WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

WWN's Social Lounge. The place to come and chill out for a relaxed conversation about life and stuff, or some more serious debates.
User avatar
Terragent
Rank: Cussing Aussie
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Terragent » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:13 pm

I'm pretty sure the correct plural is "mangoes".

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:38 pm

Dragonite wrote:Let me go about this differently.
Let me explain myself differently. I still believe the Bible is (mostly) correct in terms of historical events, despite contradictions about some specifics. I just believe that the thing that's been calling itself an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity is not that. Just a dude with a few test tubes and a megaphone. The specific stuff about aliens and crumpets that I included were intended to be (kind of) lighthearted and help emphasize the basic ideas I'm putting out.
daisy wrote:Query Hawke's beliefs due to their inability to make him happy.
Just a side note: I don't believe this because it makes me happy (it doesn't). I believe it because I think it's true.
Terragent wrote:I'm pretty sure the correct plural is "mangoes".
Depends on where you live. 'Muricans tend to spell it 'mangos', while everywhere else prefers 'mangoes'.
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

Bog2

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Bog2 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:29 pm

That's what I said, Hawke,

Bog2

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Bog2 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:32 pm

Anyway, yeah, topic sucks and is now about mangoes.

I personally don't really care for them. Mango yoghurt is lovely. I don't think I've ever eaten fresh mango, but I'm not really a fruit guy. More vegetables - I adore cucumber.

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Dragonite » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:01 am

hawkesnightmare wrote: Let me explain myself differently. I still believe the Bible is (mostly) correct in terms of historical events, despite contradictions about some specifics. I just believe that the thing that's been calling itself an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity is not that. Just a dude with a few test tubes and a megaphone. The specific stuff about aliens and crumpets that I included were intended to be (kind of) lighthearted and help emphasize the basic ideas I'm putting out.
But what convinces you of the Bible being mostly correct? I grasp what your ideas are now, but not why they are specifically that. And since vanillia Christianity requires faith to function, what's the degree of faith you're currently having?

I considered the idea of a imperfect God before. Thing is, if he's not perfect, then well... to keep it very simplistic, that means it's IQ is being able to be grasped in a number. Thing is, the smartest humans as a collective are already able to spot glaring flaws in how, if God existed, there are many silly flaws everywhere. The whole idea of just putting a supernatural fruit on a tree, and expect it not to be eaten as part of a bizarre experiment.. If a imperfect God seriously would do that, he deserved a Divine Darwin award for being simplistic, petty, and downright naive. Your God seems downright incompetent. At the very least, he doesn't score much better then the old classics like Zeus, Thor, etc. I would expect that a transcendent, divine being at least could pass the 1000 IQ mark. At least he's got some serious hide and seek skills.

[quote=''hawkesnightmare'']
daisy wrote:Query Hawke's beliefs due to their inability to make him happy.
Just a side note: I don't believe this because it makes me happy (it doesn't). I believe it because I think it's true.
[/quote]

Specific reason why I'm a bit aggressive(do you mind that?). If it doesn't make you very happy, I don't really feel the need to hold back the way I usually would consider doing with basic Christianity. As I said before, I also believe happyness =/= truth, and the burden that brings. However, the truth has a advantage as well, if it's true it needs to make logical sense, and be consistent. Such logic may even bring happyness on it's own. I'm critical because I don't agree with your logic. That it is creepy, and makes you unhappy, and as such, not believing it might make you happier is a possible good side effect(although I won't deny it's a reason on it's own I would argue against it)

Small note to Bog: I brought up the issue of how historically correct the Bible is, because Hawke is assuming such for his views.


Generally, I don't see this topic going anywhere either, although I'm not against talking to Hawke a bit more. I'm happy to talk with ML, but we had some PM exchanges before, maybe that's a better option for him. Gives us first language perks too.

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:33 pm

DISCLAIMER: I had it all typed out and then I hit backspace and deleted everything, so I may sound a bit grumpier.
Dragonite wrote:But what convinces you of the Bible being mostly correct?
Mostly just because that's all I know. Simple (and stupid) as that.
Dragonite wrote:since vanillia Christianity requires faith to function, what's the degree of faith you're currently having?
I'm not entirely sure. From an objective angle, I think it requires less than vanilla Christianity because it's more of a long shot to believe that there is an all-powerful, perfect being than it does to believe that there was an alien who wanted to play God (ice on Mars, other planets could house life, scientific discoveries etc. etc. ad nauseum).
Dragonite wrote:Your God seems downright incompetent.
He seemed pretty incometent even when I still identified as a Christian (or at the very least, so cryptic that it took literally thousands of years for anything to start to make sense).
Dragonite wrote:At the very least, he doesn't score much better then the old classics like Zeus, Thor, etc. I would expect that a transcendent, divine being at least could pass the 1000 IQ mark.
Precisely why I don't think "God" is an actual god. Same thing for any other religion out there.Also,Still takes orders from humans
Dragonite wrote:At least he's got some serious hide and seek skills.
I suspect that the alien "God" has been long dead. A few guesses are floating around in my head as to what happened afterwards, but nothing worthy of mention.
Dragonite wrote:However, the truth has a advantage as well, if it's true it needs to make logical sense, and be consistent. Such logic may even bring happyness on it's own. I'm critical because I don't agree with your logic. That it is creepy, and makes you unhappy, and as such, not believing it might make you happier is a possible good side effect(although I won't deny it's a reason on it's own I would argue against it)
I think I understood that statement (I may be sleep-deprived). I never said that it made me unhappy. Only that it didn't make me happy like religion does for most people. Personally, I'm more creeped out that an all-powerful deity is watching my every thought and I could piss him off at any instant because I looked at that girl's breasts.
A good deal of my theory here is conjecture yes, but it makes sense to me. If I come across something that makes more sense at first glance, I'll take a look and possibly switch over. I haven't done much personal research mostly because I'm as busy as a squirrel in the fall right now.

the internet went out and I lost the last bit (again). Good enough for now. If something sounds weird, let me know.
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:20 am

What the hell is "vanilla Christianity"? In my hometown alone there's at least 3-4 very different denominations, split into many subdenominations, not counting the Mormon and two Jehova's Witness churches.

EDIT: With no malice, I'm slightly concerned that Draggy is "doing a Dawkins" and doesn't actually understand modern theism. What Dawkins does is he refutes the god *he thinks* people worship. As a sidenote, I think theism is a bit silly* now too, but the terminology being used here is retarded. I'm hoping it's just the language barrier coming through.


*I'm a schizophrenic who hears voices

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:19 am

By "vanilla Christianity", I believe Draggy was simply lumping all denominations together into a collective belief of "There's a god, the Bible happened, now we have Jesus." The denominations just split up some specifics. One of the biggest ones is how you're supposed to go about baptism and what it signifies.
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:41 am

What the hell does "the Bible happened" mean?

You could lump the follows groups into your definition of "vanilla Christianity":
1. Rastafarians
2. Mormons
3. Jehova's Witnesses
4. Muslims (arguably)

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:35 am

I was trying to keep the explanation as simple as possible.

Because you seem to be almost intentionally misunderstanding my meaning, I'm going to go and just say vanilla Christianity means all Protestant denominations of Christianity.
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:50 am

I'm not. But again, "Protestant" can mean almost anything outside of Catholicism, Orthodox and the ones I listed above. Since we cannot seem to work with words well enough, which one of the following images most closely match your definition of "Protestant vanilla Christianity"?


Image

Image

Image

Image


Also, please explain to me what "the Bible happened" means. Creationism?

User avatar
Sven

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Sven » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:45 am

>vanilla christianity means all protestant denominations of christianity

lol what an american

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:19 am

daisy wrote: "Protestant" can mean almost anything outside of Catholicism, Orthodox and the ones I listed above
Nope, Protestant includes Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, Puritans, Lutherans and a few other lesser-known subdenominations. (at least by US definitions)
daisy wrote:Also, please explain to me what "the Bible happened" means. Creationism?
As in, they use the Bible as their main form of teaching and believe that either the events within literally happened, or symbolize something similar.

Also, depending on which of the top and bottom pictures is a Catholic church, the other three. If none are Catholic, then all of them.
Sven wrote:>vanilla christianity means all protestant denominations of christianity

lol what an american
What's that supposed to mean?
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

User avatar
MysteriousLad
Rank: Mysterious President
Location: In your computer.

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by MysteriousLad » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:31 am

Bog, out of curiosity, what do the voices in your head say to you?
"i put on my robe and wizard hat" ~Pkdragon
"rocks fall everyone dies" ~HPD
Welcome to the optimistic world of WWN :D

And logic doesn't work on MysteriousLad... ~Kireato
Wait, wait, wait.

Organized crime is selling bagels on television? Since when? ~Dragon Fogel

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:04 am

hawkesnightmare wrote:
daisy wrote: "Protestant" can mean almost anything outside of Catholicism, Orthodox and the ones I listed above
Nope, Protestant includes Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, Puritans, Lutherans and a few other lesser-known subdenominations. (at least by US definitions)
...I said outside of those denominations. You're not even reading....
hawkesnightmare wrote:
daisy wrote:Also, please explain to me what "the Bible happened" means. Creationism?
As in, they use the Bible as their main form of teaching and believe that either the events within literally happened, or symbolize something similar.
Thanks. That's all I needed. The term is still crumpets, though.
hawkesnightmare wrote:Also, depending on which of the top and bottom pictures is a Catholic church, the other three. If none are Catholic, then all of them.
None of them are Catholic. Top is Anglican, bottom is Methodist. The bottom one wouldn't like being called "Protestant."
MysteriousLad wrote:Bog, out of curiosity, what do the voices in your head say to you?
Nothing I'd like to share here.

User avatar
hawkesnightmare
Rank: Mister Lister The Sister Fister
Location: A Bank Vault

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by hawkesnightmare » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:54 am

Apologies. I misinterpreted and thought you meant "including the ones listed above".

I've only ever visited a Lutheran service once and I regularly attend a church eerily similar to #3.
daisy: If the UK is worse than the present #5 in the world in terms of GDP come July 1st 2018 I will dye my hair pink.

User avatar
Sven

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Sven » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 am

to hawkes;

bog and i are mostly incredulous that you used the words "vanilla christianity" as though if they were supposed to mean anything to us. after further questioning, you revealed to us that "vanilla" actually meant "most common in my part of america".

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:26 am

Which, interestingly enough, doesn't really exist in the UK outside of festivals. I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I'd imagine it's rare on the mainland too.

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by Dragonite » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:56 am

You're reading way to much into it Bog. I just meant your typical God is good and perfect chrisitanity, in contrast of Hawke's current beliefs which have elements for Christianity. Yes, I understand now how vanillia might cause some confusion with implying a specific ''flavor'', but I was indeed referring to the most basic beliefs, and specifically what Hawke was used to in the past. Maybe I should go for ''basic'' next time.

And no malice taken, but I do notice the notion of ''not getting it'' does make make me somewhat upset. I put serious effort in trying to understand everything properly back in the day(specially my more moderate church). Then again, my major problem is that my compulsive mind had trouble taking a reassuring concept of God for just for granted(especially with much non-moderate stuff in the bible), so I don't fit the mold either. In many ways we're probably not that different now. I do seem to cause a lot of misunderstandings though, but I'm really out of practice talking much about it.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: WWN's Debate Topic: Religion and the Supernatural

Post by daisy » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:44 am

I'm not - Christianity is such a massive umbrella term that you really need to properly define what sect you're talking about before any real conversation can be had. Otherwise it just results in confusion. If you compare the Westboro Baptist Church to guys like Rob Bell, it's a totally different religion, despite having the same "basic beliefs."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Data [Bot], Multivac [Bot] and 0 guests