Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 111925 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #425
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.

Ah, Protestantism.
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #426
Oh-oh. That made me laugh coming from a church with a mixture of paganism with Christianity. For that I am going to start a lodge in Lisbon.  :knight:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #427

A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.

Ah, Protestantism.

Yes, my example is from Protestantism. It seems like Protestantism set off with too limited operative principles, such as sola fide and sola scriptura as opposed to prima scriptura, and the occasionally too rough implication that everybody should be at least half-monk, as opposed to having more diverse religious, half-religious, and lay functions in the society.

The history of Catholicism is not free from the same problems, being too restrictive and repressive at times, but overall there's more elaborate diversity and therefore more universal applicability. Catholicism seems to have been more stable institutionally. By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?

And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome :)

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #428
For that I am going to start a lodge in Lisbon.   :knight:

Nice, you're welcome, we have a small corner here for hosting such folkloric insignificances.
I reserved a place for you between Scientology and a Buddhist guru, hope you fell comfortable. :)
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #429
By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?

That I know, at civilized places crimes are investigated by the police and judged by courts according to the Law, not with the masses lynching driven by atheist/protestant media. I'm no policeman or judge.

Besides, I would be very surprised when someone claims pedophilia to be a professional disease. Does it affects Catholic priests? and what about plumbers? firemen? electricians? engineers? linguists?
Just the priests? where's the difference?

You know perfectly where's the difference, at a deliberate attack and insult on one thousand million Catholics.
And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome  :)

Politically, the Orthodox Church had no other escape but not to be too much frontally against the atheist soviet regimen, theirs members being for all effects hostages of such regime.They did the best they could.

Today, I think they will have total freedom.They have their own Pope and must follow his leadership, it's not Catholic position to interfere.

From a religion point of view, I don't consider them, in any way, the enemy of Rome Protestantism is.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #430

By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?

That I know, at civilized places crimes are investigated by the police and judged by courts according to the Law, not with the masses lynching driven by atheist/protestant media. I'm no policeman or judge.

No policeman or judge, and not a particularly inquisitive representative of religion either. But sure, from the ordinary human point of view, your position is quite sensible.


You know perfectly where's the difference, at a deliberate attack and insult on one thousand million Catholics.

I know it's used to blame and insult the entire religion. And this is a sorry state of affairs. But I also know the scandal (i.e. the scale of the crime) was not so small. The implications are not imaginary.


And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome  :)

Politically, the Orthodox Church had no other escape but not to be too much frontally against the atheist soviet regimen, theirs members being for all effects hostages of such regime.They did the best they could.

The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.

"Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth." --Monk Filofey of Pskov, 1510


From a religion point of view, I don't consider them, in any way, the enemy of Rome Protestantism is.

Because the Orthodox are on the other edge of the continent? Or is there some other specific reason? What makes Protestantism worse?

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #431
But I also know the scandal (i.e. the scale of the crime) was not so small. The implications are not imaginary.

All needed measures were already, immediately and without contemplations taken by Pope Benedict XVI and reinforced by Pope Francis.
The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.

I was answering to a vast criticism about the Orthodox Church relating the Soviets, a bit like you can still hear criticism against the Papacy relating the Nazi German.
Because the Orthodox are on the other edge of the continent? Or is there some other specific reason? What makes Protestantism worse?

No, because I agree with you on your above words "but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche."
It's a geographical, traditional and cultural thing, not a deep dogmatic division. They aren't so much different from Catholicism.
You'll see more significant differences in pratice between for example a North American Catholic and a South American one or from a Southern European and a Philippine.

Protestantism always were a social/economical/political movement disguised with religious "arguments" with the main objective of destroying the connection between the Catholic Church and society.
Protestantism is very much the "Materialism" (philosophical meaning) of religion.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #432

All needed measures were already, immediately and without contemplations taken by Pope Benedict XVI and reinforced by Pope Francis.

I have not heard of any measures beyond some stern speeches, but let's say you know better. I am at a sufficient geographical distance so I don't care too much. The way Nordic Lutheran churches boldly go against the scripture with their jolly gay attitude concerns me much more.


The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.

I was answering to a vast criticism about the Orthodox Church relating the Soviets, a bit like you can still hear criticism against the Papacy relating the Nazi German.

These are not comparable. The Pope's relationship with Nazi Germany was just a tiny diplomatic episode, whereas the Orthodox Church's relationship with the state is like that of a married couple. Specifically, marriage Russian style. When the czar seems valiant and galant, the church outright worships him. When the czar turns abusive (as during the Soviet era), the church submits to the abuse, because they cannot do anything against the higher power. The higher power here is the fact that caesaropapism (the view that the czar is a quasi-Christic theocratic leader) is official church doctrine. Right now the Russian Orthodox church thinks they have a good czar again.

Being at a safe geographical distance, you of course have no feel of these things :)


...I agree with you on your above words "but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche."
It's a geographical, traditional and cultural thing, not a deep dogmatic division. They aren't so much different from Catholicism.

Well, as I said, caesaropapism is official Orthodox doctrine, not a mere cultural thing, so it should entail a dogmatic division too. If some tiny word Filioque causes strife for millennia, then the Russian Orthodox view that the Third Rome is really the One and Only True Rome will also remain irreconcilable.


Protestantism always were a social/economical/political movement disguised with religious "arguments" with the main objective of destroying the connection between the Catholic Church and society.

Protestantism is very much the "Materialism" (philosophical meaning) of religion.

I largely agree, except that I believe that the early Reformers were sincere in that they thought that they were leading some genuine kind of spiritual and social awakening. The more politically astute counts and kings however immediately seized Reformation as an opportunity to justify plundering on ideological grounds, and the Reformers became witless pawns in the game. It's the fault of Reformation that it easily lended itself to such abuse.

The early Reformers sincerely believed in the new kind of relationship of church and state that they were instituting, but this has turned now into lame sucking up to social trends. In the words of the current archbishop of Sweden, the church is like Ikea. It cannot get any lamer than this.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #433
In the words of the current archbishop of Sweden, the church is like Ikea. It cannot get any lamer than this.

Indeed.
These are not comparable. The Pope's relationship with Nazi Germany was just a tiny diplomatic episode, whereas the Orthodox Church's relationship with the state is like that of a married couple. Specifically, marriage Russian style. When the czar seems valiant and galant, the church outright worships him. When the czar turns abusive (as during the Soviet era), the church submits to the abuse, because they cannot do anything against the higher power. The higher power here is the fact that caesaropapism (the view that the czar is a quasi-Christic theocratic leader) is official church doctrine. Right now the Russian Orthodox church thinks they have a good czar again.

Being at a safe geographical distance, you of course have no feel of these things :)

Hmm.. I see.
Well, as a monarchist that remembers me of the old support of Catholicism to the Monarchies at the comparison between social structure and the human body, both being a creation of God. The Czar would be the head... :)

Those were other times.

As for my geographical distance, well, I have my "spies". Your reports spares me the nuisance of traveling to the cold North. :)
Your characterization of the Orthodox Church was important for me to know.
except that I believe that the early Reformers were sincere in that they thought that they were leading some genuine kind of spiritual and social awakening. The more politically astute counts and kings however immediately seized Reformation as an opportunity to justify plundering on ideological grounds, and the Reformers became witless pawns in the game. It's the fault of Reformation that it easily lended itself to such abuse.

I don't know if earlier reformers were genuine or not but I'm sure that who the Reformation served wasn't Counts and Kings but a new social class, bourgeoisie and commerce in the first place.
Some Counts and Kings swifted sides, when they saw how to profit with it or just to get rid of their wives...

Counts and Kings change sides many times... :)

Quote from: ersi
caesaropapism

:) Not a word that we listen frequently...
To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God seems to me a good principle our days if not used for extirpating society from religion.
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #434
The Orthodox had a terrible time under the Soviets. Very restricted churches closed, priest sent to Siberia, giving Bibles and trying to print things were a problem. At one time there were only half a dozen churches permitted to be open In Moscow. On one occasion a riot was provoked thus giving the regime an opportunity for closure. Like Belfrager, I am a monarchist and have a regard for such. In Russia the Tsars were all very strong Orthodox followers. Now here is the odd thing. During the 2nd World War that evil  man Stalin sneaked to a church and even used the Orthodox Church to encourage the war effort. Because the Church had supported the monarchy they suffered unduly for it but today is flourishing and very much by the government.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #435
Holy Virgin and whatever it's called, even Russian Orthodox Church is made of humans. Lenin was absolutely indifferent to religion. Trotsky was anti-religion. Stalin was an abusive deceiver with a religious past. He sought to take advantage of everyone. Stalin made it a requirement for the clergy that everybody had to be snitches for the secret police. The vast majority of the clergy did not acquiesce and were ruthlessly suppressed. Those who were left alive and even made clerical career, you can safely bet they obeyed.

Not judging. Just letting you know.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #436
Holy Virgin and whatever it's called,

After the Holy Virgin you don't need to mention anything else...  that's the top. :) (Catholic version)
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #437
All you have done there is in a sense complimented what I have already stated. So nothing surprising or new and generally there has been an awareness of the persecution of the Orthodox. Stalin had little interest in religion before he started his apprenticeship training to be a mass murderer although his mother had wanted him when grown up to be a priest. Visiting a church during the war was a moment of doubt and passing weakness on his part whilst for a while taking the pogroms on the church aside for some odd reasoning on his mind re the war effort. In nearer the end period of the USSR a Pastor Vims of the Baptist Church there was imprisoned for trying to advance Christianity.

A few decades ago there was a surprising incident in a provincial town when a new public building was being opened. The politicals were there on the platform making speeches and some voices chorused over the crowd for the local Baptist pastor to be allowed to say something as it was Easter.At first the party people ignored them then a Communist leader sneered and mocked telling the organisers of the event to let the fool up so they could have a laugh. So up he came to the platform and shouted "Christ is risen" and a whole sizeable portion of the crowd as old tradition shouted back "Christ is risen indeed."

Nowadays with the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship and since that event the Orthodox Church got vast numbers of churches back. Some had been museums, clubs or stores it places a centre place in public affairs, military chaplains, etc,  and is in the parliament too. Change days.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #438
No, RJ. I did not compliment you. I never have. You can regard my remarks as a complement, but not a compliment.


...I'm sure that who the Reformation served wasn't Counts and Kings but a new social class, bourgeoisie and commerce in the first place.

Reformation surely didn't do any service to the alleged divine function that a monarchist would happily see in aristocracy. Reformation and the social turmoil that it caused made a clear distinction between the complacent aristocrats who thought their name should suffice to keep them on high, and the politically shrewd ones who navigated the situation to ride the popular wave to keep themselves in power, to pillage and plunder to keep themselves wealthy.

The way it worked in the Nordic countries was that the kings abolished the Catholic church and ascribed all its liquid wealth to themselves to finance their own military campaigns, and donated the churches to the new reformist religious ministers. During (and by means of) the military campaigns the kings manoeuvred the aristocracy out of their way in terms of political and economic competition that the aristocracy had been. Aristocrats became the king's elite soldiers and advisors. Potential for territorial autonomy and independence for the aristocrats was undercut. Aristocratic titles effectively became designations for political posts. Any other worth attributed to aristocratic titles was merely nominal henceforth. This all was partly possible by appealing to the former rabble and turning it into the new middle class (bourgeoisie) and industrialists. Nowadays this is called populism.

This means any hint of the divine function in aristocracy ceased irreversibly. What is left of it is historical remnants of mere nominal value. No substance whatsoever, not even on the royal level. Modern kings are simply lifelong presidents overseeing a republic - overseeing in a detached way, not participating. As is appropriate to antiquated historical remnant.


To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God seems to me a good principle our days if not used for extirpating society from religion.

In the Nordic countries the extirpation of religion from the society seems to have happened all by itself. Now that formally people are not quite born into religion (there's no state church any more), the church membership is quickly sinking, indicating real religious indifference. Hardly anyone would acknowledge there's something in them that belongs to God. Similarly, they would not want to acknowledge the state either, but the state still holds the power to whip its citizens into submission, so there are more tangible ties with the state.

If you don't give to Caesar, Caesar comes to take it anyway. But where's God so that one could give?

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #439
Modern kings are simply lifelong presidents overseeing a republic - overseeing in a detached way, not participating.

If you say so, it means that you're not understanding what's the role of a King. (notice that I'm not saying that what you say doesn't happens, at some extent, in many monarchist countries.)
I'll let it for a specific thread about monarchy. Too much important to be a fait divers lost into another religion thread.
Nowadays this is called populism.

You just resumed Protestantism to it's core and essence - religious populism.
If you don't give to Caesar, Caesar comes to take it anyway.

:)
Yes, Caesar doesn't gives his credits away....
Hardly anyone would acknowledge there's something in them that belongs to God.

I see such position as a civilizational disease, the rottenness of the collective organic body, a society made of emptiness and fear.
But where's God so that one could give?

From a general perspective, my answer can be only one - Everywhere, there are many ways to serve God, you'll find yours.
From a more specific way, I can't but mention the Pope's actions and words. He's driving multitudes behind him based not on populism but courageous words of truth, justice and hope.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #440

Christian theology borrows from philosophy all the time and I just finished a very long modern text book chapter on this subject--nothing of what we are discussing is mentioned or even hinted at.  Now you might say, 'that's because the bible does not speak directly to it' which is true, but in teaching theology, ideas from philosophy are discussed all the time, especially if they support a Christian concept and even though they can never be made official church doctrine.  :knight:  :cheers:

Let's discuss religion here on the general religion thread.

Tell about the book you read. What did you get out of it? What did it tell?

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #441
Tell about the book you read. What did you get out of it? What did it tell?


The book is by leading theologian Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).  The chapter is 25 'The Constitutional Nature of the Human', at least in the second edition, there is an updated 3rd ed. in which it is chapter 23.  Chapter titles can be seen here: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/christian-theology-3rd-edition/134479

I can summarize the chapter this way: The makeup of humans is yet another topic raised by the question of what human beings are.  Some thoughts suggest that humans are a single and complete being and other thoughts suggest humans are made up of two or more separate components.  The three primary schools of thought on the makeup of human beings have been:
1.   Trichotomism, which states a human is composed of three elements--body, soul and spirit.  The body is the physiological part, the soul is the psychological part and the spirit is the religious part, which can perceive spiritual matters.  
2.   Dichotomism, which maintains that the human is composed of two elements, a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul or spirit). 
3.   Monism, which insists that humans are not to be thought of as, in any sense, a composite of parts or separate beings, but instead as a fundamentally unitary being or self. 

The major objections to a compound human nature are primarily philosophical in their nature.  The most emphatic objection to dualism is that the concept is simply meaningless due to the principle of verifiability.  This principle says that a proposition is meaningful only if one can present empirical data that would verify or falsify it.  To refer to a living 'person' as also a metaphysical 'person' when deceased, is nonsensical since there is no empirical proof that the 'soul person' would bear any resemblance, mentally or physically, to the once empirically observable person.  The obvious objection to this is that it assumes a proposition is meaningful only if verifiable with sense data.  However, many supernatural religious concepts are not necessarily verifiable with sense data or scientific data.

When theology attempts to define the physical and spiritual makeup of humans from the minds of human theologians and then explain it to other humans, it seems as though the concept of 'conditional unity' is most consistent with scripture.  An analogy to this conditional unity makeup may be best explained by comparing the human makeup to a chemical compound.  A chemical compound is often not recognizable by its mixture of elements, i.e. water does not look anything like the two gases it is made from.  The two gases water is made of can be extricated from the water and then reassembled again to make water in the same fashion as the Biblical resurrection (extrication), of the soul is preceded by a temporary return (reassembly), to the body. 

There is much philosophical discussion of eschatology in terms of the body and soul and even comparisons made to animals and plants, but not even the liberal theologians mention anything of immortality being related to nature's instinct of survival.  I will admit however, that there several chapters in part 10 which discuss salvation in much greater depth, but I won't have access to those chapters until later in the year. 

You ask what I get out of this and, of course, that depends on how you mean that.  You may think theology would be useless to an atheist, but it gives me great insight as to how humans understand and interpret the bible to form Christian doctrine.  I find the process to be quite ingenious when it comes to incorporating a little science into the religious scheme of things; the philosophy is less interesting, but then theology only uses those philosophies that help promote their own cause--naturally, while they incorporate a bit of science only when forced to by popular demand. 

I have chapter 25 in a 389 kb .pdf format if there is a way to post it or get it to you.   :knight:  :cheers:
  • Last Edit: 2014-07-31, 22:48:50 by jseaton2311
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #442

The three primary schools of thought on the makeup of human beings have been:
1.   Trichotomism, which states a human is composed of three elements--body, soul and spirit.  The body is the physiological part, the soul is the psychological part and the spirit is the religious part, which can perceive spiritual matters.  
2.   Dichotomism, which maintains that the human is composed of two elements, a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul or spirit).
3.   Monism, which insists that humans are not to be thought of as, in any sense, a composite of parts or separate beings, but instead as a fundamentally unitary being or self. 

For me, all these models are admissible depending on the context. The composition of the human being is a topic inasmuch as the parts are discernible (an analysis here), but there is a hierarchy or order of priority between the components so that ultimately and essentially we are just one substance.



There is much philosophical discussion of eschatology in terms of the body and soul and even comparisons made to animals and plants, but not even the liberal theologians mention anything of immortality being related to nature's instinct of survival.

So you consistently missed all references to "aspirations of the soul"? This is the term they use to connect the survival instinct to eternal life.



I will admit however, that there several chapters in part 10 which discuss salvation in much greater depth, but I won't have access to those chapters until later in the year.

Yep, that's where you could find it.

No need to email the book to me. I know more about Christianity (intricacies of theology particularly) than you even imagine. And I prefer another theology on rational grounds.

You made a nice summary, but you didn't tell at all what you are getting out of it.

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #443
You made a nice summary, but you didn't tell at all what you are getting out of it.


I have developed an understanding of the concept of religion in history.  Religion is one of those terms that all people assume they understand, but few of them can really define.  Certain common features appear in many descriptions of religion--there is belief in something higher than individual human persons.  This may be a personal god, a whole collection of supernatural beings, a force within nature, a set of values, or the human race as a whole. 

However, religion is actually a composite of a belief or doctrine, a feeling, an attitude, and a way of life or manner of behaving, at least that's the way Christian theology teaches it.  In this respect, I can see how perhaps a common belief in a higher power was selective in nature, as it promoted the welfare and ultimate survival of a group or band of humans.  There is certainly nothing wrong with religion, and if the well-being of a group is advanced through belief in a god, then by all means it is good thing for that group.  As an atheist, I simply believe that the forces of nature in this universe is the highest power that there is.   :knight:  :cheers:

James J

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #444
As an atheist, I simply believe that the forces of nature in this universe is the highest power that there is.

A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.
A matter of attitude.

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #445
A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.


Precisely.  Moreover, it is much simpler and logical to assume that our universe came into being spontaneously than it is to believe that an infinitely complex and powerful entity popped into being without a cause, to create everything.  Pulling a supernatural and inexplicable God out of a hat to explain this universe is logically less satisfying of an answer than a self-creating universe that started out consisting almost entirely of Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic element there is.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #446
Nature is something Real .
based on some mainstream theories , Nature and Universe should be Existed since Human even not exist yet , n/or Human not find the Universe yet . 

this , probably different Perspective of Nature and universe .
but in here , The People  see  there are two Universe .
The Large Universe = Nature + Universe
the Small universe  = Human + Human Mind .


on the other hand , something real if Calculated / formulated  with something unreal, imaginary  aka Fictive .
the result will become Gray  , not White , and not Black [dont get confused with Black or white logical fallacy, or Gray fallacy  )

in example  = 1 ( real ) + 1 ( Fictive) = 2 (Fictive aka Half truth )

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #447

A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.

Precisely.  Moreover, it is much simpler and logical to assume that our universe came into being spontaneously than it is to believe that an infinitely complex and powerful entity popped into being without a cause, to create everything.

To say that the universe came into being spontaneously from nothing is to explain nothing at all. God is at least an explanation :)

Moreover, God is not complex, much less infinitely complex. Quite to the contrary, God is absolutely simple, and everything else is a complication of it.


Pulling a supernatural and inexplicable God out of a hat to explain this universe is logically less satisfying of an answer than a self-creating universe that started out consisting almost entirely of Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic element there is.   :knight:  :cheers:

God is simpler than hydrogen and therefore a simpler explanation. God is also conscious and therefore qualifies as an explanation, in stark contrast from hydrogen.

God is not detectable, but is logically deducible. Admittedly, this is God-of-the-philosophers that average people do not have much clue about or find unbelievable, but this is understandable because they are average people :)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #448
God is simpler than hydrogen and therefore a simpler explanation. God is also conscious and therefore qualifies as an explanation, in stark contrast from hydrogen.

Forget God. Consciousness is simpler than hydrogen?

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #449
Consciousness is simpler than Hydrogen ,   that's seems Pretty Legit .


Consciousness is Conscious with what you are  doing .
on the other word, you know with what you are doing .