Theism, Religion and Lack thereof

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

How would this fare in the location of said Garden?

This bit seems rather silly; what does plate tectonics have to do with the Garden of Eden? Assuming it existed, its location could have been far enough away from plate boundaries that the collision of continents would have had little to no major impact on it. I don't think plate tectonics are an sort of disproof of the Garden of Eden.

The fact that the Bible is inconsistent both with itself and reality, however, is.

 

[Phantom]

Edit that damn typo. Today just isn't going great.


No just proving that it's silly to assume where the Garden of Eden would have been if it had existed.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Edit that damn typo. Today just isn't going great.


No just proving that it's silly to assume where the Garden of Eden would have been if it had existed.

But if the Garden of Eden had been in one place on a continent, when that continent crashed into another one, it still would have been on that continent. It's co-ordinates would have changed but it's physical position on the continent would have been the same.

Like, if you were on a boat and you were sitting on a chair that was nailed to the deck and your boat was floating along and crashed into another boat, you'd still be in the same place you were, but your co-ordinates would be different to where you started. The fact that your co-ordinates changed and the fact that you crashed into a boat doesn't mean you're not nailed to your boat.

So plate tectonics doesn't actually disprove the existence of the Garden of Eden.

 

[Phantom]

I wasn't trying to disapprove. (not that I believe it existed in the first place)

Sorry I'm not in my right mind today, (just moved to my new apartment) I think I asked the wrong question. I was editing the post it got deleted and I think I smooshed two questions together and lost one.... Meant to ask very basically, why look for Eden, you're banished anyways.

 

[Saith]

Is it just to punish all humans, including those who weren't born yet, for the sins of one? Would you punish your own younger children for the wrongs of the oldest which occurred before the others were born?

Actually, everybody was seminally present.

As in, we were all in Adam's ballsacks.

Yeah.

 

[Phantom]

Actually, everybody was seminally present.

As in, we were all in Adam's ballsacks.

That doesn't answer the question. If you're going to be cocky like that at least answer the question.


And technically we were not all "in Adam's ballsacks". Please don't generalize with cocky remarks.

With only one breeding pair, fathers are forced to have sex with daughters, brothers with sisters, and sons with mothers, in order to propagate the species.

I believe that would make your father your brother?

 

[Saith]

I was just giving you Augustine's answer to your question.
According to him, we are all to blame for Adam's sins.

 

[Phantom]

Your first post wasn't very clear then, cause it said that we all came from Adam, opposed to sin coming from Adam.... I thought that was Eve anyways.. meh.

 

[Saith]

Seminally Present = In Adam's grapes.
According to Augustine, we are all guilty because we were all in Adam's spunk-spawners, yet did nothing to stop him from sharing in Eve's sins. According to Augustine, the guy with the most well-know theodicy (the Augustinian Theodicy), we all have equal blame because, despite not having a full set of chromosomes, we let it all happen.

Of course, this would mean that Adam's Apples would be massive, but hey. Judaism.

So yeah, you did read it correctly. According to Augustine, we were all in Adam's ballsacks.

And yeah, Eve tempted Adam into sin, we're all from Adam, we're all sinners. (Whoooo)

Look, when has science ever successully supported religion?
And I don't mean the whole Creation 'Science' bullshit.

 

[Phantom]

When religious claims are evaluated using scientific methods, they are found to be false.

EDIT:
There are religions or religious groups who support science. I'm not talking Catholicism supporting science, I mean they incoroporate science into their religion.

 

[Saith]

The fun thing is, unless you're cherry-picking one man's teachings, that is unless you're choosing which of the things this man has taught, Christians kinda have to believe that ballsack thing.
I mean, it's part of the Augustinian Theodicy, so if you believe that all sin came from man, or any of his other teachings (without bad, we can't feel good, we can't develop etc), you kinda have to believe that Adam's balls were miles wide.
I know I seem fixated by the guy's balls, but I don't think I'll get another chance to use the word 'ball-sacks' on this forum.



(Would Scientology be an example of that?)

 

[Butterfree]

The "seminally present" thing sort of works if you believe in homunculi (that is, that the sperm contains a tiny little miniature man and that the womb is just a place for the tiny little miniature man to grow) and that sperm are present in the man from birth (which, funnily enough, is actually the case with eggs in women, but not with sperm). Then the tiny little miniature man would have his own sperm containing further tiny little miniature men with their own sperm.

We've kind of discovered that to be quite definitively false, so obviously we shouldn't believe it today. However, though I'm too lazy to look up when these discoveries were made at the moment, it might have made sense in Augustine's time. Just because he was scientifically misinformed, it doesn't mean he can't have had anything valid to say about the theological aspects of interpreting the Bible where they didn't intersect with science.

 

[1. Luftballon]

augustine of hippo lived around fourth-fifth century AD. hartsoeker found animalcules in sperm in seventeenth century and proposed spermist preformationism.

I think augustine was a bit before his time there, actually.

 

[Harlequin]

ITT Harle ignores the current discussion about sperms and continues down a different line of thought

I'm currently reading a book called The God Part of the Brain by a man called Matthew Alder. It's a very, very interesting book and I'd encourage absolutely everyone here to read it if they ever get the chance. It's been published for a while now (1996 I believe, although it's been updated with new statistics since), but you should still be able to pick up a copy at most book shops; I bought mine last week in Waterstone's.

Anyway, like I've already said it's a very interesting book. It subjects religiosity and spirituality to a rigorous scientific analysis and he's come up with the idea that religiosity and spirituality, like for example, musical ability or athleticism, probably has a large degree of genetic influence. He explores and examines how such traits could evolve in the prehuman animal and presents a very interesting and convincing argument. There's also a section devoted to why America, although a first world nation, has such a massive religious majority (the argument he presents is very obvious, but I do think it deserves mentioning solely because it remains the most likely answer to the question of "Why is the US so religious?"), which I found interesting.

So, basically, the conclusion is that our experience of religion and spirituality is something we generate from within. That is, nothing about it is external, which implies that there is no such thing as a spiritual world that exists separately from our own, real and mundane, world.

Everyone here should read this book, btw. ANYWAY so: thoughts?

 

[Saith]

This sounds like something I should read. After I'm finished with Dawkins (sorry), I'll try and get it from the library.
I think it'll go well with the A level RS thing about the relationship between science and religion.
So yeah, ta.

 

[Pwnemon]

From what I can tell by your description, that book has no explanation for conversions to/from atheism, probably bashes america, and calling religious people less evolved than/human than non religious ones is the sort of thing I typically associate with being a big dickhead. so yeah

 

[Harlequin]

From what I can tell by your description, that book has no explanation for conversions to/from atheism, probably bashes america, and calling religious people less evolved than/human than non religious ones is the sort of thing I typically associate with being a big dickhead. so yeah

You're absolutely wrong on all counts. There's a chapter entitled "So Why Are There Atheists?", the section describing the religiosity of the US isn't done in a disparaging manner and seeks only to explain why the US, a first-world nation steeped in scientific culture and thought, should be amongst one of the most religious in the world (even including third-world countries with little to no scientific culture), and with that last bit that's just you projecting your insecurities onto a book you've never read.

The book doesn't seek to make any distinction between the genetic make up of religious people or non-religious people other than that there very probably is one, in just the same way as there's a difference between people with a genetic predisposition to musical talent or athletic ability and so on and so forth. In fact, the book treats everything in an unbiased and scientific manner, and seeks only to explain how such a genetic predisposition could arise and what that means for the various world religions and belief systems.

 

[Tarvos]

If it doesn't praise Jesus it bashes religion!

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

From what I can tell by your description, I have made a totally unreasonable inference and insensitively attacked the work of a perfectly legitimate scientist for no reason other than my own insecurities about my faith, intolerance and ignorance, which have been exposed because people attack the aspects of other people that they fear finding in themselves.

Fixed that for you.

Harle, that book sounds really interesting, though I probably wouldn't agree with religious genetics. I've always viewed religion as a social construct passed on through nurture rather than nature. I'd still like to read it though.

 

[Harlequin]

Fixed that for you.

Harle, that book sounds really interesting, though I probably wouldn't agree with religious genetics. I've always viewed religion as a social construct passed on through nurture rather than nature. I'd still like to read it though.

Not religion per se, but religious and spiritual behaviour, which can be defined as repetitive and ritualistic behaviour and a tendency to believe in a dualistic reality consisting of a real world and a spiritual world. Religion and particular, specific beliefs are passed down via nurture and the environment, but the predisposition to such behaviours would be genetic. It's essentially the same for as musical talent or athletic ability. If you swap "religion" and "spirituality" for "musical talent" you have the exact same argument!