The Last Temptation of Christ

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Last Temptation of Christ

I recently watched The Last Temptation of Christ. I had seen little bits and pieces previously, but this time I watched it completely with out interruption or any cuts.

After I had watched it I understood why so many christians and the vatican hated it. How dare "they" make a movie or write a book which makes their savior human, a common man.

I remember when the movie was released how people stood outside the movie theaters and bitched and moaned. I remember my mom and aunts complaining about how "this trash" was being allowed.

The most interesting parts of the movie were the parts where Paul and Jesus were speaking after the Jesus died. Jesus went to Paul and called him a liar. Paul in turn told him that it didn't matter who Jesus was or what was the truth. What was more powerful or more important was "his Jesus" because it was what the people wanted, it was what they needed.

This was important to me because if Jesus existed this is how I imagine him to have been; a normal guy who was trying to figure stuff out. He gained followers and momentum and when he finally died or disappeared these myths were created of him to make the prophecy come true. It allowed the man to more than a man by conquering death.

The movie really is an amazing piece of art. I truly appreciate the deconstruction of the myth.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I recently watched The Last Temptation of Christ. I had seen little bits and pieces previously, but this time I watched it completely with out interruption or any cuts.

After I had watched it I understood why so many christians and the vatican hated it. How dare "they" make a movie or write a book which makes their savior human, a common man.

I remember when the movie was released how people stood outside the movie theaters and bitched and moaned. I remember my mom and aunts complaining about how "this trash" was being allowed.

The most interesting parts of the movie were the parts where Paul and Jesus were speaking after the Jesus died. Jesus went to Paul and called him a liar. Paul in turn told him that it didn't matter who Jesus was or what was the truth. What was more powerful or more important was "his Jesus" because it was what the people wanted, it was what they needed.

This was important to me because if Jesus existed this is how I imagine him to have been; a normal guy who was trying to figure stuff out. He gained followers and momentum and when he finally died or disappeared these myths were created of him to make the prophecy come true. It allowed the man to more than a man by conquering death.

The movie really is an amazing piece of art. I truly appreciate the deconstruction of the myth.

 

 

It is amazing to me how POV can be so different. That is not how I viewed it or what I saw. Those protesters were not the majority, the theaters were PACKED! It was a blockbuster. I don't care about the acting or quality, it was to me, nothing but Hollywood pandering to a bunch of suckers. It still doesn't change that people paid to see a story about a super hero they believed to be real. "It was pretty" misses the point, no matter how good the acting was, is that it is a film that perpetuates a superstition.

You have copies of the bible that are paperback, and you have copies of the bible that have ornate expensive leather covers printed on expensive paper and some are antiques. But that doesn't change that the content is still bullshit. He was a man, or wasn't a man. MISSES THE POINT, that it is still a man made religion.

You can dress a skunk up in a tux and it will never change the fact that it is a skunk.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nikos

I saw that movie a few times with years spanning in between.  I saw it as a christian, as what I thought to be an agnostic, and as a realized atheist.

So I can definitely see how the POV makes a difference.  What is amazing is how it was so misinterpreted by the christian church. Before the last time

I watched it I researched the author to try and gain his perspective.

"The dual substance of Christ- the yearning, so human,  so superhuman, of man to attain God has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me.

My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and

the flesh, and my soul is the arena where these two armies have met and clashed." - Nikos Kasantzakis

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:I saw that

tonyjeffers wrote:

I saw that movie a few times with years spanning in between.  I saw it as a christian, as what I thought to be an agnostic, and as a realized atheist.

So I can definitely see how the POV makes a difference.  What is amazing is how it was so misinterpreted by the christian church. Before the last time

I watched it I researched the author to try and gain his perspective.

"The dual substance of Christ- the yearning, so human,  so superhuman, of man to attain God has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me.

My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and

the flesh, and my soul is the arena where these two armies have met and clashed." - Nikos Kasantzakis

Yep, the POV will be different for every one.

I haven't replied to Brian yet, but I really saw this movie as being a man who thought he was the son of god. People only went along with him because they wanted to have the prophecy fulfilled.

I too researched the author and thought he was a very interesting person. Yes, he still believe in god but he definitely disliked the church. He was a rebel with a cause.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: It is

Brian37 wrote:

 It is amazing to me how POV can be so different. That is not how I viewed it or what I saw. Those protesters were not the majority, the theaters were PACKED! It was a blockbuster. I don't care about the acting or quality, it was to me, nothing but Hollywood pandering to a bunch of suckers. It still doesn't change that people paid to see a story about a super hero they believed to be real. "It was pretty" misses the point, no matter how good the acting was, is that it is a film that perpetuates a superstition.

You have copies of the bible that are paperback, and you have copies of the bible that have ornate expensive leather covers printed on expensive paper and some are antiques. But that doesn't change that the content is still bullshit. He was a man, or wasn't a man. MISSES THE POINT, that it is still a man made religion.

You can dress a skunk up in a tux and it will never change the fact that it is a skunk.

I looked up the ticket sales for this movie and it really didn't do as well as I thought it would have; it was  made for 8 million but made just over 100 million worldwide. It was banned in numerous countries also because of how it was perceived to be an anti-christian movie.

Sure, the skunk is still a skunk.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I saw that movie a few times with years spanning in between.  I saw it as a christian, as what I thought to be an agnostic, and as a realized atheist.

So I can definitely see how the POV makes a difference.  What is amazing is how it was so misinterpreted by the christian church. Before the last time

I watched it I researched the author to try and gain his perspective.

"The dual substance of Christ- the yearning, so human,  so superhuman, of man to attain God has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me.

My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and

the flesh, and my soul is the arena where these two armies have met and clashed." - Nikos Kasantzakis

Yep, the POV will be different for every one.

I haven't replied to Brian yet, but I really saw this movie as being a man who thought he was the son of god. People only went along with him because they wanted to have the prophecy fulfilled.

I too researched the author and thought he was a very interesting person. Yes, he still believe in god but he definitely disliked the church. He was a rebel with a cause.

No, he was a character that no one can prove actually existed. And it would NOT matter in any case if he was real.

Part of our evolution is that we like the empathetic idea of the underdog beating the bully. But that motif was NOT invented by Christianity, it is an evolutionary trait that produces the actions of subordinates in a species giving challenge to the alpha male.

Long before the Jesus character Plato wrote "The Apology" in which Socrates went around challenging all the authority of his time, the oracles, the teachers, the senators. He was the underdog challenging the status quo.

BOTH these stories are really nothing but an anthropomorphism of natural evolution. Evolution requires a shakeup to make things move forward.

You are cherry picking human history just like you do with Buddhism. There is nothing new in human behavior that has not been done, or said in some way before, even if less sophisticated, even if the person doing it before didn't have words for it.

Humans when given the chance will often upset the apple cart if they think it will work to their advantage. Sometimes the motivation is as simple as becoming a martyr so they become famous.

Birth is birth, death is death, and life will always be a range. The motif of the "upstart" the "underdog" the "rebel" are not new motifs. Our species has always had these types, otherwise we would never change. Now when I say change, I don't mean that the change caused by that "upstart: will always turn out good, just that it has always happened.

Jesus was a "rebel" so what. Look at the crap that has festered for 2,000 years because of that story. We still have theists OF ALL LABELS, all over the world insisting that "their way" will solve the worlds problems. Religion takes human behavior and twists it to a comic book fantasy.

EDIT,

I misread what you said.

You were talking about the film maker. But for all the groups who saw this film as anti-religion there were lots who saw it as breaking Jesus into the mainstream. If the film maker was trying to say "Jesus was just a man" it backfired.

But the rest of what I said holds. Jesus was NOT special, not even as a character. Anointed ones were a popular motif in antiquity. Upstarts as a motif appeal to humanity because we look for someone to be on our side.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You were

Brian37 wrote:
You were talking about the film maker. But for all the groups who saw this film as anti-religion there were lots who saw it as breaking Jesus into the mainstream. If the film maker was trying to say "Jesus was just a man" it backfired.

But the rest of what I said holds. Jesus was NOT special, not even as a character. Anointed ones were a popular motif in antiquity. Upstarts as a motif appeal to humanity because we look for someone to be on our side. 

I agree with almost every thing you posted.

BTW - are you ever going to respond to my questions about what exists beyond this universe?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
You were talking about the film maker. But for all the groups who saw this film as anti-religion there were lots who saw it as breaking Jesus into the mainstream. If the film maker was trying to say "Jesus was just a man" it backfired.

But the rest of what I said holds. Jesus was NOT special, not even as a character. Anointed ones were a popular motif in antiquity. Upstarts as a motif appeal to humanity because we look for someone to be on our side. 

I agree with almost every thing you posted.

BTW - are you ever going to respond to my questions about what exists beyond this universe?

No, because you are going to answer with the same woo you have and I would just be repeating myself.

Life is simple. you are born, you die, and there is no life beyond the one we have. Whatever we don't know about the universe does not mean we should allow our fantasies to rule us. Mental masturbation does not count as evidence. Only study based on established science will uncover what we have yet to discover. Labels don't make one special and evolution is not depended on our personal whims or fantasies or religions. Life was around before we were born and it will be around after we die.

I know that answer will not satisfy you which is why in my PMs with you I warned you that this would happen.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I thought the movie "The

I thought the movie "The Exorcist" was a great movie as far as acting and special effects. But even that movie, looking back at it now, pisses me off because back then, morso than today, people literally believed that crap.

I sometimes like to poke fun of one line "The power of Christ compels you" I like to say "The power of crap compels you".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I thought the

Brian37 wrote:

I thought the movie "The Exorcist" was a great movie as far as acting and special effects. But even that movie, looking back at it now, pisses me off because back then, morso than today, people literally believed that crap.

I sometimes like to poke fun of one line "The power of Christ compels you" I like to say "The power of crap compels you".

I agree. Too many people still believe in stuff like The Exorcist or The Amityville Horror (neither of which have ever happened).

I get pissed off when I see those shows on cable about "children psychics" or "Hollywod Ghoststories". WTF? And better yet is that shit about Finding Bigfoot (though I bet the odds are they find Bigfoot before some one finds "god&quotEye-wink.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, because

Brian37 wrote:
No, because you are going to answer with the same woo you have and I would just be repeating myself.

So you have no clue as to what is outside this Universe?

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I thought the movie "The Exorcist" was a great movie as far as acting and special effects. But even that movie, looking back at it now, pisses me off because back then, morso than today, people literally believed that crap.

I sometimes like to poke fun of one line "The power of Christ compels you" I like to say "The power of crap compels you".

I agree. Too many people still believe in stuff like The Exorcist or The Amityville Horror (neither of which have ever happened).

I get pissed off when I see those shows on cable about "children psychics" or "Hollywod Ghoststories". WTF? And better yet is that shit about Finding Bigfoot (though I bet the odds are they find Bigfoot before some one finds "god&quotEye-wink.

 

Which is what pisses me off about your claims. Not as a person, but your individual claims. The only thing I can chalk your clinging to your position is mere human evolution and psychology. I DO like you, and you damned sure take my punches without fear and I would hope you don't hold my objections against me in a personal manor.

If what you personally hold floats your boat, I cant stop you, nor will create laws to stop you, even if I roll my eyes and bitch about your claims. Your claims DO  give me a lip twitch.

But all the shit you mentioned about psychics and ghosts and bigfoot and crop circles and little green men, was all crap being sold even when I was a kid. If we have nothing in common, we at least have that. Long before this modern crap on cable, Lenard Nemoy(sp) Spock on Star Trec went on to host a show in the 70s "In Search Of" which was a show selling the same superstitious bullshit.

Now go rub a fat belly before I really pull out my fangs.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Which is what

Brian37 wrote:
Which is what pisses me off about your claims. Not as a person, but your individual claims. The only thing I can chalk your clinging to your position is mere human evolution and psychology. I DO like you, and you damned sure take my punches without fear and I would hope you don't hold my objections against me in a personal manor.

If what you personally hold floats your boat, I cant stop you, nor will create laws to stop you, even if I roll my eyes and bitch about your claims. Your claims DO  give me a lip twitch.

But all the shit you mentioned about psychics and ghosts and bigfoot and crop circles and little green men, was all crap being sold even when I was a kid. If we have nothing in common, we at least have that. Long before this modern crap on cable, Lenard Nemoy(sp) Spock on Star Trec went on to host a show in the 70s "In Search Of" which was a show selling the same superstitious bullshit.

Now go rub a fat belly before I really pull out my fangs. 

Ah, I remember "in search of..." what a bunch of crap that shit was... it annoys me that he did that show. It was like an early history channel (which I hate to watch now). You can't take any thing they say as factual because it's all done for ratings. It's a business.

As for my person shit, well, we all have shit including you. I still hold to my 4nb's and that they are factual, testable and proven time and time again. Call it labels or what ever makes you happy, but it is real.

I don't hate you but some times you pull out these fangs to try and bite in to the thick of it all, but you completely miss the mark. Some times I think you will break your teeth or get TMJ because you seem to have issues with those fangs.

What exists outside the edge of our Universe?

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 digital,Have you explained

 digital,

Have you explained your views on what is outside the edge of the universe? I am curious.

Anyway do we really know if there is an edge, you flat universe person you?  (...I kid)

We think there is an edge because our view of the universe is simply limited by the speed of light. We don't know anything beyond that because we can see no farther than 13 billion years. Maybe it is infinite. If light was faster we could see even more.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 [moved to the arts] 

 [moved to The Arts]

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
No, because you are going to answer with the same woo you have and I would just be repeating myself.

So you have no clue as to what is outside this Universe?

 

No one does, but that does not mean we let our brains fall out and jump a gap and fill it with fantasy. What we don't know does not default to ancient myth or superstition or ANY religion being true. Not yours, not any.

Whether there was something or nothing before the big bang, or something outside the universe, it would be just as natural and non cognitive as what we observe now. Just like a hurricane doesn't need a myth or tradition.

Our current SCIENTIFIC theories do not include ANY RELIGIOUS MYTH OR TRADITION and are based on SCIENCE.

You are not going to bate me into "SEE SEE SEE YOU DON'T KNOW SO THEREFOR I AM RIGHT" It is an invalid argument when Christians and Muslims try to pull it and it wont work simply because you say "I am Buddhist".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

 digital,

Have you explained your views on what is outside the edge of the universe? I am curious.

Anyway do we really know if there is an edge, you flat universe person you?  (...I kid)

We think there is an edge because our view of the universe is simply limited by the speed of light. We don't know anything beyond that because we can see no farther than 13 billion years. Maybe it is infinite. If light was faster we could see even more.

I'm not sure but I suspect that it would be best explained through string theory or dark matter, which I limited knowledge of both. I have a book called "The Elegant Universe" which also was a mini-series on PBS. I've taken a liking to this theory because it supports my idea that every thing wraps around and is connected to each other through time and space. There really is no "end" to any thing. It's a constantly changing environment.

 

 

 


 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've taken a liking to

Quote:
I've taken a liking to this theory because it supports my idea that every thing wraps around and is connected to each other through time and space.

And let me guess fits in quite nicely with Buddhism, so therefore...........

Science does not work that way.  You do what other religious people do and retrofit AFTER THE FACT.

And no, we are not connected. That is nothing but woo. Quantum mechanics does give us mathmatical freaky stuff, but an atom on the other side of the universe is not connected to my body simply because the big bang started in a tiny spot.

"We are all one" if were true, would not require change or any type of separation and time would not move at all. Same logical mistake people use in trying to justify God. If God is outside time and space it cannot logically do anything.

Lets do the right thing and rational thing and go with scientific theory and drop the myth and woo and labels. Scientific method will be the only tool that determines which scientific theories hold up to testing and scrutiny, anything outside that is mental baggage that will poison the objectivity method produces.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And let me

Brian37 wrote:
And let me guess fits in quite nicely with Buddhism, so therefore...........

Science does not work that way.  You do what other religious people do and retrofit AFTER THE FACT.

And no, we are not connected. That is nothing but woo. Quantum mechanics does give us mathmatical freaky stuff, but an atom on the other side of the universe is not connected to my body simply because the big bang started in a tiny spot.

"We are all one" if were true, would not require change or any type of separation and time would not move at all. Same logical mistake people use in trying to justify God. If God is outside time and space it cannot logically do anything.

Lets do the right thing and rational thing and go with scientific theory and drop the myth and woo and labels. Scientific method will be the only tool that determines which scientific theories hold up to testing and scrutiny, anything outside that is mental baggage that will poison the objectivity method produces.

Well considering that the "wheel of life" as well several mandalas which were drawn long before modern science came around, buddhism explained the Universe in the format of string theory. Their belief system was that there is no end, no starting, only change.

I don't believe we are connected. I didn't say this.

I don't believe we are all one.

Oh ok, you've convinced me, let me give up my buddhism and I'll start following you. All hail the great brian! The holy one! The magnificent! The omniscient one! Please give more words of your absolute wisdom!

<waiting with bated breath>

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
And let me guess fits in quite nicely with Buddhism, so therefore...........

Science does not work that way.  You do what other religious people do and retrofit AFTER THE FACT.

And no, we are not connected. That is nothing but woo. Quantum mechanics does give us mathmatical freaky stuff, but an atom on the other side of the universe is not connected to my body simply because the big bang started in a tiny spot.

"We are all one" if were true, would not require change or any type of separation and time would not move at all. Same logical mistake people use in trying to justify God. If God is outside time and space it cannot logically do anything.

Lets do the right thing and rational thing and go with scientific theory and drop the myth and woo and labels. Scientific method will be the only tool that determines which scientific theories hold up to testing and scrutiny, anything outside that is mental baggage that will poison the objectivity method produces.

Well considering that the "wheel of life" as well several mandalas which were drawn long before modern science came around, buddhism explained the Universe in the format of string theory. Their belief system was that there is no end, no starting, only change.

I don't believe we are connected. I didn't say this.

I don't believe we are all one.

Oh ok, you've convinced me, let me give up my buddhism and I'll start following you. All hail the great brian! The holy one! The magnificent! The omniscient one! Please give more words of your absolute wisdom!

<waiting with bated breath>

 

This is where you make me want to pull my hair out.

BUDDHISM DIDN'T NOR EVER DID explain anything scientific.YOU are merely retrofitting science into Buddhism because you want to prop it up.

I HAVE seen this before. I had a guy claim Aquinus knew about quantum mechanics. I've had BOTH Christians and Muslims claim their holy books prove their cultures knew about science.

NO, you are merely taking vague words with no formulas with no modern science and looking backwards and saying "this seems to match".

If I say "The sky is blue" does that mean that I have any understanding scientifically as to WHY it is blue?"

And scientists have never said that there was  something before the big bang or that there will be something after heat death. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW.  But even if they could at any point in the future EITHER WAY, no damned religion, not even yours, predicted anything modern about science.

Quote:
buddhism explained the Universe in the format of string theory. Their belief system was that there is no end, no starting, only change.

NO THEY DID NOT!

"I am the alpha and the omega" But you are not a Jew or a Christian. THAT TOOO claims infinity. "Mountains moving" Is also what both Christians and Muslims have used to say "My religion is the one true religion because they knew about plate tectonics".

What was going on back then in what they wrote was merely "This changes like seasons change", "This changes like humans change going from young to old" " When you die you rot and become food for other things" THAT IS WHAT THEY MEANT, NONE OF THAT REQUIRES SCIENCE TO SAY, but it does not mean you know what the  you are observing in any case.

Otherwise when the Greeks first used the word "atom" both you and I should be polytheists.

Anyone can see change, that does not mean you know what is causing that change, anymore than the ancient Greeks knew what a proton or electron was, merely because they postulated imagining the smallest thing imaginable in the word "atom". Atom is not used today because they discovered electrons and protons. It is used in a completely different context today.

THE CONTEXT of when they wrote those words, just as in any other religion back then, IS NOT a science textbook and no culture back the knew jack shit about any modern theory. NO ONE.

Buddhism is not science otherwise we would not use secular science textbooks that can be taught to everyone. YOUR RELIGION did not invent jack shit as far as science. Science is completely independent of religion and is NOT an invention of any religion.

I've even seen this shit with si fi fans, "Gene Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone" NO HE DID NOT.

The tricorder was a mere prop, otherwise Roddenberry would hold a patient on the invention instead of Steve Jobs.

The Egyptians were right in claiming  that the sun gives life. IT DOES, without sunlight there would be no photosynthesis. So you better start worshiping the sun. D

I like you Beach but when do this while in other threads you say "Yea, their beliefs are silly" I want to pull my hair out because you are NOT doing anything differently. BUDDHISM DOES NOT NOR EVER HAS EXPLAINED ANYTHING about modern science. It is not a science textbook and it is not required to teach science.

You don't see me worshiping the gods of Epicurus because he was the first to question the morality of god claims? You don't see me worshiping the Greek gods because they used the word "atom" back then.

Your religion IS NOT SCIENCE. It is merely a predilection you like which you think you need to help you cope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is where

Brian37 wrote:
This is where you make me want to pull my hair out.

BUDDHISM DIDN'T NOR EVER DID explain anything scientific.YOU are merely retrofitting science into Buddhism because you want to prop it up.

I HAVE seen this before. I had a guy claim Aquinus knew about quantum mechanics. I've had BOTH Christians and Muslims claim their holy books prove their cultures knew about science.

NO, you are merely taking vague words with no formulas with no modern science and looking backwards and saying "this seems to match".

If I say "The sky is blue" does that mean that I have any understanding scientifically as to WHY it is blue?"

And scientists have never said that there was  something before the big bang or that there will be something after heat death. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW.  But even if they could at any point in the future EITHER WAY, no damned religion, not even yours, predicted anything modern about science.

Look. I totally understand your point of view but you don't understand mine. You are using science as an absolute by saying, if it isn't under the label of science then it is a lie.

Nope.

Call it science or buddhism or jabberwocky, it still doesn't change the fact that one person a long time ago said: "The earth is roundish" and the were correct. Other people said, "No it's flat", but they were wrong. Is this science? No. Is it buddhism? No. Is it an observation? Yes.

brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

buddhism explained the Universe in the format of string theory. Their belief system was that there is no end, no starting, only change.

NO THEY DID NOT!

"I am the alpha and the omega" But you are not a Jew or a Christian. THAT TOOO claims infinity. "Mountains moving" Is also what both Christians and Muslims have used to say "My religion is the one true religion because they knew about plate tectonics".

Otherwise when the Greeks first used the word "atom" both you and I should be polytheists.

Anyone can see change, that does not mean you know what is causing that change, anymore than the ancient Greeks knew what a proton or electron was, merely because they postulated imagining the smallest thing imaginable in the word "atom". Atom is not used today because they discovered electrons and protons. It is used in a completely different context today.

THE CONTEXT of when they wrote those words, just as in any other religion back then, IS NOT a science textbook and no culture back the knew jack shit about any modern theory. NO ONE.

Buddhism is not science otherwise we would not use secular science textbooks that can be taught to everyone. YOUR RELIGION did not invent jack shit as far as science. Science is completely independent of religion and is NOT an invention of any religion.

I've even seen this shit with si fi fans, "Gene Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone" NO HE DID NOT.

The Egyptians were right in claiming  that the sun gives life. IT DOES, without sunlight there would be no photosynthesis. So you better start worshiping the sun. D

I like you Beach but when do this while in other threads you say "Yea, their beliefs are silly" I want to pull my hair out because you are NOT doing anything differently. BUDDHISM DOES NOT NOR EVER HAS EXPLAINED ANYTHING about modern science. It is not a science textbook and it is not required to teach science.

You don't see me worshiping the gods of Epicurus because he was the first to question the morality of god claims? You don't see me worshiping the Greek gods because they used the word "atom" back then.

Your religion IS NOT SCIENCE. It is merely a predilection you like which you think you need to help you cope.  

This is were you are incorrect.

Buddhism says, "The Universe has vast, and almost limitless. It says that beyond this Universe there are other Universes. It says that nothing ends, nothing starts, there is only continuous change. It says all things will eventually cease to exist. It says that the ego is the reason why we suffer. It says that suffering can be controlled. It says that if you get rid of the ego, then you will stop suffering. It also says that to see the true reality, you must rid yourself of the ego."

Are these equated to science? No. There isn't any thing really scientific about these claims, but are they true? Sure. It's no different that saying the Earth is roundish rather than saying it is flat. Did they prove that the Earth was flat or was it an educated guess that it was round and not flat? No, they did not prove it, but their educated guess was correct.

And what makes buddhism a religion to you and a philosophy for me? I don't worship any one. I don't give money tidings. I don't attend a temple or church. I don't have a leader. I don't have pray. I don't have rituals. I don't follow any of the recommend daily exercises.

It's a way of life for me. It's a philosophy to me, not a religion and if you insist on calling it a religion then your science is your religion and so is being an atheist, because I'm betting you do all those things that I mentioned above on a regular basis for your belief system.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams