Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think this is a typical view for either atheists or scientists (who are, incidentally, groups you should not conflate)Mako SOLDIER said:
It certainly doesn't divide into those two. I am not confident that science can explain everything (though I think it's the best tool we have right now), and while I don't "actively believe" (whatever that means) that religion is "false", I also believe it isn't true. I take the post-positivist view that things that are unfalsifiable exist outside of epistemology. That is, if you cannot prove something to be false, then it should be rejected. Not rejected because you believe it's false, but rather because you believe it is irrelevant.
In short, do I believe in God? No. Do I believe there isn't a God? Formally, no, but for all practical purposes, yes. The question of whether or not there is a god does not inform any decisions I will make about my life. In effect, I live my life as though he doesn't exist, so, in an informal sense, you could say I believe he doesn't exist.
An analogy: What if I told you the world was going to end tomorrow? Would you believe me? I wouldn't, if I were you. Let's say, for sake of argument that you didn't believe me. Would you say that you "actively" believe the world will NOT end tomorrow? Perhaps you wouldn't. But would you live your life today as though it were going to end tomorrow? Certainly not. So informally, one could conclude that you believe the world will not end tomorrow.
That's how I feel about God. There is equal proof for the existence of God as there is that the world is going to end tomorrow. However, neither premise can be conclusively disproven (though in the latter, I guess we'll find out tomorrow, but by then, it will be too late).
Atheism is not directly related to science. Some people are atheists for reasons having nothing to do with science (for example, the Problem of Evil) and others are atheists despite having no particular scientific training or mindset. There is a correlation between the two, probably, but only because people who reject religious teachings tend to have a mind that lends itself well to scientific thinking.
This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of science. It is commonly believed that scientific theories can be proven correct. They cannot. They can only be proven incorrect. The Big Bang Theory has held up well to scientific scrutiny and has made many correct predictions while never encountering evidence that disproves it. Thus it is, scientifically, a good theory.
No. At least no more than any scientific theory is inconclusive.
And it likely never will. In fact, any phenomena that we could observe and verify would be the basis for a change to existing scientific models (or their rejection and the formulation of a new model). For something to be truly supernatural, it would have to obey rules that are not of this universe, which is something we would not be able to conclusively distinguish. Science, therefore, is completely incapable of identifying supernatural phenomena. All phenomena look natural in the eyes of science. As opposed to the pantheist, who takes the polar opposite view and sees god in everything.
Well, it is rude, certainly.
Perhaps it is. You could probably move a sheet through the room on the theory that it would still be a solid object that would interact with the sheet. But what if the bar of soap also dissolves instantly when it comes in contact with matter? Perhaps then you could seal the room, put it in a vaccuum, weigh it, and then calculate painstakingly how much it would weigh without a bar of soap in it. Ok, what if I suggested that there was an elf removing the bar of soap right before you weigh the room and adding it back immediately after? Well, then I suppose you'd have to find some way to conclusively prove there was no elf doing that.
Do you see how the goalposts can be endlessly moved to make it impossible to disprove something?
Furthermore, science does not concern itself with why. "Why" is a question for philosophers. "How" is a question for science.
Why would we persecute them at all? People should be free to believe whatever they want to, whether it is reasonable or not. Not that they should have the freedom to *act* on that belief however they want to, but we should not persecute people for belief alone.
Depends can he use his super, I mean god powers, to make funny. Make us win wars, and that stuff?
i say no because i only know what he did 2000 years ago. where does he stand on todays issues. its like if you were to vote for a celebrity just because you like the last movie they were in
Did he? Could you quote chapter and verse on that one?Rex Fallout said:
Well, it may be true that he wants you to do it because you think it's right or because you want to, but I don't see how you're *not* going to hell if you don't do it. He famously said that it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If that isn't some good old fashion democrat-style class warfare, I don't know what is.
How do you figure?
I wouldn't exactly say it's doing fantastically now, but yeah, Communism was a massive failure there.
And now their economy is great. So I suppose China's current system is presumably satisfactory to you (it isn't to me).
Also, you say that no "pure socialist" country has ever worked, but there are a lot of countries out there that are socialist enough to give your average Republican a heart attack, and they are working just fine, so I'm not sure how meaningful your standards are.
For the record, though, I agree with you to an extent. I think that people who are not free to pursue their own happiness will have no motivation to produce.
Or maybe because you were unaware that you were overpaying for health care in part because of freeloaders who don't buy insurance but still receive emergency medical care. Seriously, the health care changes are *good* for people like you and me who work and pay for our health insurance. You and I stand to benefit.
Totally irrelevant. Knowledge and technology are accumulative. You need to make the wheel before you can make the car. Knowledge piles up over time in libraries and museums. People of today have a hell of a lot more knowledge than the people of the past, and can make more educated decisions because of it.Blayze2k said:
I'm still failing to see the relevance in this. I don't have to invent anything. I'm not an inventor, not everybody is. Not even close. You haven't invented anything either, I presume. That doesn't make you less intelligent than some. A lot of inventions are useless and laughable [http://www.mysnuggiestore.com/?tag=im|sm|bi|tm&a_aid=011&a_bid=bc305a78].
Yeah, we do. Technology that not Jesus nor anybody of his time could possibly conceive. They still thought the Earth was flat, the center of the solar system, and the center of the universe. They still laughed at the atomic theory, weren't aware that air existed, and (some) thought the sky was blue because it was made of floating water. They didn't have guns, lightning rods, engines, antibiotics, lightbulbs, record players, printing presses, televisions, cars, planes, computers, plastic, etc. Was it because they didn't have the materials to make most of those things? Actually, no. They couldn't grasp the concept of them. Sometimes people prefer to brand everything with superstitious crap instead of finding the answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages]. People get smarter over time, it's a fact.
Wow. It was SO fitting that I was listening to [a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf5DfE1CPKY]this[/a] at the exact moment that I read the OP.
All the people before me have made very good points. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. So, for various reasons, I would definitely vote for Josh as prez. Also, shouldn't this be in Religion & Politics?
All the people before me have made very good points. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. So, for various reasons, I would definitely vote for Josh as prez. Also, shouldn't this be in Religion & Politics?
Which begs the question. If you are not Jewish, then why follow the teachings of Jesus, except by personal symmetry? I mean, if Jesus was basically getting people back on track, and not actually taking them on a different moral path, then only the Jews are required to follow his teachings, because only the Jews are God's 'chosen people'. Doesn't that mean that unless you are Jewish, you aren't going to hell? And that Christians should actually be Jewish except with the belief taht Jesus was the messiah?Naheal said:
EDIT: I voted no. If he wants to do good things, then do good things, but keep your religion out of my American friends' politics ... please (see, I can be polite about telling him to keep his nose out of other people's business)
