When asked whether there was a God and an afterlife...

>vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#841
>841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[LG 16; cf. Nostra aetate 3.]

>vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
>Nostra aetate 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
>Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Everything there is technically true.

>ecumenical pope

Literally nothing wrong with building ecumenicalness and he isn't the first pope to work on it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Christological_Declaration_Between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Assyrian_Church_of_the_East
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_ecumenism

>>His logical deductions are right you know
nothing about the dhamma is about ''logical deductions''

>Muslims together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day
>technically true

Christians worship the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Muslims do not. Saying we worship the same "God" is deceptive.
Christians believe Jesus, the incarnate second person of the Trinity, will come and judge the world, separating the sheep from the goats, not "Allah" who is a unitarian invention, who never incarnated.
CCC 841 is a perversion of what Christians believe and what Muslims believe. Muslims call trinitarianism "shirk" , a delusion, a blasphemy, and utterly reject the incarnation and the resurrection of Christ.
This is like saying Mormons worship the same God we do. Give me a break.

The comic here puts Muhammedans in "shit tier" near the bottom, while the Vatican says " with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day" Disgusting. Deception.

Catholics may have been bros in medieval times, but they've strayed wayyyy too far from tradition and accurate exegesis.

Seriously? Are you that stupid?

Buddha simply said : "Logical Induction is how you realize infinity is a thing, eventually. Enough kicks to the should do it."

Name a religion that isn't simply silently saying 'here lies original blame, let us not tell anyone else about it just in case they call US stupid.'

>>See Attached : All The Fucks I Could Give You, If You Just Asked Instead Of Looking At Images All The Fucking Time.

>Christians worship the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Muslims do not. Saying we worship the same "God" is deceptive.

They never said their ~understanding~ of God is same, just that they are calling up to the same "God of Abraham" like the Jews. And then they list a few commonalities of their different understandings of God.

Veeky Forums is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics
Sage

>They never said their ~understanding~ of God is same
they don't need to because words-have-meaning, and when a Christian says God he means Trinity, while a Muslim does not.

The verse about muslims should've denounced them and their heresies/misunderstanding, in a humble and honest fashion. "Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. " 1 John 2:22

pic related is a better response to islam.
ecumenism within christianity is debatable, ecumenism with islam is not an option.

>who are
>Darwin
>Galilei
>Einstein
>Arrhenius
>Beadle
>Bohr
>Broca
>Curie
>Gay-Lussac
>Golgi
>Higgs
>Laplace
>Schrödinger
>Watson and Crick

Most of those in your list are not true Christians, they were simply baptized as a child, and had a socialization by their Christian societies. They were not theologists, no true believers, and never proselytized. Most of them had very strong agnostic tendencies and they didn't want trouble with the powerful church. Most of them actually questioned and scrutinized what god is. Mendel btw became a monk only because it was the only career choice for poor people back then.

>John 16:1 “I have told you this so that you may not fall away. 2 They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you [math] \bf{ will ~ think } ~ he ~ is ~ offering ~ worship ~ to ~ \bf { God } [/math]. 3 They will do this because they [math] \bf{ have ~ not ~ known } ~ either ~ the ~ Father ~ or ~ me [/math].

There is but one God. If they call out to God, they are calling out to the God.

>pic related is a better response to islam.

You know what's better than a dead Muslim? A Christian convert. The only way you can convert them is if you open dialogue with them.

>They were only pretending because atheist were burned at the stake meme

Top kek

>im gonna list these names of 'believers' wich also were scientists, that means my doctrin is true
>whats epistemology
Baffling, not only does he believe in something without having evidence for it at all, he also believes that if smart people believe something thats a reason to have faith in it.
Yeah just kys already, and see if you get to a better place.

>when it comes to science, Christians are in good company :)
>OH SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME [STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT]
>no, just saying we're in good company, christians advanced science greatly
>OH SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME [more straw man and non-sequiturs]
>never said that, I said being christian doesn't preclude one from practicing good scienc-
>HAHAH GOT YOU SO YOURE TELLING ME BECAUSE EULER WAS CHRISTIAN THEN THE BIBLE IS TRUE?!?!?!! OH WOW!!!!!!!! LISTEN TO THIS GUY LISTEN TO THIS STRAW MAN I BUILT
kek, nice sophistry and confusion you got there sweetie

we can make a religion out of this

>The only way you can convert them is if you open dialogue with them.
open dialogue doesn't mean tolerating heresies and lies, we aren't obliged to kneel and say "hurr we worship and adore the same God who will judge us all" this is patently false, it besmirches our faith and theirs.
The word God doesn't just mean some nebulous, philosophical "Creator of the World" it has a very specific meaning in Christianity, which is radically different than the Muslim version.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
>Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier was a French nobleman and chemist who was central to the 18th-century chemical revolution and who had a large influence on both the history of chemistry and the history of biology.[2] He is widely considered in popular literature as the "father of modern chemistry".
>It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry largely stem from his changing the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one. Lavoisier is most noted for his discovery of the role oxygen plays in combustion. He recognized and named oxygen and hydrogen and opposed the phlogiston theory. Lavoisier helped construct the metric system, wrote the first extensive list of elements, and helped to reform chemical nomenclature. He predicted the existence of silicon [5] and was also the first to establish that sulfur was an element rather than a compound.[6] He discovered that, although matter may change its form or shape, its mass always remains the same.
>Raised in a pious family which had given many priests to the Church, he had held to his beliefs. To Edward King, an English author who had sent him a controversial work, he wrote, 'You have done a noble thing in upholding revelation and the authenticity of the Holy Scripture, and it is remarkable that you are using for the defence precisely the same weapons which were once used for the attack.'
>Unfortunately, Lavoisier died prematurely at age 50. He was beheaded by a guillotine: killed by the folks in France who prided themselves (and are widely known, for some bizarre reason, to this day), as proponents of “enlightened” reason: freed from the shackles of centuries of Christian “Dark Ages” intellectual slavery and mindless dogmatism (as the stereotype goes).
>Mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange, remarked of this event, “It took them only an instant to cut off that head, and a hundred years may not produce another like it.”

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle
>In addition to philosophy, Boyle devoted much time to theology
>As a director of the East India Company he spent large sums in promoting the spread of Christianity in the East, contributing liberally to missionary societies and to the expenses of translating the Bible or portions of it into various languages. Boyle supported the policy that the Bible should be available in the vernacular language of the people. An Irish language version of the New Testament was published in 1602 but was rare in Boyle's adult life. In 1680–85 Boyle personally financed the printing of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, in Irish.
>In his Will, Boyle provided money for a series of lectures to defend the Christian religion against those he considered "notorious infidels, namely atheists, deists, pagans, Jews and Muslims", with the provision that controversies between Christians were not to be mentioned (see Boyle Lectures).[30]

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#Personal_philosophy_and_religious_beliefs
>Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers. These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture.[63]

Well youre right. Tbh tho, many christians i met use this as an actual argument for the truth of christianity. Thats why i thought you implied that.

>open dialogue doesn't mean tolerating heresies and lies

We already called Islam a heresy ages ago and they know we view them as such.

Buddhism is the only logical "religion". It recognises the brain for what it is, a machine, and that it can interpret reality as either good or bad. Buddhists are intelligent enough to realise you can manipulate the interpretation algorithm of your brain to select literally anything as good, achieving the ultimate goal in life in the most efficient way possible- being happy without doing anything, removing the risk of suffering. There is no logical reason to believe the purpose in life is suffering other than the assumption that the intensity of experiences is what constitutes the meaning of existence, but in truth the more you suffer the less you experience.

You only care about the Truth because success in understanding gives you a dopamine rush. When you can manipulate your brain to give you dopamine rushes without the prerequisite work, why bother?

...

You haven't answered my question. Wanna know the reason why in general less intelligent people use drugs more often? It's because that's their most efficient way to get their dopamine rush. Because you have higher IQ, you don't have to waste money on drugs to get yours, you can just study. That's all there is to it. You're just the logical conclusion of your genetics determination.

>cut and paste of random quack is a convincing argument

Lavoisier is the exact proof for what I said before in . He came from a christian fundamentalist background and died too early, so he never had a chance to fall away from faith. He would have become an agnostic if he had have more years. And his chemical works are actually his only way to escape and defect from his nutjob pious family background.

The issue is a deeper than just making yourself feel good. The specific sense of "suffering" involved is the suffering of being trapped in a cycle of worldly birth, death, and rebirth.
When you include that context it makes a lot more sense that he would say the only questions that matter are the ones that further your release from that predicament. The analogy used for this line of thinking is how he's like a doctor treating a man who was bitten by a venomous snake. A doctor in that situation wouldn't spend time educating the patient on the biology of the snake that bit him or the evolutionary history of how venom emerged in certain species of snakes as an adaptive trait from non-venomous saliva. He would just be focused on getting the man out of that predicament.
I agree if he didn't teach rebirth and you cleanly blinked out of existence at the moment of death then a set of teachings about making yourself feel less bad would be not all that worthwhile to dedicate your life to. But he definitely did teach rebirth and argued both the idea of eternal life and the idea of annihilation at death were wrong. And if you interpret the teachings from the starting point of rebirth being a real problem then I think you could see the importance of those teachings above all else.
As an additional consideration, there's the point that the specific way this suffering happens is said to be through ignorance about how reality works. Meaning the other reason why giving people answers to cosmological / metaphysical questions wouldn't be helpful is because they wouldn't interpret the answers properly while they're still under the influence of that more fundamental ignorance that's keeping them trapped in cyclic rebirth. It'd be like trying to teach a severe schizophrenic calculus. Until the schizophrenia is treated, he would probably misinterpret your lessons through the distorted lens of mental illness and infer twisted conclusions that don't make sense in reality.

>died too early

He was 50 years old living in the peak of the cult of reason (atheism). He was heavily pressured to defect. Also, he was debating against skeptics so he definitely had the chance.

>christian fundamentalist background
>nutjob pious family

Christianity =/= American Protestantism

Or to use yet another analogy, it'd be like trying to explain what it's like to be on psilocybin to someone who's only ever been sober their entire life. You could provide a best description possible for what the experience is like and still fail to give that person a good understanding because rather than psychoactive substances being some regular experience you go have while still being the same as an experiencing party, what they really are is an alteration of how you experience things. The person you try to explain the experience to will necessarily interpret it through the one framework of sobriety they're familiar with which would miss the entire point of what the experience really is.

why didn't he become a priest then? maybe he didn't like being in the church? I wonder why?

To add, I'm not an atheist. Your picture supports my argument. The theist and agnostic are clearly better looking and less autistic than the atheist, so they have much more potential for romantic success. Therefore, their existence can find a lot of meaning in romance and intimacy because they can achieve it. However, the atheist, due to his genetic misfortune, cannot, so there is no logical reason for him to attribute further cerebral meaning to love other than its biological roots.

There is no basis to define suffering as lack of knowledge of existence. There is no reason to believe once we have sufficient knowledge of existence we would stop suffering. A chase of knowledge is just a primitive biological echo morbidly applied to an age when it is not quite needed. The brain, working backwards, invents meaning and ascribes it to the mechanism, but if you maintain executive function and reject that meaning there is no reason to continue the chase, same goes for all other mechanisms.

If you find you have the genetic ability to interpret the mechanism as overall profitable, you don't have to reject it. Yet, if you do not have the ability but you do have the meaning ingrained then by all means it's in your best interest to reject it.

Not every Christian becomes a priest. His father wanted him to be a lawyer

>"Lavoisier was a Parisian through and through and a child of the enlightenment," wrote biographer Henry Guerlac. The son of Jean-Antoine and Émilie Punctis Lavoisier, he entered Mazarin College when he was 11. There, he received a sound training in the arts and classics and an exposure to science that was the best in Paris. Forgoing his baccalaureate of arts degree, Lavoisier yielded to the influence of his father and studied law, receiving a law degree in 1763. But his interest in science prevailed, kindled by the geologist Jean-Étienne Guettard, whom he met at Mazarin. After graduation, he began a long collaboration with Guettard on a geological survey of France.
>Lavoisier showed an early inclination for quantitative measurements and soon began applying his interest in chemistry to the analysis of geological samples, especially gypsum. Because of his flair for careful analyses and his prodigious output, he was elected to the Academy of Sciences at the age of 25.
>He married Marie Anne Pierrette Paulze on Dec. 16, 1771; he was 28, she was 14. "The marriage was a happy one," according to Lavoisier biographer Douglas McKie. "Mme Lavoisier was possessed of a high intelligence; she took a great interest in her husband's scientific work and rapidly equipped herself to share in his labors. Later, she helped him in the laboratory and drew sketches of his experiments. She made many of the entries in his laboratory notebooks. She learned English and translated a number of scientific memoirs into French."
acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier.html

>Newton's religious views developed as a result of participation in an investigative discourse with Nature (the nature of the world) and developed from the apparent dichotomy of biblical reality from the increasing revealing of the structure of reality from investigation, and the subsequent challenges these truths of nature posed toward established religion for Newton, especially in light of Christian scriptural belief.
kek
And IIRC Kepler was sun worshiper.

>the subsequent challenges these truths of nature posed toward established religion

What challenges?

Romance is a product of chemicals too, so there's nothing wrong with it. Anyway womyn don't need any stupid romance, all they need is cock and money.

>tfw Buddhist
>OP posts self-evident Buddha quote: live in the now, because you have no control over what ultimately happens to you after you die, if there is an "after", other than bodily dissolution
>logically, rationally, scientifically consistent
>religious/atheistic shitstorm ensues

gets bonus points for aggrandizing a globalist, pedo-apologist, peasant shakedown scheme.

weak bait is weak

>>tfw Buddhist
>> live in the now
Ekhart Tolle and Oprah quotes are not buddhism

> because you have no control over what ultimately happens to you after you die, if there is an "after", other
this utterly rejects what the Buddha taught about "right action" , "right thought", "right intention" and how we can influence our rebirths into positive or negative states; etc, he actually argued this point with hindu determinists who thought everything was predetermined and they had no power to change their destinies, so moral considerations became irrelevant to them. He said this is a wrong view because although the past is determined, it is not completely determined and we can change our futures and yes you should be very concerned with the afterlife, hence he taught rebirth and contradict anyone who denied rebirth/afterlife.

>He said this is a wrong view because although the past is determined, it is not completely determined and we can change our futures

This is wrong but it may be right in the future. We human are carbon-based living organisms. That means all the events that shape us through our lives are through a tinted glass of genetics. Given enough information about our genetics and environment, we could determine an individual's potential influences on existence.

Were that individual to step out of his mortal shell into one that allows him to change his very being while maintaining his consciousness, the ability to change his potential, a singularity, then that would truly be undetermined. Otherwise, all biological consciousnesses are determined.