-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are the bulk of GAF anti-religious extremists?
- Thread starter Late Stage Marxist
- Start date
- Status
Okay this and the other savior myths I'll try to add some to, though Loki has already wrote a short essay on it.
For one, religion and mythology has been the education for the longest time up until our modern empirical world. Many stories that are parts of myths help explain how the people live. The goddess Ishtar, who dies and is reborn, was a representation of skills and knowledge. These weren't dumbed down societies. Most valued knowledge, as the goddess Ishtar represents. She is also a fertility goddess, important to agriculture societies. Mythos isn't just a "bunch of stories", but also how a culture understands the world around them. Most of them work in the same way people use science today. Mayans have stories in which their 'hero twins' delegate "the blood to the mosquitos if you bring me the names of death" or something along that line. Also they delegate that "the rats can eat of the gourds and fruits, and if ever there is something in our trash you may have in thanks for" yada yada. So these stories pass on and communicate to the youth what certain animals like to eat and what their behaviors are. The winnebago indians have a tale of their trickster eating a spicey food and then basically farting and shitting himself into the sky. It basically says "hey watch what you eat" and perhaps told winnebago children to not just crap everywhere and clean up after themselves. Religious stories passed on the knowledge gathered by a people. They were not to 'subdue' the people.
It's not like the ideas of ancient myths have no place in today's world. The pillars of psychology looked at myth. The Kundahallini(sp?) is very similiar to Jung's archetype, which in turn is similiar to Freud's ego. I don't know if I should say similiar of influences though.
As for the other savior myths and Jesus...
Loki already providing links on the historical legitimacy of Jesus, so I'll handle the issue of other saviors. For one, saviors, death and rebirth and the sort of characters in mythological stories that have Jesus-like experiences are often ways of describing the journey of life. Adolescents, growing up, baring children, old age. There is also just the case of myths meshing and smooshing together. Judaism had fertility gods and the ilk till they were run out. Zoaraster the prophet is mostly credited with the monothiestic idea of modern Christianity. Is Jesus Christ just Zoaraster retold? Well actually he could be Zoaraster itself, as there was to be a "savior" type to come in the religion and the story of the Three Magi who come to visit the birth of Jesus is thought to be a reference to Zoaraster priests and their coming to see their prophet.
It's a lot easier letting Loki do the work.
etiolate said:
I actually didn't write anything regarding the topic, just posted links to several analyses of these issues (Jesus' historicity, whether he was an amalgam of other savior myths etc.). I'll be damned if I'm going to waste what would undoubtedly end up being many hours elaborating upon my personal beliefs.
I don't think it's wise for you to bet your eternal salvation on that.Loki said:I actually didn't write anything regarding the topic, just posted links to several analyses of these issues (Jesus' historicity, whether he was an amalgam of other savior myths etc.). I'll be damned if I'm going to waste what would undoubtedly end up being many hours elaborating upon my personal beliefs.
Phoenix
Member
trippingmartian said:
I've seen plenty of people here just use religion as a 'root of all evil' on this board while ignoring the fact that there are idiots and extremists who aren't religiously motivated comitting atrocities across the world. Personally I say just ignore them, they are intent on believing that anything religious suddenly means that there just can't be assholes in the world.
Phoenix
Member
The Prime Director said:
If this is the 'evidence' that you present, then you won't find something interesting. We would have to go into another thread to discuss these methodologies for proving that someone did or did not exist, but what these authors present amounts to "no one can show me a birth certificate therefore he must not have existed".
Here's an email I got today. Discuss amongst yourselves.
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and...
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son... Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?... No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving and alive.
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and...
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son... Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?... No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving and alive.
Phoenix
Member
AstroLad said:
And the racists assholes were on a roll a scant few decades ago. In the face of any extreme in any direction, moderation starts to take center stage. People are going to believe what they want to believe. TO be honest I don't need religion to tell me that I don't like the idea of killing the unborn. It may sometimes be necessary (just as there are times that any taking of a life is necessary), but should be the exception rather than the rule. To be honest I know very few religious people who can actually attest that they follow the rules of the Bible/10 commandments. Why? Because there are things in it that contradict with some of our nature. Thou shalt not kill. If I have to defend myself I'll kill any one of you without question (though with remorse)
A Christian society willingly goes to war and doesn't turn the other cheek when someone strikes them. We bear false witness against our neighbors all the time and we covet damn near everything tht we don't possess.Religion isn't the problem IMO because out of all the religious people I know, very few of them are actually doing what religion tells them to. COnsequently this is why I don't understand some of this rather 'short-sighted' claims of 'religion is causing problems'. That's a load of shit. If people did exactly what it said, there would be a lot less. We lie, steal, kill, covet, we certainly have other gods before God (usually money), we neglect the elderly, we commit adultry both in thought and in action, etc. You can't blame religion based on people not doing what it says. To do so is just ignorant, sorry but it is.
The problem is with people - not religion.
nathkenn said:
ZING! (not to be confused with my zing of Astrolad
)Has anyone ever told you how clever you are, nathkenn? Well allow me to be the first:
nathkenn, you are DAMN clever. <shock> <awe>
Haha, I can't stop laughing. No, I don't know why. I need sleep. <cries> I feel like MAF.
: /Phoenix said:
Whoa whoa, I'd just like to point out for the record that you're the one that analogized religion and racism. ;p
I think where there is the disconnect between you and me is your very narrow reading of the word "religion" to somehow mean religious texts and those that follow them as one is supposed to (another idea which could be debated, probably by Loki, for pages and pages). Now I don't think a Dictionary Battle would help on this point, since obviously 'religion' is one of the most loaded and open-to-interpretation words in the English language, especially right now, but suffice it to say that it's much easier to say that there is a problem with religion when one merely broadens the definition to include those people professing their religious beliefs and acting on those beliefs. Of course, where does that get us? Not far, really, but it at least lets us keep in mind just how powerful of a tool "religion" can be in getting people to act in specific, often heinous ways. The by-the-book argument doesn't go very far, either, when one considers that it's the argument the "assholes" of which we're speaking use and, conveniently, most religious texts are malleable enough to at least lend enough credence to their positions that they can get many people to follow them. A healthy skepticism is really all I'm encouraging (and something I'm sure you're not against either); as far as outright condemnations of a particular people for believing in God, I think that's just the opposite situation.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
trippingmartian said:
I am.
Loki said:True, but you cannot deny that religious assholes are on quite a roll right now.
OMG TEH NON-SEQUITUR!!!1 YOU'VE BEEN ZINGED!! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!1
Don't mind me, I'm in a sleep deprivation-induced delirium at the moment.
That's a terrible 'zing' and a logically flawed one at that. You should write a thesis that I'll be too bored to deem 'stupid.'
AstroLad said:That's a terrible 'zing' and a logically flawed one at that. You should write a thesis that I'll be too bored to deem 'stupid.'
Hah, very well then.
I know that your post wasn't technically a non-sequitur, since you weren't advancing any formal argument in response to what you quoted (but were rather just making a general unrelated comment), I just felt like being silly because, well...I'm in a silly mood at 3 AM. Btw, if it weren't so late, I'd say that you were insinuating that my posts are boring. Hmmm...<rubs chin>
EDIT:
My suspicions were correct!
Phoenix said:
I honestly don't think theres anything more obvious in human history, religion is simply a tool , i have never seen it used for anything outside of that nor can i think of any examples in recorded history. we use it to control people for good and bad things, or for some sort of answer to the mysteries of the universe which we are so not even close to it's ridiculous
Phoenix
Member
AstroLad said:
Actually I didn't equate them in any way, only to point to people being the thing in both instances that cause problems.
A belief that is contrary to religious teachings is a person's belief - not a religious belief. Lets clear that up first. I believe that I have a right to kill my enemies if in a state of war, the 10 commandments tells me otherwise. As such my belief in killing others for any reason is not and cannot be interpreted to be a religious belief. Religion stems from those texts that the religions is based on. While those texts can be bastardized in the interpretations and teachings (contextualism) they have a rather transparent meaning (literalism).
The fact that one can twist a text and persuade people to follow a bastardization of that text does not mean that those people are practicing that religion. Your view seems to stem from the fact that people can utilize religion as a tool to control people therefore religion is the problem. At the same time I could easily argue that the constitution has been bastardized to control people as well. I could say that about anything which a 3rd party takes from one form and 'interprets' in order to teach. The Catholic faith itself took "Honor thy father and thy mother" and used it (when I was a child) to tell us that we should obey our fathers and our mothers, when actually the complete text is referring to taking care of our elders. Is that religions fault? No, that is a failing of some sect of the Catholic church which chose to make that adjustment as it suited them. Why is that effective? Because people rarely try to find out anything for themselves. We have people who we 'trust' to give us the truth about things that we don't consider that important to our daily existence. People talk about the world outside the United States, for example, and if you depended on many of the opinions of many people you would develop a very skewed view of the world - through someone elses eyes.
When I used to work for the government I travelled to a lot of countries in central and south america and saw first hand the differences between what I was told and what reality was. I remember sitting with my manager one day and talking about countries in the Middle East and he had this view of them all being war torn and full of extremists. He couldn't imagine that any place in the middle east would even look like Atlanta, GA. The I showed him some footage taken by a CNN news team that had been in the country and he was able to see how largely advanced the city of Baghdad, Cairo, and several others were. His view of the world was tossed on its ear because he was shown something that he had chosen not to investigate for himself.
People are easy to sway because they are generally trusting and lazy enough to not actually try to find out things for themselves. That - is a problem with people. Not religion.
One must be skeptical about all things - INCLUDING religion. I am under no illusion that what's in the bible is 100% historical or 100% the word of God or anything else. In fact I personally argue that it would be impossible for man to accurately interpret God, let alone his actions or intentions. If there is a God, surely that being would be so far beyond comprehension as to make any mans attempt at translation incomplete at the very least.
DO I believe there is a God - yes, and for reasons that would take a while to bring out here.
Phoenix
Member
nathkenn said:
Don't be ashamed to admit that you can't prove it. Its the same sort of proof that would be required to prove that God does or does not exists. When the "proof is in the pudding," you are accepting that you can't prove it either way and look at the consequence and use that as proof. This is flawed deductive reasoning and doesn't work.
The "problem" with religion is that it, for various reasons [which I'll let Loki debate... okay I'll stop now... ] can be such an effective tool of control, and this is why we must be particularly wary of it. Now, again the question becomes "what is religion?" and the answer is dispositive of either argument and I really think that issue is the only difference in our positions as I see them.
And I believe in God because of Pascal's Wager.
;P
] can be such an effective tool of control, and this is why we must be particularly wary of it. Now, again the question becomes "what is religion?" and the answer is dispositive of either argument and I really think that issue is the only difference in our positions as I see them. And I believe in God because of Pascal's Wager.
;P
Phoenix
Member
AstroLad said:The "problem" with religion is that it, for various reasons [which I'll let Loki debate... okay I'll stop now...
The problem with that argument is that its true of a LOT of things: government, TV, internet, credit cards, school, history, you name it. Anything that gives power to a minority of people can be used to effectively control the majority of people. That is a fact irregardless of the device.
Phoenix said:
I'd argue that most of those aren't nearly as time-tested effective as religion in terms of getting people to be "assholes" (e.g. slaughter, discrimination, etc.). Internet, credit cards, TV, we can just dismiss right off the bat. Sure they can get people to be "slaves" in a certain way, but not in the way I'm talking about, and certainly not on the scale of religion. Government, history? I would categorize those as quite effective. And I would also put them in the same place as religion- "things we need to watch the fuck out for." The interesting thing about history (and government in some countries, increasingly ours sadly) is that it has religious elements to it, so it's very often difficult to parse out the religious element and its effectiveness, but it's there often enough that I think doubting its effectiveness (which I'm not alleging you're doing) is somewhat naive.
The problem I have with religion... more than anything else is that as it is practiced... it's not something that encourages tolerance.*
Quite the opposite... it polarizes people and reinforces their them and us belief.
And while these artifacts are inherent to human cognitive processing, the nature of religion reinforces it. It tells those people that their beliefs are backed by a higher power, and have no need to answer to reason or logic.
It reinforces itself in such a subversive nature and causes real change in people that make it difficult or even near impossible to turn those people back to a logical path.
*With tolerance comes understanding to why tolerance should be given. If your beliefs shuts you off from that want to understand because it conflicts strongly with your belief... then it works adversely against everyone.
With understanding, you correctly reason what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Not according to some arbitary standard. And from that you correctly derive solutions to the real problems while reinforcing what is really right.
Quite the opposite... it polarizes people and reinforces their them and us belief.
And while these artifacts are inherent to human cognitive processing, the nature of religion reinforces it. It tells those people that their beliefs are backed by a higher power, and have no need to answer to reason or logic.
It reinforces itself in such a subversive nature and causes real change in people that make it difficult or even near impossible to turn those people back to a logical path.
*With tolerance comes understanding to why tolerance should be given. If your beliefs shuts you off from that want to understand because it conflicts strongly with your belief... then it works adversely against everyone.
With understanding, you correctly reason what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Not according to some arbitary standard. And from that you correctly derive solutions to the real problems while reinforcing what is really right.
Zaptruder said:
You're meeting the wrong religious people, then. I know plenty of people with strongly held religious beliefs who are extremely tolerant, and plenty of people without them who are extremely bigoted.
I agree that the problem's in the 'them versus us' attitude, but isn't this whole thread a reflection of that, and the way that it isn't limited to people in any given category. A lot of the generalisation here is on the side of those who are anti-religion, grouping either all religious people or all people who follow a single religion (be it Christianity or Islam) together. When obviously that isn't something that works.
No religious texts I know of tell people "Hey, go out and be evil!" Not even those of the church of Satan, before anyone throws in the obvious suggestion. There's always interpretation of those texts, and that can lead people to extremes if they're so inclined.
Where did religion come from?
This is some people at GAF:
FROM TEH STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC PEOPLE ANCIENT !
:lol
Anyways, the problem I have with us arriving out of pure chance is;
How the heck was the concept of the transcendence thrown in the mix? Did chance also create something that points towards something OUTSIDE the system of chance?
This is some people at GAF:
FROM TEH STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC PEOPLE ANCIENT !
:lol
Anyways, the problem I have with us arriving out of pure chance is;
How the heck was the concept of the transcendence thrown in the mix? Did chance also create something that points towards something OUTSIDE the system of chance?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
OK, so the problem is people misusing religion, and easily convincing others with a shared religious backgrounds that their misuses are appropriate; in fact that they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.Phoenix said:
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Can you go further on this? I'm not seeing what's so out-there about the concept that a human somewhere along the line couldn't have thought of it.geogaddi said:
Well, either you accept that all religions' creation stories are true, or you accept that at least some of the stories came about by chance. Or I guess you could take the Babel view and say they're all based on the true Genesis account and just got mutated the hell up by a pre-Alexander Graham Bell game of telephone. Or are you talking about some physical evidence that points to non-chance?
geogaddi said:
My arguments FOR evolution are most certainly not for aethiesm as well. Why do you call it "arriving out of chance?" Just because things may have happened similar to what current theories suggest, why would that negate the possibility (more than that in my mind) that there was a being in control of everything.
So I must ask you, do you equate your arguments against evolution to arguments against aetheism? Do you not feel that evolution and god cannot co-exist? That's probably the biggest hurdle of getting people off of creationism.
edit: What may seem like "rolling the dice" to you/me/humans is most likely something beyond our comprehension. The only way we can explain things in our terms may seem cold, but I'm sure there's a philisophical half-way house in heaven for people who need time accepting the truth of the universe.
JoshuaJSlone said:
I see no reason to think that "religion" implies any sort of friendly behavior. Yes, the Ten Commandments says "thou shalt not kill" in english, but then God tells the Israelites when they're supposed to kill one of their own (eg. gay men, witches, wives who's father can't produce the bloody sheets from when her husband popped her cherry), and then orders them slaughter entire populations because they're on the land that he wanted for his chosen ones. And so the believer is left to cherry-pick what he wants to follow. And regardless of *what* commands you decide to obey, if you're worshipping a god, you're religious, by definition.
Acrylamid said:
It's even worse then that, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I can tell, christians can't even come up with a coherent and relevant definition of "God", show any link between their being and reality. And of course, evil is *not* the absence of good, it is breaking a particular set of principals or rules.
Loki said:^^^^
Why does someone always seem to "just get this email today" whenever a topic like this is posted?
:lol Honestly. I did actually get this email yesterday morning. :lol
It seemed fitting. I don't really like getting into these kinds of discussions in forums. They don't lead anywhere positive.
I can't forsee anyone changing their lives because I tell them in an internet post that I believe in God and in his Son Jesus Christ.
See? What good did that do? Did all the non-believers fall out of their chairs? :lol
Sure it can be an interesting topics of discussion in a face-to-face setting. But not online.
Acrylamid said:
The analogy is perfect. He doesn't ask if brains exist. He asks if the professors brain exists. And he asks if anyone in the class has seen his brain. They say no. Therefore they must ask on faith that the professor has a brain, because they have been told that all humans (including professors) have brains.
brooklyngooner
Member
Truelize said:
Ugh. Just...ugh.
I kind of look at the bible as a tall tale of sorts. There could have been a man named jesus and he did something nice for a person. As word gets around people start exagerating what happend, 1 turns into 5, and etc... Its a story that has been around for many many many years. Some people live their lives to this story which is all right by me. Do I believe in this story? No, but please don't force this belief onto me by telling me if i don't believe i'm going to hell..... I hear that so much from people when i tell them my thoughts on cristianity and god
argh....
argh....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll