Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Viking]

The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us.  It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.

I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.

I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.

I saw a boat with a 14 inch gun and 18 inches of armour, I call it a bomb catcher.

[Neil]

The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us.  It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.

I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.

I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.

I saw a boat with a 14 inch gun and 18 inches of armour, I call it a bomb catcher.

You're not an authority.

[Valmy]

To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."

The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.

There is a spiritual world but it has nothing to do with the material world.  So God intervening in the material world or Jesus physically existing or not just does not matter in the spiritual context.

[Valmy]

No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.

Because it is not easy to talk about and that is why we use so much symbology to talk about it.  I could certainly go on about it for awhile.  But why?  I thought we were discussing anti-science here.

[Valmy]

Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross?

Probably something like 'Let there be light' *BOOM*

Which I find sorta ridiculous but it doesn't take that much to see it.

[Valmy]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Really?  So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?

[Neil]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Really?  So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?

How could he not?

[Viking]

There is a spiritual world but it has nothing to do with the material world.  So God intervening in the material world or Jesus physically existing or not just does not matter in the spiritual context.

There is a spiritual world? Prove it.

We can get to the substantial problem of Jesus' non-existence for Christianity later. 

[Viking]

Because it is not easy to talk about and that is why we use so much symbology to talk about it.  I could certainly go on about it for awhile.  But why?  I thought we were discussing anti-science here.

This is why being analytical is important. If you use a word you must make sure it is understood and if you make an assertion you must be able to back it up. Challenging somebody to define their words and to back up their statements is not an insult, it is an opportunity to make your point. If we are going to talk about spirituality at all it needs to be defined and we must agree on what it means before we can even start the discussion.

[Valmy]

There is a spiritual world? Prove it.

Since it is a concept that only exists inside human brains that would be pretty difficult.  But it would be pretty easy to point out its almost universal presence in human cultures.

[Viking]

Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross?

Probably something like 'Let there be light' *BOOM*

Which I find sorta ridiculous but it doesn't take that much to see it.

Yes, but why Jesus and not Muhammad or Buddah or Odin or Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Oexmelin]

There is a spiritual world? Prove it.

Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...

[Valmy]

This is why being analytical is important. If you use a word you must make sure it is understood and if you make an assertion you must be able to back it up. Challenging somebody to define their words and to back up their statements is not an insult, it is an opportunity to make your point. If we are going to talk about spirituality at all it needs to be defined and we must agree on what it means before we can even start the discussion.

Simply put: Spirituality is exploration of the internal life of people.  It has no power at all on material external stuff....I mean beyond the brain's ability to effect stuff.

[Valmy]

Yes, but why Jesus and not Muhammad or Buddah or Odin or Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

At some arbitrary point in the Bible you would have to presume the writers went from talking about stuff in symbolic or broad terms (by six days it really meant 14 billion years blah blah) and started writing about real events.  Like at Abraham or something.

And I guess it is sorta true that at certain points real events are described in the Bible.  I mean there was such a thing as the Assyrian Empire and Kingdom of Egypt.

[Viking]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Really?  So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?

Well, yes, if I found absolute proof Jesus never existed the lessons and so fort of Christianity would, like all secular ethics and morality, would have to stand and fall on it's own merits.

I personally had seen no evidence which would cause me to even consider Jesus' divine nature as plausible, so I already grant the lessons and so fort of Christianity the merit they deserve on their own merits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Euthyphro's dilemma deals with this issue. If the lessons of Christianity are good then they are good regardless of Jesus' divinity. If they are bad then they are bad regardless of Jesus' divinity.