Uploaded by Pendejo 
401x576 JPG 46 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Source
not provided yet
Precisely. Things that can be easily verified, like math, don’t variate much, but things that can be used for political gain and require personal commitment to verify, like religious belief, diversify greatly. This supports my point.
In the beliefs I subscribe to, there’s a number of answers to this question. First, this mortal life is a time for us to grow up and learn to exist on our own; to be independent. When a child learns to walk, they’ll inevitably fall a few times along the way.
Also, we existed before we were born (which appeals to my philosophical fondness of solipsism). We, however, did not know of good and evil, pain and pleasure, all the rich experience of existence, so we wanted to be born and live in this imperfect world so we could experience them. We wanted to broaden the scope of our experience, so we agreed to be born and experience whatever we would.
Why would we want to experience ill things? Eternity is a daunting thing. How do you find purpose in it? The best answer I’ve ever been able to come up with is growth; whether growing in experience, skill, or accomplishments (in creating things and ideas), growth seems to be the natural and only eternal source of meaning in the context of an eternal existence. So we wanted to be born and exist, even facing atrocities, simply because it meant growing, giving us meaning.
It’s also why people enjoy stories that make them scared or sad, even though these are generally seen as “bad” emotions. It’s because there’s a certain existential thrill to simply experiencing anything - especially something new, or deep.
And finally, he does intervene to some extent. The miracle at Dunkirk. The fog at the Delaware that allowed the U.S. to gain independence, and usher in a new era of human rights. The miraculous accidents of the carriers being gone from Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack, and the lost group of U.S. dive bombers, by an insane series of coincidences, winning The Battle of Midway in a freakishly unlikely stroke of miracle. There are many little points in history where the world could’ve turned into a much more horrible place, but by these insane little coincidences it didn’t.
“Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous” - but why remain anonymous? The reasons I mentioned above. We need to learn to stand on our own, but there’s an even better reason, too:
Let’s say you set out a cake. You tell Bill not to eat it. Sally, however, eats the cake. You can’t put moral blame on Sally, though, because you didn’t tell her she wasn’t supposed to: she didn’t know any better.
But what if you had told Sally, and she ate it anyways because it looked so good? All of a sudden, she’s in trouble now. Likewise, I think a big part of the reason that God doesn’t reveal Himself so plainly to the whole world is that it’d make the whole world that much more morally accountable for anything they do. In this case, keeping from revealing Himself is an act of mercy to those who’d otherwise end up condemning themselves further, unable to resist the cake, so to speak.
Alone, none of these reasons are really compelling, but altogether I think they form a strong enough argument to make sense. Learning to stand on our own, broaden our experiences, he does subtly keep things from getting too bad, and for the mercy of those who’d only condemn themselves further.
You’ve made a lot of broad accusations, which I can only answer in broad terms unless you’re more specific. Is General Patton a mass-murderer nigh unto Hitler for leading to the deaths of so many? Context makes the difference in-between world-saving general and a murderer, and to correctly judge requires a full understanding of the situation.
Objective reality completely fails to indicate that qualia exists. According to objective reality; it simply doesn’t. However, due to solipsism, I know qualia exists more surely than I know physical reality exists. “I think, therefore I am.” Solipsism comes first and foremost. Physical reality could only be a dream: it’s only something that comes in #2 of things that are certain to exist. #2, however, bears no hint that #1 exists: therefore #2 must be incomplete. That’s why I’m not so bothered by the idea of metaphysics. (to make no mention of the fact that decades ago ideas like “alternate universes” would’ve been pure hogwash to the scientific community, but as our understanding of physics improves and with the advent of modern cosmology, there is now serious discussion about such things that used to be purely in the domain of metaphysics)
Never mind my humility to the idea that our understanding of the universe is imperfect, so just because I don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
And finally, not everything is easily provable. I see a squirrel cross the road. Was that squirrel over by the bank a few hours ago, or by the mall? I could investigate very hard, but never be able to solidly prove one or the other. That doesn’t mean neither is true, however. Not every question in the universe is one of hard, provable science.
Besides the point. The point was that just because I don’t understand how something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Things that I’d think are impossible can, and do, happen - illusion or not. That’s the point.
Once again besides the point. I wasn’t talking about Shakespeare’s reliability as an author. My point was that figurative language doesn’t make an account less true. It’s just a different, less precise way of communicating, though not necessarily less accurate.
When Iraq responds to the Coalation’s intent to invade with something along the lines of; “Like a tiger we’ll wait in the grass,” I question the precision of the statement; that Iraqi soldiers will lie in grass, then jump out and bite Coalition tanks. What I don’t doubt, is the accuracy of the statement; that they’ll be planning to attack back.
I’ve written out quite a reply, but Derpibooru doesn’t seem to want to post it. I wonder why? It says to “try again later,” so I’ll do just that.
To kind of bracket all this, though, exactly what is your central point, here? I’m sorry to say, if your attempt is to convince me that my beliefs are folly, then they will be in vain. Beliefs are born of personal experience as I’ve mentioned before, and it’s extremely unlikely that, figuratively speaking, you’ll be able to convince me that the sun doesn’t exist when I’ve seen it shining. Thus is my life experience and perspective; from my point of view, I’ve seen the truths of what I believe. The reason I continue this conversation is simply to make it clear that my beliefs are reasonable. I understand different life experiences and perspectives will make it nigh unto impossible for me to convince you of something of this nature, so I’m not even trying to do that. I’m only defending the validity of my position, rather than its actuality.
Except that ancient cultures ran more on belief than knowledge, the real instances of which don’t diversify very much across cultures. Like how math is virtually a constant across all cultures, with little variation. Likewise with the existence of things that can be independently observed. Also, the dispersal of human civilization far predates the beliefs in any gods, and I’m fairly certain that polytheism precedes monotheism in most cultures. So your assertion to the contrary is false.
In regards to physics, to be sure. But beliefs about gods require insight to Einstein as a person, rather than his studies. And he made his stance on the subject and his reasoning behind it pretty clear.
I’m just saying the equivalence of concern does not exist. Whether or not quantum physics or super-strings, or chaos theory have any effect on our world is not as relevant as whether or not a god does, because nobody kills anybody over those things. Also, those things are not claimed to be conscious entities, so it’s entirely on us to verify whether or not they exist. Untold horrors committed by humans against humans could be brought to a rather abrupt halt were a god, any god, to reveal itself as an actual, existing thing with a recognizable identity and will. But the atrocities continue unabated because no such interference, which naturally begs the question Why not?.
If you believe in a given religion, you have to believe in that religion’s canon doctrine’s portrayal of its god’s character, or else the religion holds no water. In the case of the Abrahamic religions, you have to believe that God is willing and able to kill people by the millions (over incredibly petty things), concerns himself heavily with what humans do with their time, has destroyed virtually all life on the planet before without leaving a trace of having done so, and plans to finish the job in the forseeable future. Like the gods of other religions, the Abrahamic God has an identity, preferences, a voice, and other characteristics that would make spotting just about any being all but inevitable. Also like the others, he has not been seen more frequently with humanity’s collective expanded capacity for observation.
Billions believe this thing exists, and yet immense amounts of suffering goes unabated. Hell, even most atheists (the rational ones, at least) sincerely want the matter of a god’s existence settled, even if only to properly identify a massive potential threat to humankind. In any case, this argument sounds an awful lot like how fairies were once believed to work.
“Only people who already believe fairies exist are likely to encounter them.”
If my capacity to perceive something is limited by my belief that it exists, then I would have no reason to believe it exists.
I cannot believe that you, as a believer in things like eternal rewards and punishments, can be so dismissive of this inherent failure to mesh up with objective reality.
That argument invalidates the plausibility of Jesus’s claim to divinity, or anything genuine for that matter, because most people know that stage magicians make a living by tricking people with illusions.
Yes. In fact, I’d be even more suspicious of it than I am of my school textbooks, which I know are biased, especially since the English I grew up with was not the one he wrote in, which would make discerning metaphor from literal statements nearly impossible. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t be the least bit suspicious of a history book written by a man best known for his fictional works, and who, as a writer of that era, made games of screwing with people using wordplay?
This assertion only makes me more curious. Though many have claimed it, I can only see believing in something like Christianity as a “rational conclusion” by someone who was playing philosophical Sudoku and still hasn’t noticed their error.
“Understanding” doesn’t actually exist. It’s a concept indicating the perceived motivation behind a certain set of behaviors between or among two or more sentient individuals. There is probably a sequence of neural activity that correlates with it, but I don’t feel like looking up MRI scans right now.
The problem with your point is that it’s not proof of anything, let alone the failures of a materialistic perspective. Your mind is what your brain perceives the product of bio-electrochemical processes occurring inside it as. That’s why it can be altered with chemicals that get into your brain, or destroyed by forces that kill or destroy your brain. Trying to associate anything supernatural or ethereal to it is folly.
As far as whether or not the materialistic view of the universe is incomplete, that is irrelevant. It is the only one that can be shared peacefully and without childhood indoctrination. That’s close enough to right for me.
That doesn’t even make sense. I didn’t say you’re born knowing things and learning muddles it, I said that some knowledge is had by past generations and is passed down. It was an answer to “why do you think there’s so many gods?” My answer was that there was only one originally, but over ages as societies and cultures split ways and changed, so did their systems of belief and religious practices. This is very much a thing that happens.
I still pay lots of respect to his mind. I feel like it takes a study in Relativity to really begin to understand the depth of his insight.
Not at all. People trying to push laws or murder over it has nothing to do with your assertion that if real, it should be easy to detect, and my counter-argument that that’s not the case.
Depends entirely on what you believe the character of God to be like.
Would be the case were it not for the fact that He does want to be discovered by any sincere seeker. And ah, yes, sincere, I understand an imminent; “but that’s not falsifiable because if someone doesn’t get an answer you can always just call it ‘insincere’.” And you’d be right. It’s not falsifiable. That’s why it’s more philosophy than science.
True to some degree. But it also depends on some things. For example, Jesus’ miracles aren’t any more impossible than what magicians in Vegas do all the time. Now, I’m not claiming that performers in Vegas have real magic, I’m simply stating that extraordinary things are possible, and while physics would seem to rule out a lot of things, in reality, it leaves a lot more things possible than people realize.
It’s not fear that drives me, rest assured, though in my experience most atheists I run into that are willing to go into a long debate have had a terrible experience of people trying to fear them into belief at a young age, but rest assured this is not my case.
As for the Chinese room, your last statement is exactly my point - you don’t know that anyone really understands anything you say, ever. In fact, the only reason you know that understanding itself exists (ie, qualia), is your own direct experience of it. My point is that this is proof against materialism; a complete materialist knowledge of the universe would not lead one to discover understanding, or qualia, therefore, a materialistic picture of the universe is incomplete.
If the generator was powered by irony, shouldn’t that make it more efficient?
Terrible, the main component is too thick.
Cool. Let me know how that turns out.
I think I’m going to built an irony-fueled generator and plug you into it.
You do realize that that is the exact opposite of how all knowledge is gained, right? How can you explain the claim that learning more about the universe in which we live led to us learning less about the entity that supposedly created it? We don’t start with initial revelation, only to have our thoughts muddied by learning. Instead, it is the process of learning that brings clarity into people’s lives.
Even barring the “argument from authority” argument, no it’s not. Einstein’s belief was that a real god was not something that could be imagined, therefore, no imagined god (IOW, none that reigns over any religion) could do a real one justice. Still, his perspective, while brilliant, was from over 60 years ago. Time has changed things since then. His theories have been expanded upon, and the world has moved forward. A static source of morals, like the Bible, or its God, cannot adapt to change and therefore is unworthy of the position it is given.
Super strings and quantum mechanics are hypothetical, supported by math rather than observation. They might not be real, but probably are, as far as we know. In any case, I don’t see anyone trying to push laws and kill people by the perceived command of either super strings or quantum mechanics, so in all cases your use of them to support your argument are invalid.
The complexity and nuance of the universe is too great for a Bronze Age god. Were your god real, finding him, even indirectly, should be a simple matter of observing whose prayers are answered, and who wins all the wars. Also, given his behavior in the book claiming his existence, his presence really should not be nearly the caliber of mystery of quantum mechanics. Indeed, it shouldn’t be as mysterious as your next meal. The god of the Bible goes to great lengths to make his presence, identity, and preferences known, but only in the Bible.
So basically, you can only believe in your god if he wants you to believe in him, and therefore the eternal reward and punishment system is an even bigger snafu than atheists already believe.
You’re still arguing in support of my stance on this.
I wonder why that might be.
Ok, you’re halfway there. If this alleged flood didn’t cover the entire world, where was it? I’d ask how an old man with no experience built a giant ship entirely out of wood that is bigger than the largest wooden boat built by master shipwrights; and sailed around in it for a year when the one built by the masters almost immediately ripped itself to pieces, but you’d probably just say “God helped” as if that answered everything.
That is true, but the things they believe that are inconsistent with the discoveries granted by science are also the ones that must be believed in order to validate your religion.
Once again, how does this not strike you as suspicious?
But if your experience led you to believe in this one god over all possible alternatives, then it must be one that suggests a god exists in spite of the glaring lack of external evidence. I’m sorry, but with a claim like that, I’d have to ask for an explanation as to exactly what that experience was, because I just don’t see anything other than fear driving a rational person to believe in something that is irrational.
As to your final point: I think the “Chinese room” test actually proves contrary to the hypothesis it was intended to support. After all, what is “understanding” but the ability to process and respond appropriately the information you are given? I think a better argument against “Strong AI” would have been a computer’s inherent lack of creativity. Then again, Adaptive AI does exist, and access to a constantly upgrading source of information (like the Internet) could probably provide a better semblance of intelligence (however you choose to define the word) than a human could manage.
As for how that pertains to this conversation, there is no reason to assume that anyone you talk to really understands anything you say.
Excuse me on the late reply. I’ve been in and out of the hospital, and finally in for a full 9 days from a big surgery I’m still recovering from, so also apologies of any major errors in my formatting or such. My eyes are having to get used to computer screens again.
@Somber Star
From my belief standpoint, since Man first came into existence, we knew about God, but knowledge of him became skewed and we end up with a wide spectra of religion now, today, all with some similar undercurrents that reflect that common genesis.
Furthermore, that’s a completely fallicious line of reasoning and in direct opposition with Einstein’s quotes. But if you feel you understand the universe better than him, go ahead. But in how I understand it, its secrets are not easily given. For example, you can’t go argue; “If superstrings are real, then why is proof of them so darn hard to find? It should be inevitable!” or, “If the Everrett Many Worlds’ interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, it should be obvious! So the Copenhagen interpretation must be correct!” That line of reasoning is simply wrong. The universe is a lot more complex and nuanced than that. Some questions are simply very difficult to answer. Some, particularly those with more philosophical leanings, maybe even impossible.
Correction; I believe we cannot perceive him on our own, but can only come to knowledge of His existence with His help, in much the same way that a child must be taught mathematics to learn of its higher plane of existence, we mortals must be taught by God to learn of His existence and plane of being.
Two words: Ancient writing.
Much like languages have dialects over time, also languages have a form of writing. Ancient Hebrew is full of similes, metaphors, kiasmus, and all sorts of poetic language. Even Iraq’s response to the declaration of Desert Storm was poetic. Middle-eastern writing, especially ancient, is full of these poetic things like metaphor. It doesn’t mean that they don’t actually mean anything. “Lying like a Tiger in the grass” means they’ll ambush us when we attack, not literal (that their soldiers will act like Tigers) or so symbolic that they won’t actually respond to our attack at all.
He was eventually convinced not to by the same scientist, who believe religion and science ought not to be mixed in such a way.
Indeed, the text says “world,” but let me add this:
‘And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.’
“World” here is obviously being used to refer to a large region; ie, “the entire world” as far as a local is concerned. Given the unlikelihood of a worldwide flood, and this verse as well as knowledge of how the ancient Hebrews wrote, it’s quite evident that it’s using “world” in this context.
Because it’s inconsistent with what we know about the Earth through other means (ie, science/geology)
Once again, the point at hand is Hebrew writing methods. That’s how they wrote. Matthew’s point was about exact numbers, he was using numerology to try to get the point across that Christ was THE one and only messiah - his audience was the ancient Isrealites, who were big into numerology, so he used it in his writing, even if it wasn’t perfectly exact, as a point to his specific audience.
As is in my next second-tier quote, personal experiences that would mean little to nothing shared, though mean a lot to me are the foundation of my belief, coupled with my philosophical worldview and thoughts on the nature of existence, particularly in regards to the school of thought of solipsism.
They’re not. They’re not convincing to anyone at all, anyone but myself, and ultimately that’s the only person I’m trying to convince of my views here. Otherwise, I’m trying to clarify how my views are at least consistent. You bring up point X and Y, so I answer point X and Y. My point isn’t to convert you, though, my point is to answer X and Y criticisms and claims. Belief isn’t something I can argue, it’s typically something that must be learned through someone’s own experiences, because as “anecdotal” as experience is, as solipsism states, it is our only true bearing on reality itself, thus our most powerfully persuasive force in it.
True, yet not quite. I don’t think you fully understand Qualia. This is a philosophical, not scientific problem. From a materialist standpoint (that all that exists is physics; particles and their interactions in spacetime as we observe them), consciousness simply ought not to exist. Look up; The Chinese Room Argument . Any reality that’s materialistic would simply be inhabited by “Chinese Room Brains” - acting as though they think and feel, though their feelings of hunger being no more “real” than a Furbee’s. Yet we do have “real” feelings - we have qualia. It simply ought not to exist. Therefore, materialism is wrong, and there’s more to the universe than physics can observe or predict. - No matter how complicated our understanding of the human brain is, it should still just be an increasingly complex Chinese Room, not something that actually feels.
Once again, though, that’s philosophy. Take it or leave it, there’s not much more to argue on the matter.
If gods are not imagined, then why do they have so many different forms and roles in our lives? If such a thing exists independently of imagination, then why is proof of said existence so damn hard to find? It should be inevitable.
If you believe he cannot be perceived, then why do you believe he exists?
If there’s any reason to take any part of the Bible as non-literal, then what reason is there to take any part of the Bible literally? I could just as easily use your argument against six literal days to support my stance against a literal god.
“Noteworthy” means “relevant”. You’re grasping at straws here. Also, if the Pope who heard the theory wanted it to be canon, it would have been canon.
Quote please. Also links to evidence regarding the region supposedly so flooded.
You want to call into question the “reckoning” of the people who believe your religion more than you do? Why?
And how does that not strike you as suspicious regarding the veracity of the book’s contents?
You choose to do this, and yet believe the most preposterous claims put forth by the book. Explain to me how this happens please.
You are free to do that. You would still be wrong, and it would be remiss of me to allow you to present these experiences as valid evidence for the purposes of this debate.
That’s because that’s what anecdotal means. Anecdotal evidence is not considered valid because nobody is a reliable witness. Everyone’s memories are contaminated by the nature of organic data storage.
Science gave us everything we call ‘modern’: from technology, to medicine, to society, to entertainment, and beyond. I think my stance on its virtues is a fair one.
Well of course it’s not. Those things are not empirical, and are ultimately the responsibility of the individual.
The solution to the mind-body problem is coming to terms with the fact that the mind is a physical thing. That’s why it can be influenced by other physical things.
Uh, no, it explains reasonably well why those things exist. They are the result of the effects that genetics, environment, and personal experiences have had on one’s mind and body. I don’t understand why you would believe the lack of mutual exclusivity somehow invalidates science.
You do remember that “science” is at its most basic “observation of reality”, right? You can’t better observe reality by choosing to reject existing observations and the methods used to obtain them.
Few things sicken me like an apologist’s “humility” claim. There are few lies so blatantly obvious they insult the person they’re being told to. In any case, it’s all well and good to be “open-minded” to the possibility of a god-like being. But to assert that one definitely exists, and that we should care about its alleged opinions of what we do with our lives, without valid supporting evidence is incredibly foolish.
all my lolz
Odd. My response to this comment is not posting.
Yes, to your bit about that origin of Einstein’s quote. But pulling that to your defense is circular logic. You assume God is imagined, then yes, Einstein saying that our mortal minds are too pitiful to imagine such an entity would be something you could cite as evidence of there being no god - but only if god is something humans imagined, and not a being that revealed themselves to the human race. I fully agree with Einstein - we could never, through our own intellect, come to discover God. Fortunately, though, God reveals Himself to man, so we don’t have to. But what this does imply, is because we could never come to discover Him with our feeble minds, we shouldn’t expect to find evidence of Him, since doing so would mean we could’ve discovered Him on our own.
I chose to start with this reply because I think the bit immediately before my quote is relevant to the situation; “… I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”
As for points of science, that’s strawmanning my position. I believe the account of creation isn’t in six literal 24-hour periods, but rather that each “day” is simply a period of time; like when a laborer has worked for many hours and decides to “call it a day.” Jesus constantly spoke in parables, there’s no reason to expect everything here is literal.
What is noteworthy, however, is that the Big Bang theory lines up well enough with the phrase; “let there be light,” that the first pope to hear of the theory in its earliest incarnation wanted to make it Catholic canon.
As for Noah’s ark, there are other points in the Old Testament where “the world” is very plainly used to mean a large region, rather than the entire planet Earth.
As for the age of the Earth, that’s relying on some fundamentalist Christian’s reckoning of years, which I would call into question. Furthermore, in the opening of Matthew we’re told about three sets of fourteen generations in the genealogy of Christ. The author specifically states there are three sets of fourteen generations, but the list provided doesn’t match up with what he says. The important takeaway from that and a number of other points in the scriptures, is that ancient Hebrew texts had a cultural tendency to include a small amount of poetic license. Compound this with thousands of years of transcribing and many retranslations, and I call into question the precision, though not the accuracy of these ancient texts.
And finally, you put words in my mouth. I would consider the experiences that led me to my beliefs to be evidence. For me, it is sufficient evidence for a compelling case, to say the least. However, what is one person’s life experience, will be considered anecdotal by another (ie, how compelling a set of evidence is is entirely subjective, and to someone hell-bent on not believing, any amount of evidence can easily be dismissed as “not convincing”), and for that reason and the personal nature of the experiences, I see no benefit to bringing them into the discussion.
And finally, you seem to imply that science is some sort of grand thing that is to lead everyone in their personal lives. As a student in astrophysics, I would have to disagree. Science is an extremely powerful tool in understanding the physical reality around us. By itself, however, it is completely devoid of ability to resolve philosophy, or weigh personal preference, tastes, and emotions in life decisions. Personally, I think the inability of science to ever provide insight into the mind-body problem or even the fundamental impossibility of physical reality to ever betray the existence of qualia are compelling proofs that in order to achieve a full and complete understanding of this reality we live in, it will take far more than a mere study of mathematics, physics, and all of their implications (ie, chemistry, sociology, psychology, biology, etc.).
To return to quoting Einstein, our minds are feeble to such a task. I invite you to read his parable of a child in a library, as an expression of the awe and wonder, the majesty and beauty, and even magic, if you will, of the elegant universe in which we live. I use the word “magic,” because far from the regimented and well-understood picture of the universe that is so often portrayed that science has of the universe, Einstein’s parable is far more accurate a rendition of that status of mankind in trying to understand the universe. Thus my position of humility on the topic, and thus my open-mindedness to the existence of such a being as God.
Oh my, how embarrassing. Fifth century, not fifteen century.
Well, at least now we know we can safely disregard any opinion you might have because you seem so adamnt about being wrong when you can see that the Apocrypha in question has no record before the fifteen century. But hey, it’s ok, I would also be wrong about something I’m irrationally angry about.
It wasnt the strangest thing to happen to him.
Now where did you get that impression, I wonder? Science says the Creation is incorrect regarding the origins of the universe and the planet. It says the Flood was impossible with the world’s maximum capacity for water. It says the Ark was, along with many other ways, logistically impossible. It says there were nations still doing things while the world was believed to have been submerged in water. It says there are human artifacts older than the Bible suggests the world is. And this is just barely scratching the surface. Science says many, many things that refute the Bible’s claims.
@Cirrus Light
Albert Einstein said that in response to the prospect of assigning an identity to what he believed might be worthy of being called “God”. He believed the imaginations of mortals are too pitiful to dream up a worthy image for such an entity, and therefore supported no religions.
So it’s not evidence that led you to this belief, then. I suppose that means that no amount of evidence will dissuade you. Fair enough.
Science says little that’s definitive on the matter. To quote Albert Einstein, I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. As for people doing bad things in Christ’s name; refer to conversations I’ve had about this already here.
And yes, by itself the text isn’t exactly compelling. My reasons for believing it, however, are a long and complex series of personal experiences, the vital and effective essence of which would be completely lost in any form of communication, and as such will remain outside the purview of the conversation here.
Not quite. It’d be more accurate to say that some of the writers of MLP Gen 4 didn’t agree with some of the other writers and decided that their works weren’t canon, then everybody just rolled with that, and suddenly a large part of the Bible’s story is visibly absent. It’d be like if some of the writers didn’t like Season 3 so they nixed it from canon and no longer had an explanation for why Twilight Sparkle was suddenly an alicorn princess.
@Cirrus Light
The same could be said of what is currently considered the Bible’s canon. They are just words in a book. There is no supporting evidence and in fact the bulk of science disproves it.
The world today isn’t exactly MLP material, especially with what people do for him. That’s why MLP exists in its own fantasy world.
As for what you originally said, yes it is appropriate. It is not ironic.