Sorry BB but that is completely disingenuous to say that Einstein's work proves the literal story of Genesis. See how these religious nuts take a statement they don't understand and say "voilla! God did it!"
You think that arguing that expressing the creation of the universe in terms of the revolutions of a very insignificant planetbeing foolish is tantamount to rejecting Einstein? Whilst you believe in Genesis?
I like those things too. I also can tear peoples heads off a bit.Jesus said, thou shalt turn the other cheek to homophobic micro-agressions....
I like particle physics, string theory, at least until the point I have to do math. Then it stops being fun. I'm a fan of Einstein's writings about relativity. The farther you go in that study, the wackier the theories get. I've seen fairly recent papers theorizing the Universe is a hologram, and also one that the Universe itself has a consciousness. That's pretty far out there. I don't see it as any less believable than the Bible, which by the way, even if you discard everything supernatural in it, is still the best history book in existence for much of ancient humanity. Maybe that's because it has hardly any competition, but it still has value as a historical record.
No, scientific theory is a human concept from a human mind. Faith transcends concepts.
How does faith transcends concepts? Faith cannot be anything but a concept. The Bible has faith defines as "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen". That is clearly a concept, if you want to dress it up as something more, fine. It's also a concept which is demonstrably irrational.
Yes. That's why I am into Zen, but you will find dead ends through stone age cult beliefs. My beef is not with the possibility of exploring this, but with trying to find this in debunked religions like Christianity. Only through observation and experience can this be found, and I tend to find most of these experiences are a form of self-hypnosis rather than true spiritual experience. Again, we must examine the motivations of finding these undefinable experiences. Christianity is wedded to the idea of an eternal soul, which is just taking someone elses word for it. There are 1000s of religions, and many believe they've just been plain lucky enough to be born in to the right one - what luck! There is always the carrot of eternal life and the parent judging ones actions. I will talk metaphysical possibilities all day, but I have no respect whatsoever for Christians, repeating blindly what they have been taught. Eastern religions are enormously more sophisticated and plausible, by a huge factor. Christianity is a joke in comparison, because it's explanations of natural phenomena, and the purpose of life are lowest common denominator - Man is bad, you're off to hell unless you believe. A lot of window dressing on top. The Gnostics were closer to what I consider a more grown-up view - self knowledge - exploring reality and what is, instead of a carefully selected set of texts, created by the Roman empire, and defended with claims of heresy to anyone who dissents. I would suggest modern Christians worship Rome rather than Christ, as they compiled the book, not Christ. The old testament is perhaps the most embarrassing, but the NT is a good handbook for morality. Yet, that's because we were all indoctrinated with these values, Christian or otherwise, and if I had been raised in Indonesia I would not agree, and neither would any other bible basher.I see art and the aesthetic experience as a middle ground for these kind of arguments.
Would you not say that there is a kind of reality to aesthetic experience, where something sublime breaks in on the ego if just for a moment? And that experience might lead one to enquire further into the nature of a reality that may be metaphysical... one that lies behind mere appearances?
If you answer negative to the above, you have all the coldness and cast iron logic of a Bolshevik.
You're trying too hard.
bible Belt capped off the discussion with a joke.
No, no no, me old china plate!We have in Fruitbat an exemplar of the hyper-Protestant mind. The individuated mind has freed itself from all religion, yet still feels the need to edify itself in its core fundamental beliefs. And so we get a militant atheism.
Who ever would have thought such a thing possible. Most irreligious people do their best to ignore religion, but the militant atheist, with all the crusading fervor of a believer, argues dogmatically through to his conclusions.
In the self-crowned sovereignty of his own consciousness, he pronounces to all what must be believed.
