Who else is genuinely pissed of that religion exists?
I'm in the USA, so I'm mainly talking about Christianity, since it is very popular.
The idea of some greater being who can create things, us, etc is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The bible is just a fantasy chapter book for adults that some idiot took seriously, and spread it.
I'm tired of people devoting so much time, money, energy, and even their live to some false beliefs of an afterlife and facing judgement.
Questions for religion-fags (try not to give me the obvious mainstream answers I've already heard):
1. If a god created humans to be his little angels, why did he create us in such a way that we could disobey him?
2. If the only sin God can not forgive us for is not having faith in him, why did he make us intelligent enough to question his presence?
3. Many religionsfags blindly follow a religion because they see it as the only answer to how the universe exists. If religion says God created the world, universe, etc, who created God?
OP you are just as retarded as any church-going religion fag by assuming you know better than them. The entire human race is invariably wrong about everything, get used to it.
Wanting to get rid of religion is a form of religious bigotry, you fucking religious idiot. Any time you say "people can only think and worship this way" (or not at all) you're supporting the formation of a new and oppressive religious regime.
Fuck's sake, even the scientific community is forming up into a cult, been 13 years since they just started outright blackballing anyone who challenged popular theories.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Please fucking kill yourself you autistic shitstain.
>logic and reason
What logic and reason do you personally have?
Surely you're a learned person and not just spewing that phrase out like a blithering idiot, exactly like a religious fool would cite things they've never fucking read.
I don't see the point of being pissed off about religion. People believe all sorts of dumb shit, and not everyone is going to agree with your worldview. I suggest you learn to deal with people disagreeing with you, and that some people won't accept a scientific rational explanation for how the universe works.
All logic and reason is based on the assumption that what we perceive around us is true to life. I would have thought that of all people you would have seen the matrix in your presumably infinite autistic wizardry. You can't know that you are right so give up being so fucking sure.
>1. If a god created humans to be his little angels, why did he create us in such a way that we could disobey?
You mean with free will? Well I don't know about you, but I think it's cool to be able to consciously choose to do the right thing and get the rewards that go with it. Same with receiving punishments for choosing the wrong thing.
>2. If the only sin God can not forgive us for is not having faith in him, why did he make us intelligent enough to question his presence?
Well first, the only true unforgivable sin is blasphemy (meaning any intentional downgrading of God or things related to him). And 2nd, as I said before, God gave us free will and the intelligence that comes with it so that we may come to him willingly.
>3.If religion says God created the world, universe, etc, who created God?
What does the color blue smell like? I'm asking this to show the type of question you just asked. Obviously, blue doesn't have a smell, thus asking what it smells like is not acknowledging the characteristics of color. Asking who created God is ignoring the "all powerful" part of the Christian-Judea God's characteristics. If God needed a creator he wouldn't be a God.
U gud now?
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
- Werner Heisenberg, father of quantum mechanics, most known for his uncertainty principle, smarter and more mentally disciplined than you will ever be.
What now, faggot?
1. Freewill. What would be the point of God creating a bunch of slaves to worship him? Our life is a gift, not a condition for something else. How we use that gift is something he does not will to control.
2. It's not intelligence that makes us question his existence. Some of the smartest people I know are Christians. It's things like arrogance, ignorance, and selfishness.
3. Obviously isn't an answer for that. But you know what? It doesn't even matter. We aren't supposed to know that and we never will so why try. I'd also like to note that many Christians don't have blind faith. They have reasonable faith
Religious bigotry is the non-belief in any religion.
Religious bigotry is not a religion just because it has the word religion in it you fucking retard.
It is logical and very reasonable to say that there is not a magical man controlling our world.
The beliefs don't necessarily piss me off, it's the fact that so many people give so much up for hope in an nonexistent afterlife.
You're saying it's OK to resort to put your faith in some crazy theory that a god created the world because you can't prove science did?
I have absolutely no doubts that the universe was not conjured up by a gods imagination.
If God wanted us to follow his rules, to a point where he will damn you to an eternity in hell for not being faithful to him, why would he give us free will? God supposedly knows what has, is, and will happen, if he knows this, why not force us to be faithful?
If science says a God Particle created the universe, etc, what created a God Particle?
It's turtles all the way down no matter whose Kool-Aid you're drinking, because everyone's limited to the same scale of perception.
Anonanon, stop with the pseudo-intellectual, enlightened bs.
1. Because A. We weren't created to be his little angels, rather to exert free will and find happiness/purity/piety. B. Morality does not exist in void of choice. True morality, true goodness only exists when it is a conscious and deliberate choice.
2. See above.
3. God is a transcendent, metaphysical absolute you fucking retard. The whole gist of God is that he's the uncaused cause. Lern2Theology m8ey.
These are stupid fucking argumenst meant to make atheist sheeple stare on in amazement and jerk each other's enlightened cocks, rather than actually trying to refute anything.
>It's not intelligence that makes us question his existence. Some of the smartest people I know are Christians. It's things like arrogance, ignorance, and selfishness.
I don't think it's arrogant to reject the unfounded claims that Christians make, least of all that a supreme being is vindictive enough to punish good people for not believing in it.
No, I mean what actual logical ideas do you have? Surely you're not just spewing bullshit without having educated yourself or exercised your powers of logic in a constructive form?
If your NEET-ass didn't spend so much time in the basement polishing fedoras and jacking off to Carl Sagan, you'd realize that America has a small devoted religious community, mostly comprised of old persons.
But no, you're on /b/ bitching about how OTHER PEOPLE spend their lives, how it has NO EFFECT on yours, stuck in your own pseudo-intellectual bubble that anyone who even mentions God is automatically a religious nut job.
>I have absolutely no doubts that the universe was not conjured up by a gods imagination.
Then you just developed the blind faith that it takes to follow a religion. Well done for contradicting yourself.
You claim to be against the ignorance of religion but religion is not the fount of all ignorance; people are. And you - presumably - fall into the latter category. Fortunately there is an easy solution to your ignorance, question everything.
>You're saying it's OK to resort to put your faith in some crazy theory that a god created the world because you can't prove science did?
Ooh, you called them crazy, what a cool, logical, and not at all irrationally biased response. Faggot.
LOL. I'd love to see the source for that graph. Probably some neckbeard
Perhaps not the word I was looking for, I apologize. And Hell is not a "punishment". It is giving a man exactly what he asked for: separation from God.
Congrats on proving absolutely nothing anon.
Pain is fleeting, suffering is fleeting. Heaven is unending and pure grace. You can suffer in life, but that's a product of human wickedness. God's benevolence transcends the plain of reality and is manifest outside of it.
Heisenberg learned a few things, decided the churches must be wrong (no fucking shit), then did some research and discovered a bunch of shit about the ridiculous voodoo that we call quantum physics and was like "oh shit nigger, that's some complicated and orderly bullshit, some unknown entity put all this shit together".
Basically, just because the church is full of shit doesn't mean the opposite of what they think is true. Forming reactionary beliefs from the opposing "party" is a blindly religious thing to do. Simple reverse familiarity bias, it's illogical, just an emotional response to feeling betrayed or some shit.
The very idea that the universe all makes sense, that Newtonian physics is logical, mathematical, consistent even when it's basically just a simulation run on top of quantum physics is unreal.
Your DNA is physically encoded hexadecimal housed within the very structures it contains the instructions to build, which also contains instructions for building the subcellular mechanisms which unzip, read, and copy the DNA while also building a new cell to bud off based on the information within.
The truth is there's way too fucking much order, symmetry and meaningful data in the universe and particularly centered on Earth to just wave away. The fact that the universe is steadily trending towards entropy is the firmest evidence of its orderly conception.
So when someone says sky wizards or ancient aliens did it all, don't you dare fucking laugh, because you don't have any better idea whatsoever.
thats nice an philosophical and shit but most of them have never heard of christianity anyway so how the fuck are they supposed to know that heaven is waiting for them? go back to your poetry class, faggot
Separation from God. Which is a form of suffering yes? Not enjoying everlasting life etc
Sounds like a punishment to me.
Also I ask you this:
Why would it matter to a supreme being whether an essentially good person believed in it or not?
Why wouldn't this god simply accept all good people into it's heaven?
Why should simple belief be rewarded and not good works, altruistic nature etc?
When you really think about it the Christian idea of hell is morally wrong. Eternal punishment for temporal crimes. Eternal punishment for simply not being convinced by what is a very poor case.
>The truth is there's way too fucking much order, symmetry and meaningful data in the universe and particularly centered on Earth to just wave away. The fact that the universe is steadily trending towards entropy is the firmest evidence of its orderly conception.
The truth is there's way too fucking much order, symmetry and meaningful data in the universe and particularly centered on Earth to just wave away. The fact that the universe is steadily trending towards entropy is the firmest evidence of its orderly conception.
>Why should simple belief be rewarded and not good works, altruistic nature etc?
>Implying simple belief is rewarded.
Q1 and 2:
The story is that good first made his angels. Near perfect beings. They were made to serve him unquestionably. Lucifer/The devil, originally God's mist favored Angel suggested that when God was to create man, too make them essentially better then the angels (in terms of servicing good). Lucifer wanted humans to be completely obedient, with no other purpose or function then to serve and worship him. Good said that instead he would give humans the ability to think and decide for themselves. Humans would only serve and worship good if they wanted to... free will.
Many would see that as stupid. Down right retarded even. Others see it as an act of love, trust, and faith. Humans not living as mindless automatons or existing so long as we don't make a single mistake, only to be immediately destroyed for having an imperfection or disobedience.
As for resistance before God... There is no answer other then God has always existed. Outside of the constants of time and space, physics, laws, or any other firms of our understanding.
To believe or not, just like all other choices you make in life, it's all up to you. Personally, I do believe there is a greater force then all of us. A God like being. I also believe that this God's direct influence on or world is nil to none. There's no need for it if we are to make or on choices or come to our own beliefs.
Would anyone be religious if whatever religion they decide to adhere to didn't basically act as an "afterlife insurance policy"?
>no useful end.
Heaven says hi.
>Using the word philosophy and causing me of being a poet as a ways to dampen and debilitate my argument.
>how the fuck are they supposed to know that heaven is waiting for them?
Does it matter if they know if or not?
- Neighborhood watch groups
- Political parties
- Social justice groups
- Ethnic groups
- Law enforcement
- Criminal organizations
But sure, getting rid of religion is certain to immediately fix human nature, cool idea, let's burn 'em all!
I'm going to give some one word answers. Ask me if you need help understanding.
1. Free will.
2. Free will.
3. This is rather hard for people whom aren't religious to understand. God has always existed. Think of it as a number line. Now is 0. It will continue to go, never ending. It has always been there, it had no start.
1. because if he did that we'd be little more then the animals we kill for profit
2.that is a misconception by protestant and , even more so the west burrow baptists, if they truly believe they are right in hier faith and commit no mortal sin (murder , rape , etc) they have just a good a chance as a catholic
3. while this is a hard question, scientific laws only apply to the natural, the supernatural (ghosts , angels , God , etc)) cannot be accurately studied in a scientific manner , and thus we may never get a true answer, though as stated before science is only applicable to that which is natural
The focus isn't on believing in God. He's not that shallow that he needs attention like that. The point is to follow his way and become close with him.
And Christian goodness is different than what you would normally think is "good".
Sadducees thought there was no afterlife.
Greeks and Romans generally thought everyone who wasn't a demigod-tier hero went to Hades to be sad and lonely and maybe tortured.
Buddhists, Daoists, Hindus generally have a code-of-conduct-determines-form-of-reincarnation thing.
Loads and loads of Judaic-based denominations think it's solely or mostly your works and deeds that determine your fate, not your faith.
You make skeptics look bad.
well that is basically just a copy/paste of what several priests told me, and considering the fact that you are likely only atheist because it is 'cool' kinda makes your so called 'argument' invalid
Do you, a non-believer, need to believe in an afterlife to be a moral person. I'd think not, you're moral because you try to be a good person, even if you won't get anything in return. I believe that morality includes and necessitates religiosity, so I am religious because I believe it is good, not because I necessarily want salvation (I do though).
Nice food-for-thought, though.
According to the book itself:
His disciples actually founded it, they spread throughout the earth (actually just the region around the sea), and it was spread by the people they wrote letters to (most of the New Testament is actually letters about the fledgling religion to various interested groups trying to adopt the faith).
Then came the councils of Nicaea, hundreds of years later, the Arians got stomped out and the Roman Catholic church was essentially formalized, it was agreed that Jesus was an aspect of God, despite that being only vaguely alluded to at best, even in the KJV, which King James had translated from the Gutenberg bible waaaaay after the founding of the church, specifically to focus on the role of Jesus as a divine king, and thus James' importance as a king.
I'm a Catholic... I was pointing out the fact that you think Catholics don't have a chance because we are members of the One True Church (Eastern Orthodox can join too, but it's a little too much idolatry for my taste).
Can't I just believe what I want to believe? Who the fuck cares? It's a belief. That's all. We have bigger problems. Do something else OP, instead of belittling people on an insignificant view.
I really think you should re-read your scripture mate. It's fairly explicit in saying that belief in God and in Jesus as the Son of God is required for entry into heaven.
>Christian goodness is different than what you would normally think is "good".
Christians do not have a monopoly on goodness, and certainly don't have their own "special" goodness. Do you deal much with people outside of christian circles?
Honestly, as a human being, it's pretty easy to say that's absolute bullshit and justify logically.
Why would you ever subject yourself to tenants and beliefs that's sole product are ensuring you live after you die?
Why even adhere to a construct like that rather than admit it's, for the most part, just a moral structure to go about interacting with others and limiting yourself appropriately?
What religion that isn't relatively popular doesn't exist with this idea at its heart: that if you live this way, and maybe even convert more people to live this way, and possibly even shun those who refuse to love this way, you'll be given some form of eternal life? It's a fallacy that plays into our natural selfishness/sense of self-preservation.
Yeah. It's honestly one of the only recurring themes amongst most religions, and rather than just addressing it dismissively, I'd actually like to hear what someone who calls themselves "pious" would have to say ACTUALLY ADDRESSING the subject.
But the Catholics are the height of idolatry. Praying to the saints, buying redemption through indulgences. Come on, you had orders of nuns who wove thorns into their robes to be redeemed through suffering, you had self-flagellation, you still have the self-perpetuating pedophiles, how could you possibly think of yourselves as the one true faith?
Granted, back in the day Catholicism also did a lot of good and, contrary to popular belief, promoted scientific discovery to a great extent as well as denouncing bullshit like alchemy, but still, you can't just go around pretending the church as a whole is shiny clean. Martin Luther said it best, "If there is a hell, Rome is built over it."
Damn, Peter must have lived to be like, 400+ years old then.
Christianity doesn't teach that Christians have a monopoly on goodness, remember the Good Samaritan or the parable of the servants? Lot of very worldly values in there.
>anecdotal evidence, refusing to believe someone wants what you don't want for your life for theirs, correlation/causation assumptions
Nice logical justification, faggot. Stop making religion look good.
I didn't mean it like that. Obviously in order to follow his way and become close to him you would have to believe in him first. I just meant that there's more to it than just "believing" in him.
And I didn't mean that non-Christians can't do good things or be good people too. I just meant that there are different viewpoints on what is good.
ITT: retards. The only right way is to be agnostic. None of us know for sure. We're probably just gonna rot in the ground when we die, though. Look at it this way, before you were ever born, you didn't exist. When you die, you won't exist anymore. Got it? Now stop being assholes and play outside.
It's not a Catholic exclusive thing, but don't pretend it's not particularly prevalent in the church leadership. It's not even the bad apples, it's that the rest protected, enabled them consistently, and that they usually get away with just being stripped of their title, even if a kid speaks up, like somehow they're still above the law despite all of Europe's caterwauling about being scientific and even putting Darwin on their money (the irony, lol).
well, that is fair enough i guess, howerver the pope does not encourage it , and only tolerates it because he has to as a role model for the whole 'turn the other cheek' lesson the church teaches
If you think the Catholic church has more idolatry than the Eastern Orthodox Church then I suggest you visit Russia and see how their churches are set-up. Jesus is literally on almost same plain as the rest of the saints/prophets and can be virtually indistinguishable from them.
BTW we don't pray to saints, we pray THROUGH them, if that makes sense. I don't see how the nuns and the self-flagellation disprove the Catholic Church's authority. They're manifestations and expressions of piety and love of God. I don't necessarily agree with the practice but not all branches and orders of the church do either. The pedophilia issue is A. not exclusive to the church B. not a point that refutes the authority of said Church.
The church as a whole is certainly not clean, but the Church is human, and it is the true Church and the mistakes of HUMANS don't change that.
Uninformed is a pretty precise word to choose connotatively. Why not be neutral and just say "honest"?
There is no actually indisputable evidence for or against religion. If there is, I'm all ears either way. I'd actually really like for something to confirm religion either as fact or fiction, I've yet to find anything like that yet though.
That's a pretty hard backpedal from "it's pretty easy to say that's absolute bullshit and justify logically" to "something I'd like to consider a discussion rather than an argument", lol
I'm not religious in the first place, I tend to dislike religious people, I just saw this thread and came in because I make it a habit to challenge blatant propaganda of any sort on 4chan.
Francis is the fucking coolest, and the whole church is better for him being there. Pretty sure he's staying up at night thinking about how far he can push things without getting assassinated.
Yes, I know it's through, not to, like many Protestants pray through Jesus to God, rather than simultaneously at all aspects of divinity.
Since the church is composed of humans at all levels, the actions of humans directly sully it. I mean, the book itself tells individuals to treat their bodies like temples, lest they sully their faith, to say nothing of the church as a whole.
Why are good catholics on /b/ anyways? It's the porn, isn't it?
Oh, about the thorn nuns and the self-flagellation, I'd argue that, like many other Catholic things, they're less manifestations of love and piety and more manifestations of repression and kinkiness.
If a pope accidentally contradicts a previous pope, what do you do?
Or do you just believe really hard that in some subtle way it wasn't really a contradiction?
Agnostic - "We do not know" or "We cannot know"....the former is vague and the latter is stupid, but it is a context-dependent term.
When people ask I tell them I'm a skeptic gnostic, and they always object and tell me how that's mutually exclusive and hurrdurr...
Another thing, why do you think God is so legalistic? I mean, Jesus was a complete hippy and a radical Judaic apologetic when you get right down to it. Is it just that the Roman way of structure and discipline is supposed to have perfected the church?
I don't, I think papal infallibility is a way of cementing long-held beliefs as doctrine. Take for example the accession of Mary. The legal process is a way of formalizing the dogma and distinguishing it from other Church declarations, if that makes sense.
and what a just cause that must be.
Quoting out of context is cool and all, but I hadn't explained almost anything I said. Sure, I had some ambiguous caps to the questions I asked, but hadn't explained any of it. It's 4chan though. Who here is taking any of this 100% seriously? (rhetorical)
And I'm curious how I fell into the category of "propaganda" without addressing anything specific in that post.
There is enough to choose a side depending on ones own interpretations. One cannot be 100% certain of anything in this world, but we can hold reasonable beliefs based on what we know. We can say: the probability of A is greater than the probability if B. therefore I believe A over B.
It makes perfect sense, I'm just surprised to hear it because it seemed like you were stating it was the truth as a fact you believed. Basically, I didn't want to just say that myself lest I disturb your faith or whatever. If you openly expressed this knowledge of Papal proceedings to your average Catholics, would they be more likely to call you a heretic or agree? I mean, historically Catholicism is as much government as religion, but I don't know if people today are comfortable with acknowledging that.
It is, by definition, a just cause.
Feel free to explain it all any time, I'm not discouraging you.
You didn't fall into the category of propaganda, you're not OP.
I'm enjoying the shit out of you anon, and I respect you, too. I recommend you read some Aquinas, based af.
>Francis is the fucking coolest, and the whole church is better for him being there. Pretty sure he's staying up at night thinking about how far he can push things without getting assassinated.
>Why are good catholics on /b/ anyways? It's the porn, isn't it?
I'm on /mu/ and /lit/ almost exclusively but a non-religious friend sent me this post and I couldn't resist.
>Oh, about the thorn nuns and the self-flagellation, I'd argue that, like many other Catholic things, they're less manifestations of love and piety and more manifestations of repression and kinkiness.
I disagree but whatever, it's not something I care too much about.
>If a pope accidentally contradicts a previous pope, what do you do?
Papal infallibility again is a legal process and cannot be invoked. contradict Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Never in history has it contradicted Sacred Magisterium because it is not invoked often.
And I was just starting to like you.
>The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) involves a merger of at least two apparently disparate traditions: Aristotelian eudaimonism and Christian theology. On the one hand, Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end—the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness, where “happiness” is understood in terms of completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of happiness and motivate us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.
>On the other hand, Aquinas believes that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in this life. For him, final happiness consists in beatitude, or supernatural union with God. Such an end lies far beyond what we through our natural human capacities can attain. For this reason, we not only need the virtues, we also need God to transform our nature—to perfect or “deify” it—so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude. Moreover, Aquinas believes that we inherited a propensity to sin from our first parent, Adam. While our nature is not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless diminished by sin’s stain, as evidenced by the fact that our wills are at enmity with God’s. Thus we need God’s help in order to restore the good of our nature and bring us into conformity with his will. To this end, God imbues us with his grace which comes in the form of divinely instantiated virtues and gifts.
Christianity for instance, doesn't demand a relative, half-hearted belief to meet its tenants.
Bible belt fag here. Almost every Christian I know is more than happy to say they believe in their religion completely in comparison to an alternative. No "I believe this because it makes more sense than that". It always seems like an all-or-nothing commitment.
Rather than picking one of the two extremes due to relative belief, why not just call it as it is and say that there is not 100% proof either way? Agnostic=honest and/or informed
My confessor and friend (a Cardinal) agrees with me on this and so do most of our friends. I haven't heard much controversy when discussing it, I think most people just think this way, but I probably have a very skewed sample.
Actually you can't say that, because probability is a mathematical concept and we can't even frame the correct questions to do the math yet, let alone get access to the processing power necessary to do so in a time period that ends before the universe drifts apart. Like I say, hopefully quantum computing will help.
When you talk about the probability of Theory A over Theory B where both are abstract, cosmic, universal, etc...that's just, like, your opinion man. There's really no good guide other than maybe Occam's Razor, which isn't a scientific concept so much as a friendly guideline.
Interesting system of priority of truths, very organized.
Gnostic = "We do know" or "we can know", in my case, the latter sentiment. Not part of an order who gave themselves the name. I don't belong to any belief group, they all seem to be wrong about something I think is important and I just trust my own judgement more than centuries of wisdom interpreted by present heirs to it.
But anyways, you don't need to like me, the great thing about anonymity and impermanence is that once this thread 404s I'm gone forever, and even if we meet in another thread we won't know it.
Right, I imagine it varies somewhat by region. Still, that's encouraging.
religion is here for one major reason and thats to tell people of "laws" back in the day fuckers lived rural as shit so the higherarchys made up all seeing people aka gods the peasents fell for it .im not saying im atheist but religion is a faith a belief shit doesnt work unless you beleave in it
>Gnostic = "We do know" or "we can know", in my case, the latter sentiment. Not part of an order who gave themselves the name. I don't belong to any belief group, they all seem to be wrong about something I think is important and I just trust my own judgement more than centuries of wisdom interpreted by present heirs to it.
>But anyways, you don't need to like me, the great thing about anonymity and impermanence is that once this thread 404s I'm gone forever, and even if we meet in another thread we won't know it.
B-but I do like you, anon-kun.
Thread archived here^
We are eternal.
I've only been replying via phone from a dinner, but rereading the whole of this thread... I have to say, this is the most non-/b/ thread I think I've seen in years. In a good way.
It's a lot more intellectual and interesting than I had guessed it would be. Sorry if I came across as an ass to anyone, not that it really matters.
Nope, it was Jefferson's term with regards to the Bill of Rights. It doesn't mean the government cannot make references to religion or anything like that, it means the government cannot ban religions or more particularly establish a compulsory national religion.
The funny thing is, he was reassuring the Baptists that the government wouldn't interfere with them worshipping in what way they chose.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Basically, as long as you're not being thrown in jail for not adhering to a religion, separation of church and state is being upheld.
Religion is bait to the ignorant.
Religion topic is bait.
Why listen to churchfags defend themselves?
About Christian gnosticism, I'm not a fan of the belief that the demiurge is separate from a Supreme Being. Also the nature of Jesus' humanity and deity-ness taught in gnostic schools is weird af. Basically Christian gnostics can get fucked
is me, I forgot to take off autosage.
I haven't paid much attention to IDs beyond to figure out who I'm responding to, but the great thing about anonymity is any level of hyperbole, ALL CAPS, or seemingly personal insults can be flung back and forth without it meaning anything.
For instance, if I start a post with "listen you retarded fucking bigot shitlord, fuck off and kill yourself, but first I'm going to tell you why you're a blight on the human race you fucking faggot", it's the same thing as if I'd started the post with "interesting opinion, allow me to elucidate my previous counterpoints", and in my case, the sentiment is the same, I just vary my replies for flavor and because it's fun to manipulate the reactions of faceless strangers.
To be fair, in my opinion the Catholic view of Christ's divinity is pants-on-head retarded. But, that extends to every doctrine that includes the trinity in any way, shape or form.
But then, on the other hand, you have fedoras claiming herp derp there was never a guy named Jesus, like of all things to make up to legitimize a religion, these old world writers would conspire to make up such a figure as opposed to some mighty prophet king blazing in glory.
Some good reading from C.S. Lewis on the issue of true moral law vs. the evolved herd instinct. He explains this better than I could. From his book Mere Christianity, which I highly recommend
Based on what logic?
How are those even directly related?
A higher being could still have made the monkeys, or the microbes, or the primordial ooze, or the planet conducive to life, or the god particle.
Or I could have come from somewhere else but no higher being involved, the theory of evolution is badly outdated and Dawkins' patch jobs have only gone so far.
Also, to be picky about it, it's sharing a common ancestor with all apes a ways back.
My parents have both read this book, but I can't bring myself to. I mean, just the Narnia series became so preachy by the end.
It's funny because Lewis seems way more Catholic in demeanor than Tolkien ever did.
1. Hey guys let's play a game where absolutely nothing goes wrong, and everything is 100% perfect A's monotonous forever and ever.
2. So that we can find our own path to him.
3. God exists outside of time, therefore a chain of events to lead to God's creation is not needed.
Let us remember that op is and always will be a faggot-Jesus
Man just back off Narnia, that fucking book series was my first foray into reading.
I'm pretty sure that light blue guy is on some powerful retardant. By which I mean he's fucking dumb as shit. What makes you say Lewis seemed more Catho than Tolk? The anecdote I most remember about Tolkien is how when the priest would say something in English and the whole congregation responded in English, Tolkien would loudly answer in Latin.
Disliking Vatican II is like the most Catholic thing ever.
1.well in heavenwe all wanted to have a body. So Lucfier had an idea to bring us all back to when we died by giving us no freedom to do any thing sinful. Jesus came up with the other idea of giving us the freedom to choose. 1/3 choose Lucfier and never got a body.
2.idk were you heard that from. But god forgives all sin if the proper steps are taken. And the freedom to choose again.
3.god was a man at some point, he rised to the goly of being a god himself.
If events rely on a temporal dimension, a temporal dimension could not "come to be", so how does one exist?
There were lots of calendars back in the day, they all got fused into one under the Catholics.
Besides who doesn't like Jews? They're adorable and kill Muslims who would otherwise outright genocide them. Don't even tell me you're not impressed with the Six-Day War. They were making tanks out of everyday vehicles long before the Syrian rebels got attention for it.
I guess because Tolkien's fiction is mostly either unconcerned with religion or very subtle in its messages, whereas Lewis' is structured and forthright and very continuous.
No, though it might mean your prenatal development was impaired by drug abuse. I'm pretty sure that doesn't have anything to do with what I said, though.
Your parents went halfway around the globe to fornicate at Woodstock when there were so many other perfectly good places to fornicate?
I've never read the Narnia stuff, but that is interesting.
Mere Christianity isn't preachy at all. He doesn't even bring up Christians until half way through the book. Most of the content is based on speeches he gave on morality and other things to WW2 soldiers facing likely death
The thing about Jesus is that he's just a prophet. Along with every prophet before him, people experienced miracles around them.
The only problem that occured with Jesus is that people thought he was the son of God because of these miracles; being born to a virgin, curing blindness etc.
how about you just read the fucking bible OP. whether you believe in it or not, if it's all a lie or the truth the answers are right there if you seek them that badly don't go to fucking /b/ for an actual intelligent answer about who created the universe ya dipshit.
My biggest problem with most religion is how people manage to pick and choose what parts they like and decide that those are the "real" parts and the rest can just conveniently be ignored.
This is especially true when people talk about what they think heaven is like. Everyone has these oddly specific things that they apparently believe will happen after they die, and the only rationale you can get about why they think that is "we'll that's what I want/it sounds nice"
I have to assume that most religious people don't REALLY believe the bullshit they're spewing, but the idea of simply not existing after you die is just so terrifying that it's easier to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
suck it jew lovers
Job 39:9-12King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
jesus is a prophet
I guess just because Lewis is authoritarian and forthright in his religious message, whereas Tolkien's is subtle or absent entirely in most or all of his fiction.
I'll probably read it sometime, that and some of Behe's stuff, Kant if I can get through that overly wordy slog, and a bunch of others, have a whole list. Want to write a few books before I read many non-fiction ones though, so I can organize my thought and maintain my purity of understanding rather than be drawn into formal and often espoused ideologies just because my philosophical understanding is still in the formative stages.
I'm afraid that if I have any original ideas or takes on things, too much reading might cause me to forget them or adapt them to the form given by the authors, and then I'd lose original knowledge.
Seriously, Six-Day War, read about it and the period following it and the whole thing about Israel will make more sense. Originally, the Jews didn't even want Jerusalem.
This is generally known as apologeticism or revisionism, and it is a good point because people will slide around back and forth and keep their belief too nebulous to be challenged.
However, when someone says "Oh sure, Christians can just pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible and what they want to think different verses mean"...of course they can, it's the basis for their faith, they can take it in whatever fucking way they want lol. Like, why couldn't/should they? It's FULL of metaphors, some more explicit than others; even unbelieving scholars disagree massively on what the Jews were really trying to say.
it's kinda fucked up to think that an omnipotent being who had no parents and was there and will be there, has a child.
People believe the son of God idea because Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. Instead if seeing that as a miracle, they saw that as him being the son of God.
What about Adam? Noah? Aaron? Moses, Job etc?
Are they all sons of God? No, they are creations of God.
God is one
He has never had children
He was never born from parents
He will always be the One and Only
i'm certainly not pissed off about religion. I am a catholic Christian like my father was and his father and so on. My ancestors are smiling down at me. Can you say the same about yours?
What the world needs isn't less religious people, it's more quakers.
Think about it, when's the last time that you met a Quaker who was an asshole? The last time a Quaker tried to pass some bullshit legislation? Or picket a funeral?
Think about it.
What are Catholics known for?
Opposite to female autonomy.
Crazy protests and crazier legislation.
Flying planes into buildings.
You would think that if a book were meant to be the word of god, and that the god you're worshiping is all powerful, they would do at least a halfway decent job of keeping dark age political beliefs out of their rulebook.
If you have to use your own moral judgements to decide what parts of the book explaining what is moral are correct....what's the point?
For instance, on the topic of metaphors and translations, everyone cites the "pillar of sand" thing as bullshit where God is pointless and cruel, but what's translated as "looked back" could just as validly be translated as "fell behind" or "hung back indecisively".
The Jews had one word for mineral deposits, so "salt" is the same thing as "limestone", which at the time statues were made out of.
"Pillar of salt" = Statue. Statues, back then even more than today, were symbolic of examples.
So what the scripture is saying is Lot's wife (it was his wife I think?) didn't believe him, dragged her feet, and got killed by lava or scorching gas or whatever when the volcano buried, I think it was Tyre? Haven't read it for a while. Point is, you read that and think "God turned her into salt for looking back at her own home? What a dick." but the Jews read that and were like "ahh, the moral of the story is that if God warns your husband some shit is about to go down, go along with it, obey God".
That's just the tip of the iceberg, they would often say God killed people or it was his will they died just to avoid acknowledging Satan, because the Jews thought of Satan like a cosmic edgy preteen who fed on attention and misery and should never be mentioned if it could be helped.
King James Version is bullshit, King James was a shithead who burned the Gutenberg bibles in Britain.
Are you #implying God should have intervened and said, "No, don't write that!" when a Jewish scholar or Christian monk was copying something that wasn't entirely accurate.
>If you have to use your own moral judgements to decide what parts of the book explaining what is moral are correct....what's the point?
>This is generally known as apologeticism or revisionism, and it is a good point because people will slide around back and forth and keep their belief too nebulous to be challenged.
>However, when someone says "Oh sure, Christians can just pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible and what they want to think different verses mean"...of course they can, it's the basis for their faith, they can take it in whatever fucking way they want lol. Like, why couldn't/should they? It's FULL of metaphors, some more explicit than others; even unbelieving scholars disagree massively on what the Jews were really trying to say.
This is assuming that God still directly interferes with human affairs, which there seems to be this vague consensus that after Jesus he took his fingers mostly out of the pies.
Like, most Christians think Jesus and the disciples type miracles happened, but no one today could perform them with any amount of faith.
Who was the last politician to be endorsed/awarded by Quakers at an organizational level?
Dennis Fucking Kucinich.
Look at this guy, read on what he's done, what other religion has Dennis Kucinich?
What if they're only good because there aren't enough for them to become assholes?
I do agree though, Quakers were/are pretty cool. Shakers too, though as a small church pastor I know put it:
"The main difference between the Shakers and the Quakers was that the Shakers didn't really believe in sex, which is why none are around anymore."
I don't know where you live, or what type of people you know, but where I come from every single little thing that happens that is even slightly convenient get's attributed to god.
And yes, if you are an all powerful being, and you're planning to write a book to explain to everyone what they should and shouldn't do, it should be fucking accurate and you should probably do something that is in your infinite power to make sure misinterpretation doesn't lead to countless deaths and wars. That would be the smart thing to do.
He's a pretty terrible Catholic though, he's been pro-choice for 12 years.
What I said is that he was endorsed by Quakers -- he got the Gandhi Peace Award from PEP, which is affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends.
Oh, and guess who introduced Dr. King to nonviolent protest?
The fucking Quakers.
Please explain the jump from "something created the universe" to deciding that the creator is sentient, and specifically created mankind, and also comes down and talks to us every once in a while.
I respect your opinion about organized religion OP.
But not about the bible.
That book accuses every one of us no exceptions. It does not make mankind out to be decent. But it has been messed with in all its translations. Mostly by evil power hungry men. The same men who had Christ crucified. Christ was no great supporter of organized religion either. He was trying to get men to understand their personal relationship with God not to form great groups and control others.
Admittedly he tried to teach his disciples much about the Hebrew faith. He tried to get them to understand who we all are and why we are here.
He was not totally successful at that either.
But then prophecy made pretty clear that would be the case.
The real problem is that NO ONE teaches the things that should be taught.
They disregard the things God put in place (10 Commandments) and try to promote crap that God never was overly concerned about (Kosher diet, and original sin of eating apples ion a garden) Fact us Adam and Eve did not commit sins that condemn all of mankind to hell they committed sins that meant mankind could no longer live in the Garden. But the reason mankind is born in to sin has nothing at all to do with the Garden of Eden. It has to do with the fact that we existed before we were ever born as God said of men like Jacob and Essau.. Noah's flood was not world wide nor was it meant to destroy humans. Look up
o the term Gheber. Again I understand why a person would give up on religion with all the non biblical traditions that are taught. But the Bible contains some truth for those willing to do the homework and understand its meaning. No it is not 100% the word of God. But it does contain some of the word of God and the words of Christ. Again enough that if one really seeks to understand it one can.
Religion, until recently, was mainly just the silk gloves rulers war as their excuse for wars. Crusades and Jihads were out of greed, lust, bloodlust, xenophobia, boredom, malcontent, a desire to direct all of these negative emotions of the common man at an external enemy rather than at their often harsh rulers.
Fallout 4 should be set in a far flung future where society has rebuilt and banned all religions or concepts of separatism like countries, and then everything falls to shit anyways, with the tagline:
"For man had succeeded in destroying the disparate schools of thought - but war, war never changes."
I just wrote it. Should be noted that DNA isn't strictly hex as we think of it, because it has a three-bit (if you consider one pair a hexadecimal bit) stop signal. I forget which combination, but basically if the mechanisms hit three of that specific one ever, they stop reading and finish up.
Not all who claim to be Christians are Christian. And certainly none of us as people are perfect no not one. Christ was the only one ever to have done as God demanded of all of us and yet still men put him to death.
The fact is that folks are not going to be judged based on what the Pope calls thew law, nor what I or some preacher may say is right or wrong.
Each of us will be judged by God based on our own measure our own hearts.
How we treat one another is far more important than if we sit our butts in a pew every Sunday.. Or buy a church a bell..
you goyim will never understand
and that is good, because for the goyim to understand would be to teach an ape to use weapons.
we goods chosen carry fourth the teaching of our ancestors and we study the knowledge of our teachings, and we use those for our successes in life. keep taking our sacred texts for face value, don't read between the lines. we are gods.
A true matter for debate.
Some believe he was God thus fulfilling Gods promise to do this very test much as you have.
Regardless he existed and he never said we should worship him he said we should worship God.
Not all religions have a creative entity.
Not all religions have a creator of mankind.
Not all religions involve distinct sentient entities other than humans.
Certainly not all think anything comes and talks to them.
Heisenberg never said "Seventh-Day Adventist God" or anything of the sort.
That said, I am defending the idea that a sentient created the world and the universe at large as being no more outlandish than any other theory, say for instance the idea of pocket dimensions or an infinitely radiant multiverse being theorized just to explain the movements and states of existence of a few subatomic particles...both of these theories are currently taken quite seriously in the scientific community. Interestingly, they're spurred by the utter shock at discovering something which doesn't make immediate, harmonious, logical sense by conventional standards; this just highlights the order apparent in the universe.
Why think the data was engineered? Well, why not? It's turtles all the way down, whichever way you go.
And since rulers will use any excuse for war, god decided that it was too much hassle to not have his word be mistranslated, amended, and misunderstood to the point of sending conflicting messages and being able to be interpreted to call for people to go to war against one another.
If there was a god, who was interested in peace and love, and didn't want people killing each other. It just seems to me that when writing the book about how we aren't supposed to do those things, he would have made that stuff clear, and not muddled it up with stories about killing, and maybe nudged a few people here and there while they were voting on which books belonged in the final version, or how to translate a certain word into a different language.
Funny Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 would seem to imply that Gods chosen have fallen from the path and now God has opened the Kindom up to more than just the Hebrew people..
Course Gods chosen were the Hebrew people this malarkey about "jews" being the "Chosen People" is just that malarkey. If one claims to be Hebrew believes in Christ as Messiah and Worships God one is one of the Chosen People. Generally if one claims to be a jew these days one is a liar and of the Synagogue of Satan as Revelations teaches. That is Hebrews can be Jews but not all who claim to be jews are truly Hebrews. Many claim that particular race / religion just for the social benefits and to feel superior to their fellow men.
For example I am probably a Hebrew of the line of Naphtali but that does not mean I can prove it or that I consider myself any greater than any other race. Race was a matter of importance only until the Lord was born. So that he could fulfill the prophecy and the promise. Now it does not matter at all.
My biggest problem with the idea of a sentient god, is the distinct lack of falsifiability.
It also feels like you're halfway to a god of the gaps argument since you're basically arguing that it's just too complicated and we don't understand how it could have come to be, therefore god.
Again, you're assuming that God would be the type of being to muck about in the affairs of humans and take away their free will. Granted, the bible seems to suggest just that, especially if you take the KJV Old Testament at its apparent western face value. But it was written a long time ago and translated more than once, and the symbolism that remains apparent is too often ignored and the old mistranslations go uncorrected.
Basically, your idea that God has to be this super tryhard who interferes with everyone is the fault of the Jews themselves, the translators, and all the people with agendas who had it rewritten. It's a catch-22...if the depiction of God is accurate as it seems immediately apparent in the book, the book could not have been corrupted. But if the book was corrupted and its meaning is linguistically difficult to parse out, then we can't know that it actually claims to have a God who would stop it from being corrupted in such a way that his nature would become unclear.
Pity the scholars and archaeologists...
For what it's worth, I also think the divinity of scripture is absurd, and it's absurd to think a god would give people a divine and perfect word then let it get dirty, but there is something to say for the Devil's Advocate viewpoint I laid out above, which in this case is actually a God's Advocate I guess?
You'd be right if I said "therefore god", but what I'm saying is "therefore stop pretending sky wizard theories are any more ridiculous than our most respected scientific ones, given a wide enough lens". If it weren't too complicated for us to work out (yet), someone would have already worked it out one way or the other. It's certainly not from lack of trying. I didn't grow up around philosophers and I still try as hard as I can to understand it all, it's an innate curiosity that can only be repressed.
I'm agnostic, but religion makes complete sense for it to exist. The concept that we simply turn to dust and vanish from existence forever is a really foreign concept. Accepting that fact is just not something a lot of people could mentally ever handle. Religion provides a means to alleviate that fear. We all want to exist forever, but death is quite real so an afterlife is realistically the only way to solve that problem. While I have accepted that after I die, I'm gone, it is totally understandable while most of the world's population can't.
to be fair kosher products are real cheap, never buy whole black pepper or poppyseeds from the spice section go to the kosher isle and i kid you no you can find spices for 8 dollars cheaper then that mccormick shit
Yeah well the more dead-inside cowards who have an imaginary friend walk the earth, the weaker we become as people because we scramble like pitiful fucking creatures to justify something that was disproven ages ago. You fuckers pull all kinds of excuses from your colons and think you're better than those who work harder than you to understand how life works when you have nothing to show for other than a book intended to control those who know no better and are drenched in fear. Scum.
Any version of god that we have on earth, if it were based on an actual god, would automatically mean that it has at least at some point decided to "muck about in the affairs of humans" at least to the point of telling them who it is, and what it wants. Past that we're back to a more deistic concept of a creator, that I don't really see the need to even attribute sentience to, at which point we might as well be talking about natural forces that created the universe and drop the idea of god entirely.
The thrust of my falsifiability post what that, at least with every scientific hypothesis about the creation of the universe, if should be falsifiable, if it isn't we are just coming up with nice ideas. I would say that any theory we have with some grounds in the laws of the universe is more likely to be true than one we come up with because we don't understand what's going on and that scares us.
I'm agnostic, for the most part I agree with what you said. the belief in God doesn't seem like the dumbest thing in the world but believing in everything the bible says and following everything in it does.
Oh, this is an interesting topic here, I have to challenge that for the sake of the discussion.
What makes apathy a strength?
First, is apathy really a strength for a human being, all things considered?
Second, for an (apparently) invulnerable and immutable being which cannot be unmade or killed, what purpose would apathy serve in strengthening that being?
You've accepted the belief, not the fact, and you can't just attribute all non-belief in your belief to fear. That's what religious people do, hah. Thinking about the universe in terms of information, consciousness runs on newtonian physics runs on quantum physics, like networking layers. What if the universe were, in effect, a simulation? What's the hardware? Is the data backed up, or is there a further permutation after the simulation is run? What would even constitute direct continuation of your conscious existence, as opposed to being "cloned" into an alternate paradigm with the "original" gone?
Personally, I think gone forever or some sort of continuation is about a coin flip in likeliness. Just my overall guess. What that continuation would be? Well, it could be literally anything, right?
Hebrew National hotdogs are so good. But I don't care what anyone says, seven in a package isn't about God's number, it's about you buying either more hot dogs or more buns and then more hot dogs because you can only get buns in packs of six or eight.
The difference is that when you drop the idea of sentience, the meaningful, organized data bit stops making sense, like, why does it exist? And granted, who created the creator, but again that's the same as what created the god particle.
I'm pretty sure at least some various ethnic beliefs involved spirits which the people believed in without thinking they interfered with human affairs.
Again, attributing all disagreement with fear on the part of the people disagreeing just isn't a good argument. Cont in next post.
Sorry to interrupt brother.
Just want to kind of confirm and deny your comment here.
Yes the KJV is a corrupt translation of Torah and Massorah both the lessor and greater.
But the truth can be sussed out of that book still.
The fact is that even in Moses time the Kenites or Scribes were perverting his words and using them to control mankind.
Evil men still exist today and pervert religions of all types.
The fact that the "jews" have not strepped forward to correct the OT texts is more revealing about them and how threatened they were by Christ and his teachings.
The Chosen people have been for the most part replaced by infiltrators and liars who are no more jewish than bacon.
Christ revealed that when Israel was to one day again exist after his death and its destruction. That it would be filled with both Wheat (True and faithful Hebrews) and Chaff (Liars who claimed to be "jews") He also pointed out that these eveil men have existed since the time of Adam and that they knowingly follow the direction of the devil in as much as a person of faith follows the Holy spirit a Kenite follows the Unholy spirit. Today after 2000 years of protection from super natural event mankind has been so filled with nonesence that when fallen Angels DO once again get cast down among us most will accept them as aliens or some other BS that mankind has been taught to accept as possible truths.
We are more primed now to accept the Anti Christ or Satan who will not be a human being than we have ever been before in history..
I am sure you will want to reject this as tripe.
But just know that if ever you see a being in Israel claiming to be Christ or Alien or 12th Imam it is a liar. DO not believe it. Maintain your very healthy doubts even though your eyes may deceive you.
May peace be with you.
What about Satanism, which is literally just Catholic rebels and superstitious I-want-to-believes? Or Islam with its strapping bombs to children? Or people who believe in voodoo or ghosts or think rainbows are government chemicals?
The theory of a god is just as disprovable as the theory of a god particle, which is widely accepted in the scientific community. That is, we can make test cases to disprove them, but we simply cannot run the numbers yet. Microsoft and others in California are working on isolated, self-correcting qubits which if it ever bore fruit could make scalable quantum computing a reality, and then, with the right methods of asking for solution, like current sorting logarithms used in software today (n^2, n-1, etc) but a thousand times more confusing, we might be able to start on some of the preliminary math.
That, or we'll just end world hunger, render war and sickness obsolete, merge bionics and regenerative medicine, enlarge lifespan to ???, and spend all of our time arguing on /b/ about things we still can't answer.
Either way, I hope they figure it out.
If you have questions, tonight is a good night. Watch the harvest crusade, it's streaming right now. It will be tomorrow night too if you can't now. It's at http://www.harvest.org
Every generation since the Antichrist stuff was written has had lots of people saying this is the one, the time is now, evil has run more rampant than ever before.
Each has had its mistranslators, its liars, its new horrors against human decency.
But each generation has had its triumphs.
Not too long ago, we wiped out smallpox. Any God worth serving would be happy about that. The species is slowly, agonizingly, unevenly, getting better all the time.
So yeah, I guess I would dismiss it as tripe. I also would not be likely to believe anyone who claimed to be any form of deity without some pretty compelling proof.
>The difference is that when you drop the idea of sentience, the meaningful, organized data bit stops making sense, like, why does it exist?
Why does there need to be meaning behind it?
If we're talking specifically about life and evolution and DNA, the universe is incredibly large. We understand more or less how evolution works, so we really just need to know how a bunch of organic materials randomly form together into something very complicated that could replicate itself. Given just the number of stars in the observable universe, all surrounded by some unknown number of planets, it seems fairly likely that at some point in all of that there would be a random small bit of order among all of the chaos.
With the idea of god being falsifiable, I still can't agree with you. If at any point we made some discovery which appeared to "disprove" god, any religious person who wanted to would just jump some form of "god is all powerful and can choose to make himself known/unknown as he see's fit" or "god isn't limited to our reality." I can't tell you how many times I have had religious people explain to me that god exists outside of existence.
Anyway, I'm tired. It was nice talking to someone for 10 minutes on 4chan without turning to calling eachother faggots.
Good night faggot.
Your right, even it was only written 10 years a go, it would still be bullshit.
If the universe is so complex it needs a creator to explain it, wouldn't god, who would be even more complex, need explanation?
And why would he make the only actual "proof" or "evidence" of his existence at all so contradictory and wrong? And if god can be an uncaused cause, why can't the universe?
Morality exists because of natural selection. Killing is wrong. All the species that had the behavioral adaptation that killing was okay died, etc etc. The whole concept of god is human-centric. And why would god allow people to change his word?
I believe that the Catholics have pushed that particular teaching.
I know the "apostles creed" has been perverted into making it seem that the trinity is 3 and yet one.
I try to avoid this particular debate.
That is "Christs divinity".
I suggest the worship of God, and the following of Christs teachings. Not the worship of Christ.
I also understand that the Holy Spirit as an example in the US is best explained by Cartoons where one sees a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other of the main Characters. We are all inspired by both Good and Evil and it is quite possible that for some of us these inspirations may actually be an "external" influence. Some one saying "The devil made me do it" may not actually be lying.
To be honest though before you may accuse me? I do not know the exact first appearance of the holy trinity in organized religion.
The answer to your first two questions are that God created us to have free will. We're free beings. We're not his angels. We're a free creation with our own brains and ideas and thoughts. We aren't perfect. God wanted us to be free thinkers and beings. He wants us to recognize him on our own, not like robots created as his forced servants. He wants it to be willingly.
Would you rather a robot girlfriend you made to forcfully do everything you want it to? Or a real girlfriend who chooses to love you? It's a similar thinking to this.
To your last question, God has always been and always will. He's the only eternal being. As long as time has been, so has he. It's a little difficult to comprehend eternality, but it's the answer.
Forgot the image.
Check it out.
I think we kind of have the same point. I'm just saying religion makes sense as an explanation for a continuation. While it might not be the "right" explanation, it's all we as humans have come up with so far.
Quite simply, the math just doesn't make sense.
I understand that math involving very large numbers can lead to strange illusions of meaningful data, but as far as I can estimate the math, it just seems unlikely that given the myriad possibilities, the relatively short time the universe is theorized to have been around, and the size cap on particles, that so many complex chains of seemingly entirely meaningful data and events would have unwound at any one pinpoint. That massive gauntlet of irreducible complexity necessitating exact, precise, major, perfect code overwrites within the miniscule lifespans of so many diverse species, coupled with the fragile temperature, pressure, atmosphere, lighting conditions needed for the specific life, the very counterspin of the Earth's core providing a magnetic field strong enough to deflect enough radiation that the ozone could develop and serve its purpose, a magnetic field which resets itself to renew its strength, migratory animals dependent on the same, too much variance of scale, too much detail, too many perfectly intertwined happenstances dovetailing. I'm not buying random chance.
As to your complaint about god scaling, I could say the same thing about scientific theories as to the origins of our species, our world, our universe. Huxley and Dawkins did that egregiously with Darwin's now outdated theory, the community kicked out those who disagreed with them, Darwin's face is on money and he's worshipped globally.
It's not a one way street.
Already addressed this, both God and the god particle run into a "turtles all the way down" scale problem, and this is an innate human quandary, not one caused by religion.
Right, hence why everyone always tries to come up with new, better, often derivative religions or insists on saying they don't follow a religion, they follow "the truth" and dislike religion, e.g. only their religion is true lol. Christians do that a lot, other people too.
Most of those who trumpeted about the end is nye.
Did so prior to 1948 and the re-founding of Israel.
If you read Matthew 13 it is one of the few times Christ actually explains a parable to the Disciples. It involves the end of days and makes pretty clear that Israel would have to once again exist. Also that when it did finally again exist that not one generation would pass before all was fulfilled. A generation in the bible is 40, 70 or 120 years and Israel was re-founded and recaptured by 1967 so you are welcome to try and decide when the clock began ticking and when all things will be fulfilled, but of course Christ also said that only God would know the time.. We as faithful watchmen can only know the season.
You must not live in the US, because every year some church group or other is predicting the end of the world here.
Anyways, doesn't matter to me because I think the prophesies in the bible are all purposefully vague because they're meant either symbolically, or the person writing is essentially doing a cold read of the future.
You're obviously young enough to not have sat down and considered a few things. Whatever all this is, it came of something. We are not from, but of. I don't exactly follow the ideals that jesus or allah or whoever was instructed by god, but even science will lead you to understand there's something beyond us. I choose to accept it as 'god'. God is not directly or mutually exclusive to our existences. He, in my opinion, is an indifferent being. Whether you rape children of saved 2 billion jews or believe in him or not. He is that which governs the universe. I don't feel it's creation was necessarily intentional, but perhaps it was. Either way, to waste so much of you life trying to impose your beliefs on others makes you no better than that which you hate. Regardless. IF what you're saying it what you feel, you're not a hero to shove it on people. It's a journey to discover how you feel. Being correct is arbitrary.
God already knows everything so whatever we create and destroy, he will know and infinite amount of time before it happens. He knows us all, so he knows who will and won't recognize him before he created us, and he knows the consequences of our existence. He doesn't need to see it play out because he knows everything. He created us, so he knows already whether or not we'll love him. A real girlfriend who you already know will love you, and everything that will happen to her, know all her experiences, what she feels, already know her as much as you know yourself, kind of defeats the point of having a girlfriend because she is always with you. she can even not exist and she would be just as real to you. She is you. at least a fraction of you.
So instead of actually countering my points, you just say we can't understand it? And all the "god particle" is is the higgs particle, which through the higgs field gives particles mass. And unlike scientific theories, religion claims to know all the answers before. Science is just the process of which we try to find answers. And test them. Science takes new data and changes based on it. Religion just dismisses new data.
I do live in the US.
I did not mean to imply that folks do not still "predict the end" I only meant that up until 1948 they were positively wrong.
Now well they are almost always still wrong.
I don't predict dates..
I DO give good odds that You and I will live to see it fulfilled. (Unless we happen to get hit by a bus tomorrow.)
There is a lot of symbology in Revelations and in the Bible to be sure. But I am talking just a bit more specifically in regards to Matthew 13.
That there are both good and evil men in Israel, that Israel exist today. That the end of days will occur inside of one generation as I mention above. I am not really into bantering words I am not a writer of tales. Nor a person who seeks power. I am just some guy who works 40 hours a week and happened across a little church that teaches some pretty serious stuff about the bible..
That is they don't try to bend it all about to make money for themselves they just read it and debate what it says.
Why would god allow people to change his word if hes all powerful. He punishes all for the actions of the few. Chances are, we are not doing what his word says we should, even if we follow the bible. And should they be punished for that? No. Thats just a lack of prevention on gods part
Here's a question for you:
Why is it such a big deal that you have to get into complex scientific questions about something that you could just try. You only get one life, why not try things out and see how you like it rather than thinking up a million questions and reasons not to? Why do you care so much what other people think and say and just do things for yourself for once?
It was an obviously subjective post. I stated several times..in my opinion...I think.... etc. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend and all you took from that was a chance to judge someone else. It's going to be a boring life for you.
The only book that hasn't been corrupted is the Koran because muslims memorise it by heart so people cannot edit it.
The thing about abrahamic religions is that they follow Abraham's ideas. One of them being that God is one, and isn't part of anything else.
What I wanna know is why the trinity came about. In my opinion, it strays from the original concepts.
The problem is that in practice, science is often very religious and more about popular opinion and attracting funding than following the scientific method.
And I did counter your point. Your point is that "this is too big for us to falsify right now, therefore it shouldn't be ventured". Which is not at all the scientific way, as I gave examples to demonstrate.
The Higgs particle was something complex enough to create the universe with all of its disproportionately meaningful data and orderly physical laws, so it is in no way a simpler or more disprovable concept than a god, for if the specific idea of it is somehow, by powers of calculation NOT YET PRESENT, disproven, the theory can be modified and carried on, whether it should be or not; as was demonstrated with Darwin's theory.
Higgs particle or creative entity both beg the same questions as to their own origins and both sit outside of concrete definition or our current power to prove or disprove.
Now that I've repeated myself, please, read carefully.
Well, I look forward to a long life of scoffing at unsubstantiated assertions such as yours, or alternately interrogating whatever divine being comes to end the world really really soon, we promise this time.
How does it being subjective excuse direct internal inconsistency? Basically, all you've posted so far to me or OP is mindless scorn without any actual reasoning or even appeal to authority.
Then your only comeback is that my life is going to be "boring" because I called you out on your autofellating bullshit? I'm really sorry for noticing all the cock you smoke, sir.
Good post. We need more "cowards" who won't "just do it" and then make excuses when other people die or eat shit because of their well-meaning blunders.
If his word has been perverted then you are not guilty of not following it.
His plan is not to try and convict you so much as it is to prove to you that Lucifer and those who follow or fight for him are wrong.
Also his plan is to allow those "most loyal to him(God)" to be fooled by Lucifer so they will understand that ANYONE can be fooled and hope fully they will become more forgiving. Perhaps then trusting more in God and letting him do what is necessary to set all things once again to right.
This explanation is probably far too deep for most to understand sorry.
It came about because Roman bullshit and they were trying to absorb all of the heathens in Europe and the Middle East, so they had to offer them similar-seeming beliefs, feasts, warring, etc
There's nothing dangerous about Christianity. There's nothing negative about it. It's a life choice. Even if it was all a lie, I wouldn't regret it because it's changed me from the inside and I've never felt happier. I don't feel empty anymore. If it was all false, it'd still be worth it. But I believe it to not be false. I've felt the change in my life and that's proof enough for me. It's worth trying and making your decision than debating and trying to prove people wrong about something they're passionate about and has changed them and made their lives better.
Translation, and many ideas have been lost.
How can it be the word of God if people decide to write new ideas and shit on it?
Anything that doesn't agree with your point isn't bait, Heaven.
confirmed dude. You're chimping out.
I would strongly suggest that should some supernatural being come to this Earth during your lifetime? You avoid him completely and flee for the hills. You are not in any way ready to face him and do any asking of any questions. But be assure d you will know he is here. Nearly all of mankind will be celebrating his arrival. Some because they think he is here to "Rapture" them away. Some because they think he is an alien. Others because they think he is the 12th Imam here to convert the world to Islam. There will be very few folks like me unhappy to see him and shouting warnings. Most of you will probably still view us a kooks because we deny the Supernatural occurrence that YOU can now/then see right before your eyes as a good thing.
>Being religiously atheist
implying i read the atheist bible or i go to atheist meetings or some shit like that
Honestly outside of lurking on some of these threads, i just don't talk about religion at all
I've tried it all and nothing's satisfied like this does. I've tried other things to please myself besides religion like drugs and relationships and material things, and nothing else has filled the void other than this. I'm obviously not the only one who's done and it and sees it this way.
>There's nothing dangerous about Christianity.
Tell that to all the people killed in gods name.
If it was all a lie, you would realize that you don't need it to be happy. That you just are happy. I'm not saying that Christians, or religious people are dumb, i know there are many religious people who are way smarter than me. I'm saying religion just isn't true.
What does the truth have to do with letting people die?
Explain to me how science is religious. Making predictions BASED ON DATA is a big part of science, but if that prediction is wrong, people in the field will dismiss it and try to find a cause for what did happen.
Hey OP, how's it feel for people to actually be paying attention to you for once in your sad, pathetic, beta life?
1. There would be no happiness without sadness. This is true for love as well. God wants us to love him, but it would mean nothing if we were forced to love him.
2. See number 1
3. Time is a human concept and does not exist for God. For God there is no time, and has existed always.
Different god, those aren't Christians. There's actually a difference. It's easy to say "no that's all religion" but that's dodging the question when you know Christians aren't the ones doing any killing.
Stop posting anon, you're drunk.
Right, but I'm just saying, those weren't "spiritual enlightenment", they were simple material pleasures, not abstract, they're no placebo for existential depression at all.
I'm agreeing with you, pay attention to the quotes lol
You're a fucking idiot. Not only do Christians have a rich and varied history of killing in the name of God, but today's most prolific religious killers are done in the name of the same god. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how ignorant religious people are.
Imagine God as a little kid playing with Legos, or better, as a little kid trying to make his science fair project as good as the other kids.
If you think about complexity as relative, it's a pretty funny thing to imagine. Like, God is all sweating and panicking and trying to figure out how to make the universe stay stable long enough to present and can't decide what will be best for the people inside it either.
>today's most prolific religious killers are done in the name of the same god
Right, because the Nazis were all on a religious crusade, not, you know, thinking they were the master Aryan race due to Darwin's bullshitting about inferior species needing to be pruned.
I suppose Poland was also holy land that Germany and Russia wanted to grab for the glory of Christ, right?
The very fact that they kill in Gods name is what makes them so obviously NOT a part of his flock.
By their fruit you shall know them.
I can claim to be of the faith but if I disobey the commandment not to murder I guess I can't really BE a Christian can I?
That's the part that amazes me..
That so many blame God rather than the people.
God only had the Hebrew people defend the bloodline so that Christ might be born.
Once Christ was born we as people of faith have been taught to die for our faith not to kill for it.
Bottom line religion is for weak ass people who can't accept the fact that their shitty lives is all they get and need some idea of an after life and an upper power looking over them to feel save. There is no fucking god, religion is a scam who ever believes is as big a faggot as op.
????????????? U HAVE BEEN SPOOKED BY THE
??????????????????SEND THIS TO 6 PPL OR SKELINTONS WILL EAT YOU?
I am sure of my words. If there was a god this world wouldn't be as fucked as it is.
Science > Religion
Get the fuck over it.
Each of them claims to worship the true god and says the other worship it the wrong way. If you think the god exists, then you would think they all worship the same god, just two out of three in the wrong way.
Since you don't, stop trying to play both side of street. As an unbeliever, you recognize that each of the three religions disagrees on the nature of an entity which does not exist, and thus they are three separate hypothetical gods with the same Abrahamic root. Obviously they're responsible for the most death, as three of the top five religions by world population are Abrahamic, it's a simple matter of scale.
Which didn't happen.
Because the Jews had financially undermined Europe, varying regions to varying degrees. There was some shady stuff involved with that. The Jews are really more an ethnicity than a religion in the modern world anyways; a non-practicing Jew-by-birth is still more likely to be the CEO of the new venture backed by his uncle's stepbrother than a non-kosher business partner.
Also, because the SS were fucking insane and bloodthirsty. You don't get to blame human nature on whichever religion or philosophy you dislike and just go unchallenged.
Religious idiot detected. Cool emotional arguments and unfounded suppositions, faggot.
>That so many blame God rather than the people.
Nobody blames god, because he isn't real. Religion is an exercise in brainwashing, that some people use that brainwashing as a reason to kill or to cause others to kill is simply one of the consequences.
We don't blame god. We blame the people who kill. The people who kill try to justify their actions through god. And they might even believe it. We can't blame something that doesn't exist. And don't give me that new testament, old testament bullshit
>All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever, Luke:16:17
This world is fucked because of mankind not God.
God does not require us to be selfish..
God = Science he put all the laws in place.
The fact that men do not understand them or God does not make God wrong.
Nor did God say he created the world in 7 days or that Earth is 70000 years old men said that. Read the Torah.
>the only commandments that really matter are love God and love each other
>Jesus, throughout all four gospels
The same book predicts the current heaven and earth passing away and being renewed, lol
>Obviously they're responsible for the most death, as three of the top five religions by world population are Abrahamic, it's a simple matter of scale.
I was correcting his assertion that nobody kills in the name of Christianity's god, I'm not saying that god is any worse than the rest.
Not what I said..
I do not teach that the OT is invalid I teach that it is wrongly translated and that Evil men allow that wrong translation to exist in order to empower themselves..
The 10 commandments are as much in force today as ever. But not every world of the OT is the word of God either.
It's funny that all these people fight to prove something that you don't believe in. You get your jimmies so rustled that people that don't agree with you exist, so you try to outsmart them and they do for you. Even if you outsmart them, they just get mad and firm themselves down in their religion to spite you. There's no point in arguing when you both walk away mad and firm yourselves even further with nothing being solved.
It's like one person sees color and another is color blind, and you're arguing over what color something is. In someone's world, that's black. In yours, it's purple. No one's getting convinced by your back and forth of yelling your thoughts out. They only believe what's real in their eyes.