us to know much, if anything, about it.

Even if I can't prove God/Christianity, I still love God/Jesus, and want to have a relationship with my creator (whoever that is) both in this life, and ideally in the next life as well to always be with him. While on Earth, I am a sinner and will consistently fail, but I'm going through my life to 1.) continually better myself, 2.) to love others, even if it is difficult to do, 3.) leave the world better than when I found it when I pass away from this world.

You and I are exactly the same, except I think that I love Jesus more than God because Jesus didn't kill any babies and he never wiped out all of humanity because he was mad at us.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: There are a few more than 44 religions: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... traditions

Pray tell, how did you arrive at Lutheranism out of all the multitude of possibilities?

Easy, it is the one that is most correct with Scripture.  LCMS that is.  The ELCA has fallen into the secular siren's trap I fear.  As the Church Lady said on Saturday Night Live - S A T A N  .

... Mountaineer

MediumTex wrote: I would propose a belief system called "Jesusanity", and it would focus on modeling one's life after the life of Jesus as it is recorded in the New Testament, sans the supernatural window dressing.

You're too late!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusism wrote:It is to restore Jesus' sayings to their original purity.
It is to eradicate from the Gospels the interpolations of the Middle Ages.
It is to relate the misconceptions revealed by recent archaeological research.
It is to present Jesus from an economic viewpoint.
It is to break through the spell spectral of Cosmic Credulity.
It is to toll the knell of schism through Jesusism.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

Strictly speaking, I don't want to believe anything. I have a very strong drive to discover the truth, and then believe that because I have determined that it is true. If I later discover that I was wrong and that it is false, or that it became false later, or whatever, I will abandon it, and I have done this many times in my own life on a variety of subjects. The idea of sticking to a belief system that did not make sense to me or could be poked full of unexplainable holes is a foreign concept to me. I would be happy to believe in Christianity if its precepts could be proven true, but it seems that is impossible. Since Christianity holds no emotional appeal for me, and since there is no peer pressure in my life pushing me towards it, I don't particularly see any reason to believe in it.

I am primarily participating in this thread to try to understand others. To me, Christianity is a huge ball of contradictions wrapped up in brutal or unappealing stories. I am trying to understand what attracts people to it, basically. So far, I'm pretty much only seeing see family/peer pressure and professed supernatural experiences.

Can humans ever create something the is absolutely factual and absolutely clear? There has been a lot of touching of the Bible from when it was created to what we are reading now. Different versions, different translations, etc. Over-time, it can become perverted or changed, even if it is through good intentions or unintentional. It's one of the reasons why I like reading the Bible more as life lessons rather than always as factual stories and that I look at overall themes of Jesus. He was a perfect guy who told others that he wants a relationship with them. If you want to have a relationship with him, he'll invite you to his house to be friends in the next life. I like that.

What I'm trying to understand is why the Bible was every treated as truth in the first place?  It's a book written by a group of men who had a story to tell and an agenda to advance, which is true of countless other spiritual leaders through history.

It's weird to be put in a position of having to "disprove" the Bible when none of it was ever proven in the first place.

Mountaineer wrote: Easy, it is the one that is most correct with Scripture.  LCMS that is.  The ELCA has fallen into the secular siren's trap I fear.  As the Church Lady said on Saturday Night Live - S A T A N  .

So this was Luther's Reformation.  Why wasn't the Orthodox Church more suitable as didn't that come before the Catholic Church?  Why didn't you just go to whatever dogma was before the Orthodox/Catholic Church became an institution?