The Passion...

[gbeenie]

just cuz science explains something doesn't mean God didn't make that science happen

That's the cop out of creation.

It's funny that god only creates things when science explains away how it was possible.

I have a problem with that statement, Tarantulas. The dismissive term "explains away" is much more descriptive of how religionists "explain" things by saying, "well, it was god." The answers provided by science are hard-won victories against the intellectual laziness embodied in religion's so-called "answers."

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Gbeenie, please stop copying Sigmund Freud's condecension, you are using the exact same wording as he did.  Christians are not stupid, as much as you might think.  Your biaseness and offensive behavior does nothing but show your contempt for people that chose a religion instead of "enlightened self-interest" - Freud.

I say that everyone debating here should read The Question of God by Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr.  It basically takes the viewpoints of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud and creates a posthumous debate.  Its very good from how far I've read.

EDIT:  The decreasing of those who believe in God means absolutely nothing.  It did the same during the final years of Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Victorian period,  Roaring 20s, Vietnam-era, and now today.  Christianity isn't gonna disappear off the map any way or time.

[gbeenie]

I'm enjoying the fact that Tarantulas used to accuse me of being rude and confrontational.

Don't worry. I haven't forgotten the VA Tech thread; I've just been busy. You'll get yours, little mister...

[gbeenie]

Gbeenie, please stop copying Sigmund Freud's condecension, you are using the exact same wording as he did.  Christians are not stupid, as much as you might think.  Your biaseness and offensive behavior does nothing but show your contempt for people that chose a religion instead of "enlightened self-interest" - Freud.

Ironically, I've never read any of Freud's writings on the subject. Also, I didn't call anybody anything. Anyone who's engaged in discussions with me on this forum knows that's not my style. However, I have ZERO problem calling out bad ideas for what they are; one of the absurd notions I deride modern college leftists for is the assertion that all ideas are somehow inherently of equal value, which they most emphatically are NOT.

EDIT:  The decreasing of those who believe in God means absolutely nothing.  It did the same during the final years of Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Victorian period,  Roaring 20s, Vietnam-era, and now today.  Christianity isn't gonna disappear off the map any way or time.

You're wrong. It means EVERYTHING. It's the Death of a Thousand Cuts; every period in history where humankind has made great advancements in knowledge or science, increasing numbers of people have jumped ship from the comforting falsehoods of religion, in order to embrace some verifiable reality.


But I note that this discussion (which I'm still reading ten pages back; y'all have been busy while I was gone) is really two discussions that have kind of intermixed (and I hold myself as to blame for that as anyone else):

1. The existence (or lack thereof) of God/gods/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever.

AND

2. The "merits" of religion.


The first argument is the thornier one, and the one that doesn't offer much in the way of resolution. While I can make the argument that the assumption of No God, with one needing to look for evidence of God, is the only intellectually responsible position a person can take, the fact is it still comes down to belief: I believe there is no god. (BTW, great bit from Penn Jillette on this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557) Other people, obviously, believe differently; while I view this as more of a benign neglect of one's intellectual musclepower than anything, I also understand that most people had this garbage drilled into their heads as children (taking children anywhere NEAR a religious institution constitutes child abuse, as far as I'm concerned), so at least they've come by it honestly.


Religion, on the other hand, opens up a whole different kind of discussion. The evil that religion has been party to throughout its entire history cannot be ignored by anyone with any sort of honest approach to the history of the world. Religion has been the excuse/justification for more brutality, oppression and all-around inhumane treatment of one's fellow human beings than any other force in history (there's not even a close second). The fact that, in the West, religion has taken on this sort of namby-pamby, low-key, benevolent facade is only testament to how religion has had to contort its LIES to accommodate the beautiful Truths that science and reason have led us to understand. Does anyone really view it as coincidence that the rise in Europe of the notion of all people having inherent human rights was inversely proportional to the influence the church enjoyed in Europe? Religion even diminishes the idea of God: the God described in the Western, Abrahamic religions DOES NOT EXIST (and provably so).

[gbeenie]

This was an interesting discussion, even not to participate in.  Anyone want to make a real point?

Gimme a minute...

[gbeenie]

The placebo effect is exactly what I'm talking about.  Prayer does not effect surgical outcomes any more than slipping someone a "super cure" sugar pill does.  Positive thinking has the same effect of patient outcomes as prayer, which is no say (again) none.  Recovery rates are the same in all studies.

It's the same logic and reasoning that says that talking to plants makes them grow better (regardless of whatever bullshit you saw on mythbusters)

what the fuck are you talking about?
The placebo effect states that if you tell someone it will work, it will work.

That's a misstatement of the placebo effect. Knowing that someone is praying for them might make some "feel better" (in the same way that knowledge of anyone's well-wishes might), but intercessory prayer (as in, remote prayer without the patient's knowledge) DOES NOT affect surgical outcomes.

[Phantom of Krankor]

Alright, this discussion is rediculous. This is a forum to discuss RiffTrax, not religious debates. This thread was originally made to discuss The Passion of the Christ, which is a well made film IMO.

I just want to point out that religion is not "a bunch of lies." Its a belief system. There's a big difference. Christianity or any other religion relating to god is a tradition going back thousands of years. And the fact that it has outlasted Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods shows its true quality and that there's something special about it.

But the simple fact is, no one can 100% prove or disprove the existance of god no matter how much info or arguements they have. Its just impossible. No one can really know for sure until they die or if a second coming of christ comes.

So let's just leave it at that.

[Deckard25]

Has anyone even read through the link of Mr. Greenleaf that i had posted. Come on guys, again does anyone have the challenge to go against the greatest authority of legal evidences in history. Can anyone here be a better known authority?

Huh, is not "enlightened self-interest" a rather selfish way of thinking, i could be wrong here.

I say again that The Bible can be proven without doubt by archeologic evidance, testing the manuscript evidance, scientific evidance and statistical probability of the chances of the events that took place. He can a book written over a period of 1600 years by over 40 men be just a fairy tale told by crazy men? If one looks carefully at the text, it is harmonious. Now how can a book written by several people many who have never met before be and written over hundreds of years be written in harmony?

Science can prove The Bible and God. You speak of intellectual laziness yet have you ever done enough research, cross-referencing historical documentation, read the bible and tested it's worth against what the secular world claims is a myth made by crazy men. You just don't jump the gun and assume anything until you are certain of the separating fact from fiction.

Also to all of those people who believe in Theistic Evolution, be careful, this is very dangerous to believe in something like this. This is suggesting that God had to create the early forms of life first long before man came around through eons of evolving. So God did not have the grand intelligence and mind to create man as if he made a mistake and had to correct it through eons of evolution. I thought God was incapable of making mistakes, after all he is God, right and so he apparently has limitation? If anyone wants to believe in evolution, go ahead but please do not blame God for it.

Without God there is nothing worth believing in, is science God, does science have all or will have all of our answers on why we are here, what is our purpose and what is our destiny. How many time has science been proven wrong, mans idea is always flawed unless it is backed up by something that can be proven without any doubt about the universe and our very nature. In fact science can prove God or at least a form of intelligent design, just watch The Privileged Planet video.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."

--Robert Heinlein
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this is a science fiction writer who out of his own ignorance who evidentially never has done the research and challenged the Bible for what it is. A sci-fi writer??? That is lame.

I guess Mr. Greenleaf was a horrible lawyer.     

Please, you have to do better then that.

God does not need our saccharine adoration, he created us because he loves us. He most certainly does not becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. He does after all gives us a choice on wither we choose to accept him or not. He gave us the free will to choose.

[RandyMistie]

Well, I been staying away from this because between, TorgosPizza, Tarantulas, and Beenie, all of my ideas were much better expressed.  I am an admirer of Dawkins and totally agree when he says that the idea of God/Religion, what have you, is simply an untestable theory and science must always and only address that which can be tested and measured.  He acknowledges that there are scientists that are also religious, but the best of those know they must keep their beliefs far away from the work of science.

I think Beenie just nailed everything to the wall and I agree with her completely.  The problem with the Judeo/Islamo/Christiano faith is that it is "eminent", which is to say that their Middle Eastern, desert god of war and fire, YHVH, exists somehow outside of the world, and he finds it repugnant, (dirty, sinful place!).  And, that his is the only One True Way and all others must be absorbed or destroyed, (a war god, obviously).

Eastern religions, and Nature religions like mine and that of many Native cultures, believe that "God/Goddess" is imminent, or exists IN the world.  It, (The Divine, whatever...) is part of every living thing.  That makes it hard not to respect the life that exists in all things as Sacred.  If you respect that life, it makes it impossible to rob it of dignity, property, or life itself.  Also, most respect the beliefs of others as being just as valid as their own.

But, ultimately, I have to admit that my beliefs are untestable, immeasurable, and subject to the truths of science and rationality.   My religion is subjective truth, science is OBJECTIVE truth, or as close as we can get with the tools we have now.  I realize and celebrate the difference, and I wish other faiths could do the same.

[torgosPizza]

Alright, this discussion is rediculous. This is a forum to discuss RiffTrax, not religious debates. This thread was originally made to discuss The Passion of the Christ, which is a well made film IMO.

And then it "evolved" (pun intended) into a mostly-civil, fairly serious debate on the SUBJECT matter of the movie. Why do you have such a problem with that?

And the fact that it has outlasted Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods shows its true quality and that there's something special about it.

Again, persistence of a religion does not guarantee its validity. Others have come before, others will come after. That's just statistic probability.

Has anyone even read through the link of Mr. Greenleaf that i had posted. Come on guys, again does anyone have the challenge to go against the greatest authority of legal evidences in history. Can anyone here be a better known authority?

Sure! I read that page, and it was utter drivel. It seems to me he was a terrible lawyer, because he didn't convince me one iota. And I'm not the one who says I "cannot be convinced."

I'll go through some of it below.

I am particularly interested in the salvation of lawyers and to all men of the legal profession for they would best know how to present in its proper format, the arguments and contentions which could well convert millions and I do mean millions.

Converting millions? Is that the goal of Christianity? That must be why I got a pamphlet stuck in my wiper blade this morning trying to get me to accept Jesus. And yeah, if anyone's going to do it, it's lawyers - the masters of taking words and twisting them for their clients' agenda. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ask all the Scientists to produce a single blade of grass, ask them to produce a single living cell. Why they could not even produce a dead cell. Well what am I trying to do? It is to establish God by circumstantial evidence. Evidence, which leads us unremittingly to the conclusion that there is a God.

Every good lawyer knows that circumstantial evidence is your last resort. Direct evidence to implicate the criminal, or defend an innocent man, is best. Why go right to the circumstantial to try and prove your point? Could it be because there IS no direct evidence? This is why science flies in the face of religion - any direct evidence pointing to the origin of the universe, or of mankind, without a god or creator suddenly becomes sacrosanct.

The Bible says the Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Look at the regularity of the seasons in the precision of sun movements, the coming of day and night. Can any atheist or agnostic friends explain this without God?

Back to the firmament, which no one answered me about earlier. The stars are little lights hanging on it, if I'm not mistaken. The coming of day and night is part of our solar makeup. Every planet in our known solar system has a day cycle, some of them are quicker or longer than others. What's the point?

The sun, for example, loses 4 million tons of mass per second to produce the radiation it does. Who? Who made all of this possible? You can guess if you wish to guess. I know - the answer is God!

Thanks to advances in science, we know how stars are created. You can look at pictures taken by the Hubble telescope to see the formation of stars within nebulae. Go to NASA's website and take a look! To say that you already know the answer to your question is arrogance at its most dangerous.

.... if the sun is running down, then it must have had a beginning. It could not have always existed, for if 4 million tons of mass were added to the sun each second for an infinite period of time past, you would have an infinite mass and our sun would have filled all space. This is not possible so we reach the conclusion that the sun had a beginning. Who was responsible for that beginning?

Based on evidence, we can estimate the age of the sun, of the earth, our solar system... we know that it's not infinite, just as we know that the sun's supply is going to run out. It will take another few billion years, but it will happen. And we know how our sun was created - just as all the other stars were, which we can even observe thanks to modern technology.

Yes you, Mr. Unbeliever who questions God's existence, God's presence and God's ability – you brain is a living computer so complex that the most extravagant, sophisticated computers, when compared are mere toys.

Obviously, this was written before the Internet age, and  the recent advancement of supercomputing. Artificial intelligence is within our grasp, including computer and microprocessor networks that would rival our brains - even surpassing the data computation rate.

Why even the most diabolical disbelievers concede on scientific evidence that the Old Testament was completed long before Christ was born and it is in the Old Testament we find all these events connected with his birth, his life and his death.

You cannot use circular reasoning to prove your case. Every good lawyer knows that. Saying the New Testament, written 60-90 years (they say) after the events which take place in it, fulfills prophecies foretold in the Old Testament, is like using the sequel to Jurassic Park to tie together a storyline from the first book. It's still a book, and if it's the only way to corroborate anything, then the argument is invalid.

I won't continue pointing to individual parts in his story, because he is quite wordy. But he's a lawyer, so what do you expect. He talks about fulfilled prophecies in the New Testament - but we know of many prophecies left unfulfilled. "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -  Matthew 24:23. Just as today, many believers at the time thought Jesus would return during their lifetime. And today we even have websites dedicated to when the rapture takes place - so that those "left behind" will know where their loved ones went, (Heaven), and why they - being sinners - did not disappear along with them. How pompous!

I don't intend to change anyone's mind, as I've mentioned before - I have no problem with you believing what you want to believe. But it seems to be arrogant in the presumption from many of the religious (not so many on this board - I am continually inspired by the amount of moderation and thoughtfulness that many of you possess) - that it is the atheists who are closed-minded. As I'd mentioned in an earlier post, atheists are open to the possibility that they are wrong. It is the religious person that says, "I am right, and you cannot convince me otherwise" who is the most closed-minded.

[J-Proof]

The subject matter of Passion is really focused on the death of Christ more than evolution v creation etc.

That being said, the movie was fairly accurate as to how Romans tortured with a few exceptions:
- Their cat of nine tails had too many 'tails" attached to them.
- Jesus would have only carried the crossbeam, not the whole cross.
- Jesus would have been nailed through the wrist, which would have killed the nerves in his thumbs.
- The crosses were a little too high up in the movie.

Anyway -- I'm spent on this convo =P
My idea of God is the same as from the beginning -- which is, again, that the sciences, in my studied and well-read opinion, aid in the glorification of God, and that I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me

Peace out yall!

[Pak-Man]

I happen to believe in a God that created this universe in a way with a set rhyme and reason and set of laws- The very same laws that science works dilligently to study. The fact that there is no God in the science books doesn't bother me in the least, because I believe God set up the very processes that Science seeks to prove and study and then stepped well out of the way.

In other words:
The scientific process does nothing to hinder my belief in God, nor does God hinder my belief in scientific process.  The bible isn't a science book and science books aren't bibles. Now there are some who have decided that belief in God means you shouldn't believe in Science. Those people are dead wrong. There are others who believe that belief in science means we shouldn't accept a God. Those people are dead wrong.

The prospect of an all-powerful God creating the universe isn't without scientific merit. Science will be the first to admit that there are things in this universe beyond its comprehension. In fact, Science doesn't ever try to go there. There has not been a single scientific study that seeks to prove or disprove a God. That's not Science's place. Science is a method of looking at the physical world around us. If, indeed, there is something that removed itself from the world around us, Science isn't gonna find it. That's why it doesn't bother me in the least that Science hasn't found God, and I think anyone who believes their faith is in jeopardy because science is trying to prove things without God doesn't have enough faith to begin with.

For a long time, science has looked at Religion and said, "You're wrong, we're right!"
Meanwhile, Religion has looked at Science and said, "You're wrong, we're right!"
To everyone, I say, "Congratulations! You're both right! Now sit down, relax, enjoy your view of the universe, and don't let it irk you that others might have other views, and maybe listen to what the other side has to say.  Lots of good information on both ends.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

This is a forum to discuss RiffTrax, not religious debates

well theres a noobie statement lol.  What are we up to?  50% of all our threads turn into either ethical/religious/scientific/political debates? 

wEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


how bout them lakers?

[torgosPizza]

To everyone, I say, "Congratulations! You're both right! Now sit down, relax, enjoy your view of the universe, and don't let it irk you that others might have other views, and maybe listen to what the other side has to say.  Lots of good information on both ends.

That's probably the most reasonable thing I've read thus far. If only everyone was as smart as you guys. Case e in point - one of the recent episodes of Penn and Teller was about Exorcism. Pretty frightening, and I don't mean the concept of "being possessed by demons."

[Tarantulas]

Yup! -- because no matter what theory or idea you give me explaining how the world got this way, down to the very emotions that I feel when I give my mom a hug, you cannot explain to me how it got there without something ex-scientific. Period.

No... the reaction you get when you hug a parent is easy to explain.

As the care giver for yourself, you have formed a "bond" with that person that really doesn't amount to anything more than your brain releasing chemicals to illicit a response that "this is a care giver, show them affection".  This thing called love (outside of Queen lyrics) are chemicals your brain uses to create bonds between members of the same grouping.  Millions of years of evolution has taught you that it's better to stay in a group for both survival and mating purposes.  "Love" kept primitive man in pair bonds to increase the odds of rearing young to a mature age.

Wonder why the divorce rate is up?  The chemicals wear off after a while... and we aren't supposed to live this long, so we have sort of out "evolved" this evolutionary advancement.

I'd point you to some stuff about Pavlov's dog, but you'd just say that it further cheapens the "human spiritual experience" and that we aren't animals.