(April 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I want to understand why you think that just because science has currently recognized where mystical feelings have come from (in the brain), but not yet WHY the brain would cause such a thing to occur, that means to you that there needs to be some sort of external agent. Or perhaps not 'needs' but simply 'is'.

There are many things science hasn't found yet. But 100 years ago, there were many more, and science eventually found answers for them. None of them involved divinity. I want to know, essentially, why you fill your gaps with god instead of understanding that eventually - perhaps after your death, but eventually - these questions will get answered.

So the question you're really asking is about "the God of the gaps", right? Science has not filled that gap; therefore, God did it/it must be God. I am well aware of this line of thinking as a former atheist.

I have already explained to you my position on this matter. Because you refuse to read about philosophy, it is very difficult to have a discussion with somebody who refuses to think about things in any other way than from a "rationalist" perspective. Because you want a "rational" answer to your questions, I cannot provide one; I concede the point that I cannot provide a rational answer to your question.

In the other thread, you stated something vulgar about philosophy (that it is "mental wanking"). That just comes across as somebody who is too lazy and dismissive to try and learn this very challenging field of study. I feel that philosophy, advanced mathematics, theoretical computer science, and theoretical physics are probably the most challenging fields of study.

A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

(April 20, 2013 at 4:10 am)Love Wrote: A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Yeah, I know, you weren't directing the question at me but it was a stupid question anyone with an internet connection can answer, so...

(April 20, 2013 at 4:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 4:10 am)Love Wrote: A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Yeah, I know, you weren't directing the question at me but it was a stupid question anyone with an internet connection can answer, so...

So, you've plagiarised the entire passage from Wikipedia (HERE). Proves exactly the kind of person you are; zero intellectual integrity (or aptitude). Another inept, aggressive narcissist/sociopath on the "ignore" list.

To all of the intelligent and courteous people on the thread, I will endeavour to address your points / questions soon.

---

---

(April 19, 2013 at 5:07 pm)Lord Privy Seal Wrote: I'm re-posting the questions I had for you (Love) from your intro thread so you don't have to go root around looking for them. No big hurry in getting to them, I understand that you're heavily outnumbered, and fielding questions and comments from everyone else.

Quote:1) What is the foundation or basis for progressive Christianity? The sacerdotal churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian) appeal to Church tradition and apostolic succession. Fundies claim to base their beliefs on an infallible Bible (while ignoring pretty much everything Jesus is portrayed saying about money). Progressive Christians seem to be...kinda free-floating. Spong is (as far as I can tell from his writings) an atheist-of-the-cloth. He does not believe in any theistic deity, a resurrection of Jesus (except in the most metaphorical of terms), or any of the doctrines that have defined Christianity for most of its history (e.g. the Creeds, etc.). It just seems like there's no "there" there, in the sense of a "Christianity" that differs from "atheist humanism, using cultural Christian language."

2) Why continue to cart the Bible around and be weighted down with all of its baggage (genocides, barbaric patriarchal "morality," teachings of exclusivity, Hell, etc., claims of miracles and "history" that never happened, and so forth) in order to salvage a relative handful of moral teachings you agree with, when you could find much richer bodies of moral teaching in, for example, the writings of Marcus Aurelius or the Buddha?

3) On what basis can you pick out those "nice" parts and treat them as (at least somewhat) "divinely inspired" or otherwise valid and applicable, while tossing the rest overboard?

4) Are there any truth-claims that actually differentiate your kind of Christianity from atheism? E.g., "God exists and does/says [insert deeds/words here], so that his/her/its existence is not indistinguishable from a godless Universe."

Hello Lord Privy Seal,

Indeed, I am certainly struggling to keep up with these interesting and penetrating questions.

From my understanding on the subject, Progressive Christianity is a non-specific denomination in which adherants are, in essence, heretics and deny many of the concepts involved in mainstream Christianity. I consider myself to be a Progressive Christian and a heretic because: (1) The Bible is not important to me, (2) I do not believe in the concept of redemptive sacrifice, (3) The life and the person of Jesus is much more important to me than his death. I am also a believer in religious pluralism and have a great deal of respect for others' views concerning religious belief.

I feel that John Spong and I share a lot in common in terms of how we perceive God. I think he, like myself, subscribes to the idea that God is a mystical, panentheistic entity that trandscends the material universe; like a universal consciousness.

Having researched Christian theology and history, it became very clear to me that there are no absolutes concerning the life and death of Jesus. All of the core ideas (such as original sin and resurrection) are simply theological conceptual interpretations of the significance of Jesus' life and death. Also, The Bible is simply a book that has been ultimately used and abused to control the minds of the masses since the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in the fourth century. Personally, I am much more concerned with the historical Jesus; I enjoy reading PhD scholars' work on the history of Jesus.

Please could you clarify what you mean in question four?

Cheers.

Man, this one is about as delicate as a glass figurine.

I dismissed philosophy not because it was difficult. I have difficulty with mathematics, yet accept their importance. I dismiss it because it has little, if any, bearing on the real world beyond postulation. A bunch of “what if's." Your insistence on dismissing my opinion because you don't like that it is couched in a description of what you consider to be a vulgar act is irrelevant. You already have answered twice now in bald terms that you do not think rationally, and do not find it find it worth holding in high esteem. That's really all I need to know.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with Creed's answer as far as scientific theory, other than to bluster.

(April 20, 2013 at 4:36 am)Love Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 4:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Yeah, I know, you weren't directing the question at me but it was a stupid question anyone with an internet connection can answer, so...

So, you've plagiarised the entire passage from Wikipedia (HERE). Proves exactly the kind of person you are; zero intellectual integrity (or aptitude). Another inept, aggressive narcissist/sociopath on the "ignore" list.

Quote:Yeah, I know, you weren't directing the question at me but it was a stupid question anyone with an internet connection can answer, so...

I believe that was intentional.
I don't know what your problem is with bursting out insults at people and then 'ignoring' them when the give you a valid answer... You should really stop that, because discussions are going to get nowhere.

(April 20, 2013 at 6:15 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Man, this one is about as delicate as a glass figurine.

I dismissed philosophy not because it was difficult. I have difficulty with mathematics, yet accept their importance. I dismiss it because it has little, if any, bearing on the real world beyond postulation. A bunch of “what if's." Your insistence on dismissing my opinion because you don't like that it is couched in a description of what you consider to be a vulgar act is irrelevant. You already have answered twice now in bald terms that you do not think rationally, and do not find it find it worth holding in high esteem. That's really all I need to know.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with Creed's answer as far as scientific theory, other than to bluster.

Yes, I understand your perception of philosophy, which really just comes across to me as ignorant and lazy. Being dismissive about it will not help you when you're confronted by people who have studied philosophy, and the profound impact that it can have on how a person perceives reality. For example a PhD Philosophy student would probably instantly recognise that you're ignorant on the subject and, therefore, you will not be taken seriously in this kind of discussion. Every single argument you have made thus far has been from the perspective of rationalism, in which case I have to tailor my answers to suit your insistence on viewing everything "rationally". Please read about the history and philosophy of rationalism; I am sure you're capable of digesting the concepts involved.

Creed disingenuously plagiarised the passage regarding scientific theory from Wikipedia; he did not source it and simply passed it off as his own. Just because somebody has an Internet connection does not provide them with the divine right to "copy and paste" from another website.

[Rolling eyes]

Quote:Creed disingenuously plagiarised the passage regarding scientific theory from Wikipedia; he did not source it and simply passed it off as his own. Just because somebody has an Internet connection does not provide them with the divine right to "copy and paste" from another website.

Well, you know what they say.

Quote:Ask a silly question: get a silly answer.

(April 20, 2013 at 6:19 am)Joel Wrote: I believe that was intentional.
I don't know what your problem is with bursting out insults at people and then 'ignoring' them when the give you a valid answer... You should really stop that, because discussions are going to get nowhere.

Whether or not it was intentional is arguable.

Read the entire "Post: #29" on page 3 from Creed, and you will see why he/she is going to be ignored. This user is a spiteful, arrogant and discourteous individual who seems to take pleasure in being extremely aggressive. In his/her signature it states: "Creed of Heresy's kill-count: Al-Fatihah, JesusSaves, ibm.somethingorother, Gilgamesh - 2 weeks. Don't fuck with me, I'll gladly see your ass banned and I won't think twice about causing your forcible departure." I rest my case.

(April 20, 2013 at 6:52 am)Love Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 6:19 am)Joel Wrote: I believe that was intentional.
I don't know what your problem is with bursting out insults at people and then 'ignoring' them when the give you a valid answer... You should really stop that, because discussions are going to get nowhere.

Whether or not it was intentional is arguable.

Read the entire "Post: #29" on page 3 from Creed, and you will see why he/she is going to be ignored. This user is a spiteful, arrogant and discourteous individual who seems to take pleasure in being extremely aggressive. In his/her signature it states: "Creed of Heresy's kill-count: Al-Fatihah, JesusSaves, ibm.somethingorother, Gilgamesh - 2 weeks. Don't fuck with me, I'll gladly see your ass banned and I won't think twice about causing your forcible departure." I rest my case.

I can see why you think that. Though, I think it is irrelevant.
Your opinion of Creed shouldn't lead you to disregard his arguments, because they may be valid.

Right is right; regardless of whether or not you like the person.