r/SubredditDrama • u/Dragonsandman Mods are Calvinists • Mar 31 '17
A post about red hair on /r/TIL leaves some users red in the face when religion is brought up.
/r/todayilearned/comments/62l0i1/til_in_medieval_times_red_hair_was_associated/dfngg6o/4
2
u/rangatang Apr 01 '17
This brings up a rather unrelated question I had but I have been meaning to ask for ages just didn't know where. I see a lot of Americans say 3/4ths (as in three fourths), where I live I have never heard anyone say that, it is always three quarters. Is that phrasing an american thing or am I just totally unobservant.
The same goes for drug being a past tense of drag. I have never heard that except by americans on reddit. Is it correct? I would always say dragged.
4
u/Dragonsandman Apr 01 '17
Three fourths as opposed to three quarters is used sometimes in different parts of North America (I say North America because some Canadians say that too), but it's not consistent.
I haven't heard of anyone using drug as a past tense for drag, though.
1
u/puggaho Apr 01 '17
I don't see the issue, drug is grammatically incorrect there but fourth is a legitimate word? Like you would say 3 fifths, 3 sevenths, fourths just has two options.
1
u/rangatang Apr 01 '17
It's not really an issue. It just sounds weird to me because i literally never hear it in my day to day life
1
16
u/aguad3coco Mar 31 '17
I always wondered, if god and hell is real then where did all the people who did not have the ability to know of god go? Especially early homo sapiens. Are they all chilling in hell? Kinda unfair tbh, like they didnt know any better. I mean how could they? Thinking about that always makes me sad.
Oh and great drama.
21
Apr 01 '17 edited Apr 01 '17
In Catholic Theology it's believed that if you did not become Catholic through no fault of your own, you are not held liable for your lack of belief and can be saved and brought into Heaven. For example, suppose you lived as one of the natives on North Sentinel Island and never came into contact with any Christians, and therefore never had any chance to learn about Christ, your lack of knowledge wouldn't be held against you in your final judgment.
It is important to note though, that having the possibility to be saved =/= that you will be saved. Though it is possible that God's mercy can extend to those who did not believe, regular participation in the Sacraments is the most likely way anyone will accept Heaven. Note how I said accept Heaven, this is where Catholicism differs from most Protestant teachings. While generally in Protestantism, God is seen as a type of ultimate Judge where he sentences you to either eternal Heaven or Hell for your temporal crimes, in Catholicism, it is you who chooses where your go. Not choose in a sense that their is literally two doors with Heaven and Hell on the other side, but in a spiritual sense. If you were drawn to being Sinful in life, then you would be drawn to Sin in death, and fall to the depts of Hell. But if you were drawn to being virtuous in life, than you would be drawn to being virtuous in death, and so you would accept God's love and ascend into Heaven.
But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet.
13
Apr 01 '17
In Catholic Theology it's believed that if you did not become Catholic through no fault of your own, you are not held liable for your lack of belief and can be saved and brought into Heaven.
Those damn missionaries need to cut it the fuck out then.
5
Apr 01 '17
No, missionaries are still nesisary because even though it's possible for non Catholics to get into Heaven, that doesn't mean that they will. The surest way to get into Heaven is to take part regularly in the Sacraments, and to grow closer to God. And the Church is the best institution for providing both of those things.
1
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
Protestants would put it that way, too, though, to some extent. They would say you are choosing to accept or reject Christ. Your works are kind of secondary in Protestantism as far as salvation goes. Protestants seem to have Paul as their go-to is why.
7
3
u/Stupid_Sexy_Sharp Apr 01 '17
Is there a loophole around original sin? I don't think dudes were baptizing each other back in the day.
What about the peeps that literally just haven't heard of Christianity? Like an Aztec or something? It's not their fault Jesus didn't make it over in time.
2
u/Il_Valentino Apr 01 '17
catholics would say: these people are in the limbo, not really hell but neither near "god". they don't suffer but are not happy too. they will reunify after the end of the world. something like that.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
Hmm, well, in Christian theology they have the concept of "Abraham's bosom" which Christians believe is where pre-Christ "good people" went, those who followed the law of Moses and all that. "Hell" was actually in the same location but there is a "great void" between the two locations and the hell side, of course, sucked.
I believe the location in Judaism is known as "sheol", might be misspelling that.
I believe this is mostly formulated from a parable of that Christ gave about the leper and the rich man but I'm assuming it was based on Jewish belief of the time period (big assumption, I know. given that I have no idea how accurate the King James version of the Bible is in this particular passage). I don't really know much about what Jews think of all that.
1
u/aguad3coco Apr 02 '17
I am talking about the ancient east asians, northern europeans, sub saharan africans etc. All of them didnt have the ability to know of those rules from moses, so where did they go?
→ More replies (1)-3
Mar 31 '17
First of all, God isn't hell.
Second, assuming God is real, then what do you think? Should you be punished for your ignorance? The bible says God is just; therefore we can assume that no, people that didn't know about God don't go to hell.→ More replies (34)
15
u/elephantofdoom Apr 01 '17
Much more fun fact about red hair: the reason it's called red hair despite being orange is that during the middle ages orange was considered a shade of red.
Ok, back to WAKE UP YOU IGNORANT SHEEPLE!
8
u/RatofDeath Apr 01 '17
I think I read somewhere that we didn't even have a name for orange until very recently.
Also apparently we didn't have a name for blue, either. And we only recognized the color blue as it's own distinct color more recently. Apparently it was just part of green in the past. Some cultures still don't recognize blue.
Colors are fascinating, man.
10
u/tdogg8 Apr 01 '17
[Yup. The color was actually named after the fruit not the other way round.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_(word)) Language is fascinating sometimes.
124
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
I wonder if edgy internet atheists realize that they're basically the equivalent of religious evangelicals. People who think they can actually reduce incredibly complex religions with thousands of years of theology behind them to "believing in a magic sky daddy" sound just as stupid as the guy on my schools quad talking about how we are all going to hell (and I say this as an atheist)
33
u/Not_A_Doctor__ Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
"believing in a magic sky daddy"
They also overestimate the role of wanking as a central theme of theology. "With my penis firmly in hand I denounce their god."
19
u/khanfusion Mar 31 '17
I dunno, there's a lot of cosmology out there that more or less starts with "Then Biggest Daddy God ejaculated and that's where existence comes from."
You might actually be under estimating the role of wanking
11
u/Dragonsandman Apr 01 '17
If there's anything I've learned about mythology from the various ancient history classes I've taken, gods in ancient religions were complete and total perverts.
9
1
u/Dragonsandman Mar 31 '17
Don't even get me started on that meme that was making the rounds in that topic.
17
u/Inkshooter Apr 01 '17
I don't understand New Atheism.
They have a circle of leaders (Dawkins, Harris, etc.)
They created their own symbol (the atom/red A)
They evangelize with bus adverts and flyers.
They own buildings where they hold large meetings.
They donate to charities in the name of atheism.
They keep track of how many people 'believe' in atheism
HOW IS THIS NOT A RELIGION?
7
u/mrmcdude Apr 01 '17
By your logic the girl scouts are a religion
3
u/ILikeTalkingToMyself Apr 02 '17
Excuse me, have you heard the good news? Our thin mints have been restocked!
2
1
7
3
u/aguad3coco Apr 01 '17
Cause it isnt one or do you think the state and society would accept it as such?
1
18
u/Mikeavelli Mar 31 '17
Why do you consider thousands of years of theology to be a factor that makes religion more convincing or meaningful?
What exactly creates this complexity, and why is that complexity not reducible to "magic sky daddy?" Most of the philosophers you've brought up already simply assume god exists, and go from there to talk about ethics in a way that can be completely separated from divinity.
21
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
> Most of the philosophers you've brought up already simply assume god exists, and go from there to talk about ethics in a way that can be completely separated from divinity.
I mean that's just patently untrue. I brought up those philosophers specifically because they offer arguments as to why god exists.
> What exactly creates this complexity, and why is that complexity not reducible to "magic sky daddy?"
Because the arguments for the existence of god are more intricate then "God exists because the Bible says so". If actually want to get into the complexity of these question I'd recommend The Kalām Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig, it's off the work of Averroes and is an interesting read even from the perspective of an atheist.
17
Mar 31 '17
The Kalām Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore: The universe has a cause.
This relies on assuming the premise to be true, first off. Secondly, if you presume the cause is a deity, you must then ask what caused that deity, and what caused he deity that caused that, and so on. At some point either the argument proves itself untrue, or it's just turtles all the way down.
Craig goes on to presume:
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
5. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Now how does Craig get to 4? What evidence does he have that an includes being can exist, or that it's the oddly specific creator he claims?
4
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
This relies on assuming the premise to be true, first off.
Pretty much every argument relies on its premises being true. It's important for people to provide some justification for the premises, but no argument works without its premises.
Secondly, if you presume the cause is a deity, you must then ask what caused that deity, and what caused he deity that caused that, and so on
That's my own big issue with the argument.
Now how does Craig get to 4? What evidence does he have that an includes being can exist, or that it's the oddly specific creator he claims?
I think the assumption is that if the universe has a creator then that creator must necessarily be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter all rely on the existence of the universe to exist. Again, there are flaws in the argument, but if you want to get more into the specifics of his claims and the evidence he provides for them then its worth finding a detailed summary or skimming the book
11
u/GodsPotency Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
incredibly complex religions with thousands of years of theology
*Recommends WLC
Lmao. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
6
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
If you have better recommendations please shoot. I like theology, but I'll be the first to say I'm definitely not an expert and am far from being familiar with all the important literature
12
u/Mikeavelli Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
The philosophers you've cited assume god exists, and then work backwards to create a rational justification for his existence. Kant, for example, argues that objective moral facts must exist. Since they exist, they must come from somewhere, and the source of those facts must be god. But, this is only convincing if you believed in god in the first place. Most of 'objective moral facts' he comes up with aren't really objective, and didn't need to come from god at all.
I've read through the cosmological argument a few times. Not specifically Kalam, but several other variations. They all have the same two problems:
If everything must have a cause, then what caused god? The existence of a thing that exists without cause implies other things can be causeless as well.
Once they ignore this criticism and assume god exists, they leap to the conclusion that it must be their god that exists. This happens without much logical backing at all.
Descartes and the majority of Aquinas' arguments are largely variations on the cosmological argument, and suffer from the same flaws.
9
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
The philosophers you've cited assume god exists, and then work backwards to create a rational justification for his existence.
I feel like that's a pretty difficult claim to prove. Kant's theological arguments have a lot of faults, but I don't feel like it's really fair to argue that he is arguing from an intellectually dishonest position.
As to your issues with the cosmological argument, particularly your first point, I don't disagree. If I didn't find flaws in these arguments I wouldn't be an atheist. My whole point is that people should be doing what you have clearly done and listen to these arguments and try to come up with reasoned objections to them, instead of pointing figures and accusing people of believing in fairytales without taking time to actually consider the stronger arguments in favor of theism
21
Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
reduce incredibly complex religions with thousands of years of theology behind them to "believing in a magic sky daddy"
Atheists being condescending and using terms like magic sky daddy is unnecessary and unhelpful, but their point is fair. They're basically using childish terms to point out that people believe in something that is wholly illogical and for which there isn't and hasn't ever been evidence, something which would likely be dismissed were it not a part of religion.
Again the words some atheists use are immature, but the point is very fair.
36
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
They're basically using childish terms to point out that people believe in something that is wholly illogical and for which there isn't and hasn't ever been evidence
This is the exact kind of reductiveness that I'm talking about. Brilliant philosophers have written huge discourses on the logic behind religion, and even if you don't agree with them you don't get to put up a strawmen that people never put real thought into their religious beliefs. I don't really think you have much grounds to call Averroes or Rene Descartes "wholly illogical" without being prepared to offer a detailed refutation of their work
21
u/IAMA_Drunk_Armadillo Apr 01 '17
One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the perception of the voice of Christianity in America is the religious right. The vast majority of which are young earth creationists trying to force intelligent design into public schools.
We have a vice president that supports gay conversion therapy. There's also a never-ending attempt to legalize discrimination against homosexuals and women. The same people who want to control what bathrooms someone uses.
The constant push to retcon America as being some sort of theocracy. Something like 40+% of Americans believe that the earth is only 6-10000 years old. So I think a lot of atheists are just using forums like reddit to vent off their frustration and anger.
4
Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
don't get to put up a strawmen that people never put real thought into their religious beliefs
This is so ironic, because I never said people don't put real thought into their religious beliefs, so your statement calling me out for using a strawman...is in fact a strawman.
But to your other points, I understand the logical arguments made by philosophers for the existence of God, I have studied philosophy extensively in school and have studied Aquinas and his proofs and many other philosophers as well. But those proofs operate on a premise that supernatural things that defy the laws of the universe exist, of which we have no proof of existence. So their logical explanations of God have a baked in assumption that universal law defying things exist, something you can accept or deny, but there's no evidence for it.
-4
u/Aetol Mar 31 '17
Of course there's no evidence, that's the point of faith.
13
Mar 31 '17
That's precisely it, belief in fantastic events and things based only on faith. That's what they're criticizing.
-1
u/CZall23 Mar 31 '17
Heaven is in the sky the same way space is. Or Pluto. When people think of the sky, they generally think of clouds, wind, blue sky. Same with magic.
It's semantics.
0
Mar 31 '17
10
u/TotesTax Apr 01 '17
I am an anti-anti-theist. Fuck those people. Some of the best people I know are religious. Also the rest aren't. Almost like it doesn't matter.
6
u/hyper_ultra Apr 01 '17
I don't know. I don't go all edgy atheist at people but I honestly do believe the world would be a better place without religion.
7
4
2
1
0
Mar 31 '17
17
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
With theology, no matter how old it is, the central premise is that there is some divine power out there. Atheism rejects that premise, and without that theology isn't really anything more than a historical curiosity or something to be studied as motivation for behavior.
That's not always a premise though, there is plenty of theology that gives arguments in favor of that stance as opposed to assuming it as a given. Even ignoring that, you can engage in a discussion of theology without buying into the premises presented (like any philosophy). I don't believe in god, but I can still debate the logic behind a benevolent god or the nature of piety.
22
Mar 31 '17
I can still debate the logic behind a benevolent god
That's a completely different argument though. I'm sure most people who are in the process of arguing against the existence of God could participate in a discussion about the logic of a benevolent God, but those aren't part of the same discussion
5
u/mightyandpowerful Mar 31 '17
there is plenty of theology that gives arguments in favor of that stance as opposed to assuming it as a given.
Any recommendations?
2
u/Inkshooter Apr 01 '17
And that's fine. But there's a problem beyond that basic incompatibility when one or either side either doesn't fully understand what the current philosophical, scientific, and religious landscape looks like and/or drastically mis-characterizes their opponent's beliefs.
In online arguments, people on the atheist side have a bad habit of assuming off the bat that Empiricism is true and dramatically overstating how much science can reveal about existence (going so far as to say that science can ascertain a proper code of ethics for people to live by). They also frequently trivialize or misconstrue religious dogmas ( 'magic sky wizards', 'burning in hell' for masturbating, doing good only because you want to go to heaven, etc.) in order to make them easier to attack.
People on the religious side strawman their opponents as well, such as claiming that science is just another religion and must be taken on faith, or that it's impossible for people to be moral without God, or using tired, easily refuted philosophical arguments that are very outdated.
I think good debate between atheists and theists is possible, but only if both sides have done a bit of research and don't assume off the bat that the other side is full of idiots.
5
u/aguad3coco Mar 31 '17
To me its like looking at a really old book with great lore and interesting morals.
1
u/powerkick Mar 31 '17
I'll bite:
It's because so many people who happen to be religious also just so happen to buy into a bunch of other crazy theories or use their religion to justify atrocity off-handedly or indirectly. That doesn't make them bad or stupid, but it does mean that they have in some part gotten "had" by ideology to the point where they can't PROPERLY criticize their own religion.
This is coming from someone who sees the expression of faith as a human imperative. I used to be a lot worse about this a couple years ago.
What bugs me is that yeah, atheists sound ridiculous, but they don't want people who believe in religion to be tortured for all eternity just for doing that. I think many people who believe kind of brush aside the fact that they've bought into the notion that in their heads, once I, a nonbeliever, die that I will be tortured for all eternity and that's "just the way it is."
I'm allowed to comment on how absolutely fucked up and antiquated that notion is.
I'm also allowed to comment on how most people who are religious didn't wake up one day in their mid-30s and decide they were fucking Coptic. They were typically raised into churches and raised by churches.
And then politically, who represents religious folk? Betsy DeVos? Mike Pence?
I'm allowed to call out the people our people have allowed into positions of power simply because they subscribe to the same life model, despite arriving at (I assume and hope) very different conclusions and ways to go about things.
And that's a problem worldwide. If we had the economy of Afghanistan, Mike Pence would be like Osama Bin Laden.
And then there are the institutions who borrow the idea of the religion but clearly aren't: Scientology, Westboro Baptist, etc.
Those parties and institutions get WAY too much political leeway because "that's just what they believe" and it is high fucking time people stood up and called these institutions out for what they actually are.
Beyond that, some scholar in a desert didn't get the way the universe worked 100% or even 30% right 2,000 years ago. Most of what's there is just raw mythology, not fact. They didn't get it right.
It's OK to say that. I'm allowed to say that people are getting had by this stuff and maybe we can find a better way to employ our faith, the strongest technology humanity has access to.
This, IMO, is why edgy atheists feel the need to be so edgy.
1
24
u/decencybedamned Mar 31 '17
My favorite part of religion drama is when every makes their passionate arguments about 'religion' when they really mean 'Christianity.'
"Religious people are stupid because hell is a stupid concept!" Jews don't believe in hell, what now? checkmate atheist
6
Apr 01 '17
Well, the Jewish religion still has the fucked up moral positions that give me trouble with religion, so...
-1
u/tdogg8 Apr 01 '17
Saying all religions have fucked up morals because some of them do is like saying all political parties have fucked up views because the Nazis supported genocide.
9
Apr 01 '17
Name a religion without anything objectionable in it and we can talk. But it's more than just my moral standings. It's the fact that none of it makes sense. It's not scientifically sound.
3
1
u/tdogg8 Apr 01 '17
Anyone can make up a new religion so I can name a billion. And who cares if it's not scientifically supported? A lot of things people do don't make sense. As long as they aren't harming anyone why get angry and insult others?
4
5
u/Auctoritate Apr 01 '17
I have a similar grievance, and it's where people judge a religion by its followers. That's like getting angry at Da Vinci for painting because your teacher makes you analyze his art too much.
1
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
Yeah, I think if the only religion on the planet were like, Buddhism, they would not get as worked up.
48
u/WickedSushi Mar 31 '17
Everytime that religion is brought up on Reddit, the edgy 16 year old atheists will appear
37
Mar 31 '17
What's with the anti-atheism push on Reddit though?
60
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
There are a lot of young atheists who are still going through their "I had bad experiences with religion, so all religious people are senseless, ignorant monsters" phase
20
u/Mikav Mar 31 '17
I'm going through the opposite phase sort of. I was raised not caring about my atheism but now that I'm an adult I'm more vocal about how bullshit it is that we are ok with some of the fucked up beliefs people have.
1
u/master_x_2k Apr 03 '17
Young atheists seem to be very hated and misunderstood by older atheists just for not having their experience, knowledge and having entered the idgaf phase.
18
u/hendrix67 Mar 31 '17
Yeah, it really seems like the pendulum has swung to the opposite so that whenever atheism is brought up on Reddit the first thing people mention is how shitty internet atheists are. I think its pretty weird considering that looking at the big picture, they aren't really doing any harm in the real world.
3
27
Mar 31 '17
I don't think it's "anti-atheism" so much as "anti-r/atheism." Outside of r/Catholicism, most people don't have a problem with atheists in general, just the edgy minority who mock other people for their beliefs with zero self-awareness.
15
u/pmatdacat Mar 31 '17
r/atheism has become a self-righteous shithole, almost as bad as the religions they constantly circlejerk over. And I say this as an atheist.
20
7
u/Murmurations Mar 31 '17
They're annoying and know absolutely nothing about theology or even atheist philosophy of religion so all their little "arguments" are laughable to people that do know what they're talking about
13
Mar 31 '17
I'm curious as to why you think that. I consider my an atheist so I'd be interested in which "little arguments" don't hold up
1
u/MadHiggins Apr 01 '17
r/atheism used to be r/the_donald a few years back aka basically just unbelievably annoying, leaking into every sub constantly, and filled with teenagers who have no idea what they're talking about but will stalk and harass you at length over it because they have nothing better to do since they're literally 13 years old stuck at home with nowhere to go. so a lot of people on this site still hold a grudge against reddit atheists over it.
0
u/sweetjaaane Apr 01 '17
Pretty sure the people making fun of r/atheism are atheists themselves. We're just not 14.
25
u/GunzGoPew Mar 31 '17
Every time you say something even vaguely anti-religion, someone is sure to call you "edgy".
27
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
What is something "even vaguely anti-religion"? No one is going to call you edgy for saying homophobia in Christianity is very problematic, just for going around talk about how religious people believe in a magic sky daddy
22
Mar 31 '17
No one is going to call you edgy for saying homophobia in Christianity is very problematic
Shit. Some Christians aren't even going to call you edgy for that. They'll probably agree.
Among other things.
The lack of understanding/nuance is frustrating.
9
u/GunzGoPew Mar 31 '17
just for going around talk about how religious people believe in a magic sky daddy
I mean, it's a little condescending sure, but they do believe in an omnipotent being that watches all human behavior. It is a bit silly.
-26
u/kroma23 Mar 31 '17
Funny how 16 year olds don't believe in fairy tales but grown up adults do.
30
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
There are millions of religious 16 year olds and millions of atheist adults, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Being an atheist doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else
0
Mar 31 '17
23
u/LukaCola Mar 31 '17
I'm atheist, I don't like how you describe the religious or use the word retard. It's juvenile and intellectually lazy.
The more dangerous attitudes and belief exist irrespective of religion as you exhibit it aptly here, pejorative behavior that is self-righteously justified by creating a caricature of the "other."
20
u/SpoopySkeleman Mar 31 '17
Just realize that you sound as stupid as the "fundies" that you love to whine about
64
Mar 31 '17
We all believe in some kind of "Fairy Tale." For example, judging by your post history, you appear to believe that you are funny.
21
13
Mar 31 '17
If being free and happy is being and asshole, then I am proud and happy to be an asshole. I hope to remain an asshole till the day I die.
Sorry I made better life choices than you.
Yikes
3
Mar 31 '17
That's not bad pasta. But still not a replacement for the "enlightened" one.
So close yet so far.
4
1
14
u/Illogical_Blox Mar 31 '17
Discussion of religion or atheism on Reddit defaults should be made illegal.
Actually, even better, make people pass a test before they can talk about history, politics, religion or other countries. That'll make the internet a far more enjoyable place.
11
u/YesThisIsDrake Mar 31 '17
Destroy the internet though.
9
u/Illogical_Blox Mar 31 '17
Nah, it'd just make into a forum for discussing cat gifs, and i am fully ok with that.
4
6
0
Mar 31 '17
7
Apr 01 '17
2
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
That's not really surprising. The sample of religious people was going to be WAY larger than atheists, because most people are religious. And, most people are stupid. So, there you go.
11
u/GodsPotency Mar 31 '17
Why do you think it's obvious that they don't understand? What specifically are they misunderstanding?
13
u/Il_Valentino Mar 31 '17
he maybe thinks that you need to study theology to be able to criticize religion. that is as true as you need to study unicorn-ology to be able to debate the idea that the world is surrounded by invisible unicorns.
9
u/Mikeavelli Mar 31 '17
My religion deserves respect because it's true! All those other myths like unicorns aren't true, and it's insulting to compare them to something so obviously untrue. You'd understand if you understood.
7
u/Inkshooter Apr 01 '17
You don't need to understand theology, but you need to understand the basic tenants of a belief system. The term 'magic sky fairy', even if it's meant in jest, is a strawman because Christians
Don't believe in 'magic', in the colloquial sense, unless you want to define metaphysics and theistic intervention as 'magic'.
Don't believe God literally exists in the sky, so that one could visit if they went into space, and
Don't believe God is a fairy.
1
0
Apr 01 '17
4
Apr 01 '17
And just because you are Christian doesnt mean you have to follow everything the Bible says.
You kinda do.
0
Mar 31 '17
5
u/spectral_haze Mar 31 '17
Oh looks like we got an edgy one here folks. Back off he might just cut you with that sharp edge.
10
u/Il_Valentino Mar 31 '17
i'm probably just an edgy teenage boy who has internet access in the basement of his mom.
1
u/Inkshooter Apr 01 '17
Good thing logical people like you exist that are always logical all the time.
1
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
The scientific method is pretty pointless when it comes to religion, it's fundamentally based on supernatural beliefs that supersede the natural laws of physics and all that.
1
u/Il_Valentino Apr 08 '17 edited Apr 08 '17
That's a wrong understanding of science. If there would be any shred of evidence for supernatural things, these things would be part of science. Science is about seeking to understand. The problem with "Supernatural beliefs" isn't that supernatural explanations were somewhat forbidden, they always get a fair chance like any hypothesis. The problem is that religion is built on believing without evidence. You need solid evidence in science. Why? Because science is not about having "faith", it's about seeking "truth" (if truth is even a thing but that discussion wont help your beliefs neither). To be clear: If you value your religion, you value "faith" above honestly seeking "truth".
→ More replies (2)0
u/CZall23 Mar 31 '17 edited Apr 01 '17
So can your senses. Ever heard of a mirage for example? Or taken any kind of drug?
That's only a small part of religious folks. I don't know the exact way they came up with evolution but they didn't form a hypothesis, come up with an experiment, carry out said experiment then write a report. There were a lot of different methods.
You're referring to The Truth which is what they say the Bible is. That's a theological issue not scientific.
Because God forbid you believe in what you believe in and teach your kids that. Parents shouldn't teach their kids any of their beliefs.
Critical thinking, freedom and human rights are also an idealogy. The latter two also wants to help people.
11
u/Il_Valentino Mar 31 '17 edited Mar 31 '17
science is all about eliminating these issues. maybe not entirely but better than other methods. this is why you need to be able to replicate any experiment to make your data safer.
i wrote about the forming of the universe. we all want to know how it happened. the honest answer is currently: "we don't know but we should assemble data and try to solve this mystery." this is more honest than: "it was god. big bang? that was god too."
i never spoke about christianity in specific. there were about 3k gods in human history. lots of religions. all contradict each other in minor and/or mayor points.
a more honest way would be to educate children about all mayor religions and their role in history. then let them decide if and what religion they want.
here i admit an error. i thank you for that. i did mean dogma.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Baramos_ Apr 02 '17
The theory of evolution was based on a hypothesis formulated from observations of various traits of different species that seemed to be related to adapting to particular environmental factors, those who had traits more fitting to their environment reproduced at a higher rate than those that didn't. It's not a full experiment but it's the first couple of steps, hypothesis and observation.
1
u/SnapshillBot Mar 31 '17
I know now I'll never have any flair again and I've come to terms with that.
Snapshots:
-
This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, ceddit.com, archive.is*
3
0
u/Felinomancy Mar 31 '17
The quest to reconcile conservative theists and secular society could've been made much easier if crazy kids don't keep coming in and try to burn the bridges.
23
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '17
r/Subredditdramadrama here we come