Religion was created by primitive man as a way of trying to understand the world they lived in. It has literally no use in this day and age. Prove me wrong
well the quran wasnt written to be outdated. still many valid rules therein concerning money, banking, people, society and the like.
some living rules just dont change with better tech or better infrastructure.
People cling to religion because they have so much invested in it; time in church, sacrifices in their personal lives, fond memories of their parents.
In the same way, there are some people who send money to Nigerian email scammers, and even when the emails stop coming, they continue to believe that a bank official is trying to send them millions.
Writing off an investment is difficult. People avoid difficulty.
Implying financial and social actions have anything to do with religion.
Religious people do good thing out of fear of burning in hell for all eternity, atheists do good things because it's the right thing to do. If you need a book to tell you murder and stealing is wrong you truly are a fucking moron
This actually is a valid point, but as I said religion itself is useless, people cling to it out of habit
Okay, I'm assuming you're trolling, but I'm just sitting here being a TA and doing jack shit so I'll enlighten you. Actually, no, bible stories are not just like Greek Myths, they are a step above them, monotheistic and morally focused instead of explanatory (This is an actual part of development of a society). Before I continue I'm actually apathiest and have no religious leanings, but we do need religion today.
You're on /b/, and that means you know about niggers. Now, you think all niggers are smart enough not to do stupid shit and hurting other people with just the law? They're not. The threat of an afterlife of torture/ paradise is the only thing keeping the dumbest 3/4 of the world's population in line. In other words, if someone isn't smart enough to doubt on their own, they very likely can't be trusted without it, SO STOP TRYING TO CONVERT THEM.
It doesn't matter if I did, without the white people they'd inevitably turn on they are not smart enough to conjure up anything more dangerous than a pointy stick, making them essentially harmless to the civilised world. The ensuing cull of niggers would bring about a better world for everyone else.
Not if they were brought up with with Jesus' Golden rule.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's actually a predictor of Kant's Categorical imperative.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Immanuel Kant is considered to be one of the most brilliant ethicists of all time. Jesus beat him to the punch but roughly 1600 years.
The basis of Christianity is actually the Golden Rule, not hellfire. That's more a double incentive. Christians don't do things with a pointy devil is boking them in the ass, they do it because it the 'christian' thing to do.
Actually, that's perfectly rational. You're just pissed off about it.
>not agreeing with you doesn't make someone dumb
>unless you're, like, a teenager or a twenty-something nerd; then you know everything
And the civilised world does things because it's the right thing to do. I'm an atheist and I don't go around murdering raping and stealing, all without a book telling me not too. Therefore religion is outdated and no longer needed for a functioning society. You can put your imaginary friends away with the rest of your toys now.
but human brain is almost the same. People are animals, stupid. It takes a lot to overcome it. We are naturally dumb. I see this as a weird mix of intelligence and stupidity. This mind salad creates stupid but complex ideas.
mythology was the same though, which is the origins of it all. It all has the same idealogy at the core of it.
Zoroastrian came from Iranian polytheists, as they slowly merged gods it became monotheistic Zoroastrianism.
Judaism is said to have similar origins with very large influences from Zoroastrianism.
Then of course Christianity and Sunni are just takeoffs of Judaism.
The only major differences is that over the years monotheistic religions became monetized and organized, they became pseudo-businesses that evolved into international organizations which is why they have survived whereas polytheism has not. There was financial motivation in converting people so people became zealots, whereas polytheistic religions just let people go about their lives.
It is only a matter of time. I was born before Edwin Hubble got around to establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy. It makes sense that there would be a generational gap in theism. It will change in the west as it has in the orient already. Just need to let science permeate the minds of youth and the mission is accomplished.
THIS IS AN OPINION THREAD TO CREATE VIEWS; MOOT NEEDS MORE SHEKELS FROM THE ADVERTISING COMPANYS
THIS IS AN OPINION THREAD TO CREATE VIEWS; MOOT NEEDS MORE SHEKELS FROM THE ADVERTISING COMPANYS
THIS IS AN OPINION THREAD TO CREATE VIEWS; MOOT NEEDS MORE SHEKELS FROM THE ADVERTISING COMPANYS
>It has literally no use in this day and age. Prove me wrong
Sure. Religious texts are old and unusually well cared for, providing clues and information for today's historians and linguists.
It's rational to believe in a man-written book which states another man - the son of God - transformed water into wine, controlled tonnes of water at whim and magically became undead just in case it means you don't go to the hell that the same book defines.
Please, for the love of god and my entertainment, explain how this is rational.
I'm actually surprised with the level of hipsterism intersecting with atheism that more people aren't choosing obscure ancient deities to ironically worship.
You're technically fulfilling your societal expectation to believe in a god, but in a cheeky way.
Who /Bastet/ here?
Whether or not religion is bogus has no effect on if there is a deity or not.
How is it so hard for you atheist faggots to understand that disputing something some asshole wrote a few thousand years ago has no effect, and that stupid book has no connection to any sort of higher power, because it was written by people?
Seriously, it's almost like you think proving that someone did the math wrong for 2+2 changes the fact that it's still 4.
We worked our way into a civilized society, part of its laws, codes of conduct and much of its theory based on christian principles. The way we conduct war is almost solely based on Augustine of Hippo's theory of Just War.
To the second, most people don't, you don't get a trophy for that. A book may teach you valuable information, for example the why you shouldn't do something as opposed to that you shouldn't do it. You can agree that education on a subject contested is at least important, which usually involves reading the book.
>I never said religion wasn't outdated. I said Catholicism is a viable ethical model.
The argument is for Catholicism as a viable ethical model. You've just further established that the principles of its morality are borderline universal and are a otherwise 'obvious' choice. Thanks bro.
Christians who ascribe to Jesus' Golden Rule do no
First of all, which of the hundreds of different Christian/monotheistic/reward&punishment-faiths does this refer to? Many of them have contradictory rules that get you into hell, even within the different Christian sects. Then, there's not committing the total waste of time and effort of worshipping an imaginary friend that is missing from the right side.
Then, there's the question of what kind of God would welcome an unquestioning sheep into paradise, but not someone who won't blindly believe what he's told, and who won't factor in righteous and good living at all when deciding.
Lots of issues with Pascal's Wager. It's stupid, and anybody who ever took it seriously ought to be ashamed.
well a rather visible thing, it is called sun. it does have to do with weather (and insurances(*) as well as storing goods).
did moses society have a pension fund? or unemployment money? or insurances? if this is not the case the rules wont make much sense now.
the fact that the majority of the world believes in Jesus IS PROOF that its true; even when the Greek gods had active cults, the majority of the populous did not consider them serious.
It's not about proving you're wrong. It's about proving you're right. You're making a claim and expecting people to prove you wrong? Isn't that the same bullshit that you faggot atheists have a problem with theists doing?
Something cannot come from nothing. Order cannot come from chaos. Someone, something designed and triggered the creation of the universe. I choose God, since he bothers to care about me.
Because the stories are taught to give values and to explain humanity
Since greek culture created greek myths they know that it's fake and isn't really real. They know the actual value of it
Ad populum or w/e isn't a valid argument technique. Religions are obvious bullshit. A God or higher power is unknown for the time being. To me it seems highly unlikely but there could be.
Irreligious and atheist are different things. I am an agnostic atheist.
a claims that,gods can be seen in any day,gods can even have sex with humans,there is obviosly no such a thing in present
b claims god is above all and no human can see it until he/she passes away to other life
But yeah,you are an atheist so i don't expect much logic from you.
I mean think about it; even if were not talking Christianity, the MAJORITY of the WORLD believes in a God. and the majority believe in one God. and the majority believe in the God of the bible ie. through the three largest religions.
nooooot really brosef. the point is that if we're going to say Catholicism is a viable model, you have to use stuff that's distinctively Catholic not some stuff that's been around forever; if we start saying any ethical system with a good rule or two is a viable system, we'd end up with quite a few conflicts.
So no. I did not do anything to help the Catholicism as a viable ethical model. You missed my point entirely.
I mean,greek gods just wanders around and can be seen even if it has nothing to do with you.
You need direct connection from god to see it.
Also you can prove myhtical creatures don't exist,that is what differs religion from mythology
Conclusion:op is a retarded edge-lord
bitches dont know about my afterlife solution.
but if jesus or whoever was not around to condemn people in the afterlife but fix processes when they happen wrong - jesus or whoever should do timetravel not afterlife care. religion tends to get too personal and too little juridical (processes before people).
no. the default stance is that something is not true. the claim that there is this or that god is where the burden of proof lies.
Now, the way he said what he did is a bit suspect and open him up to some religious criticism, but when it comes to the burden of proof its entirely on the religious side
To be fair, the most religious parts of the world are also the poorest and most unstable, people living in those conditions are more likely to cling to belief systems that gives them some kind of hope. So despite the harm religion does, many people would struggle to live without it.
yey, so im a little bit unsure about anything.
and still havent written the ebook version of the quran with replacement words ('the way', 'Dr. Best', ...) for allah so as not to create a projective persona instead of a figure.
call me a faggot if you will.
how do you know that you are following the right religion?
let me answer that for you
you might think you do, but you dont
religion is the worst thing to happen to mankind
just be good to other people and youll have nothing to worry about
but how do we understand good? good to you may not be good to me; and what happens if we both agree on something as good but it hurts another, then what. the point is at very least religion has given mankind moral compasses to follow.
It's not bait, you said yourself there is no evidence of these creatures therefore the cannot exist, yet you still believe in your God regardless of the complete lack of evidence. Seems kinda contradictory to me.
No, there is no default stance which is a fallacy that you faggots make. The default stance is that humanity has not proven the existence or nonexistence of gods and thus agnosticism is the default stance. Proof is required to swing you in either direction.
No one gives a shit if you're going to say I'm wrong because hurr durr what about easter bunny or santa. The logic is faulty there too. Whether the easter bunny or santa exists is irrelevant because even if they do, they're not responsible for what they're typically credited for. Thus the question of their existence is irrelevant.
God could potentially exist but in such a way where he NEVER interacted with our universe at all. Since you could never prove or disprove god if that was the reality, then atheism has no merit to stand on compared to agnosticism.
>Religion has literally no use in this day and age
It gives dumb people a reason to be ethical and not crack each others head open and feast on the goo within.
Sure I can read ethical philosophy by Kant and J.S. Mill and ponder the nuances of the nature of justice; but do you think that your average dumbass is going to be able to wrap their head around that?
No they need a strictly defined moral code enforced by a vengeful God in order to guide their lives. Granted every now and then someone will incite that God for the cause of Holy War; but on the whole keeping the flock calm and averting anarchy far offsets the cost of a few dipshits blowing themselves up for Allah.
there are wrong people.
the kind of people that will lie if i'm unsure what i ordered ('we did never have that', 'you did never ask for a receipt')
the kinf of people whose mimetic/gestic output does not match words (and sometimes the words they use seem inappropriate although other people use them as well because of the situation).
the kind of people that doing that still appear friendly.
towards some people i just cant grow or be friendly. with them i lack time, with them i lack skill, with them i might even feel angsty - until i realize it is them not me.
being benign and welcoming to them would make me miserable. it is not about the money just about processes and neighbourhood.
including a god who wants to hurt you for doing good (to yourself, to others).
including a god whose decision on hell is 'everyone'.
god is pretty much indiscernable, so god could also be these roles.
Again it's a stupid point, people know certain things are wrong we have this thing called empathy which gives us the ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes and get an idea how we'd feel if it happened to us. If you wouldn't like it, it's a fairly safe bet it's probably wrong to do it to someone else
actually, I'm an ignostic apatheist. I completely agree with you with regards to agnosticism vs atheism.
But i'm talking scientific method for proving something. technically the default stance is the null hypothesis, which in this case is that there is no deity. it's not a fallacy its a methodology.what IS a fallacy is a request to prove a negative ("Proof is required to swing you in either direction." which includes the negative.)
something I'd say proves god doesn't exist is the fact that he is a sinner
no,mytology claims these creatures lived on earth,we can prove they did not,that is why it is a myth.It is contradictory
Religion doesn't claim it is something to be proven,if it could be proven,it wouldnt be a test for people and everyone would magically go to heaven.
But this is simple logic and I know atheists can't follow simple logic so I don't know why i bother replying to you.
>ated by primitive man as a way of trying to understand the
depending of who you are
if you are not smart enough or you suffer from mental problems (can be minor) you will beleave in some kind of fictional god
for such people it is important to move forward otherwise they will be anchors of the society
Chance of any given deity existing: 0
Happiness gained by believing in God if he exists: infinity
Chance of a given deity not existing: 1
Happiness gained by believing an a false God: -1
Add up the two cases, and you get
Happiness gained from believing in God = (0*infinity) - (1 * 1), which is undefined.
So Pascal's Wager tells us literally nothing about whether to believe in God.
some people just aint worth their time.
the best thing i can always do is not deduct their ressources in any way.
so the optimum would be to stay safe of them.
this perhaps is also "doing good" - because nothing change, no harm done either.
wanting to be interested, welcoming, trading, listening, discussing or all of that would just drag me down - because too god related or too guilt related or something like that.
>If you wouldn't like it, it's a fairly safe bet it's probably wrong to do it to someone else
Except that like with all subjective things, it varies from person to person. If I dislike X, that doesn't mean that someone else does. If I like Y, that doesn't mean someone else does.
And how about people without empathy? According to your universe of subjective morality, they can do whatever they want and still be ethical, because they are in fact behaving according to your subjective moral code; and to them, kidnapping and anally torturing you for fun is perfectly okay.
Grow up and have some kids. It's the quickest cure to moral relativist bullshit. Toddlers are the ultimate moral relativists, and will show you the error of your thinking post-haste.
Mythology also claims some dude parted the red sea by waving his hands, this cannot be done and believing otherwise if fucking stupid. Atheists do follow logic and hence don't blindly follow fairy tales in some heavily edited book written over hundreds of years, long after the even had actually supposedly taken place.
this is a good example of lack of perspective; if people would actually READ the bible they would maybe get a clearer picture of what it's all about... I suggest Ephesians first.
You couldn't present a counter-arguement so you are throwing insults and brag about how smart you are
We also have greed, lust, and numerous other desires we can satiate by oppressing, exploiting, robbing or just straight up murdering our fellow man.
Humans are not innately ethical as it is we still have crime, war and tyranny remove ethics and you'd just multiply that chaos..
I'd rather rely on fear of the almighty to keep the masses in line than the assumption that "empathy" is going to hinge society together.
Religion is irrelevant now a day, but the belief of a God, or God's is not, stop being a stupid faggot and live your life, when you die you will find out if there is a God, or if you were right all the time atheist (if there is a life after death of course)
Anyone with a sound mind would not like to be robbed, murdered, raped, beaten etc those that would tend to have a special place in society with padded walls and nice jackets to strap their arms to their bodies. My point is that you don't need a fucking book to tell you these things are wrong and if you do, you probably belong with the people I mentioned.
Toddlers are a good point, they have not been exposed to religion, yet can decipher for themselves the difference between right and wrong so you make a good point there
ok, I think I get it; but we do live in a public world; its not possible to not interact with everybody that "we" would consider to fit this profile... so their must be some kind of compromise somewhere...
Proof of the story of Jesus is what I'm looking for.
You said that ''the fact the majority of the world believes Jesus is proof that it's true'' but I don't see the logic in that?
And given that it's an extremely farfetched tale it seems irrational to follow such beliefs.
It does for those afraid of death and for those who cope with it due to loss of a loved one. Theres other reasons its useful as well.
Just let them be and marvel at the glory that you are strong enough to cope on your own
The null hypothesis doesn't present a default stance of nonexistence. It states that there is no difference in regards to whether God exists or not. In that sense, it's basically saying that the null hypothesis is agnostic in nature.
All these edgy fags who blindly follow the words of another man, no different to religions. Except religions have helped people and mankind and the science they value so highly was spearheaded by catholic cleric-scientists and catholic lay scientists.
I can feel the edge of all of you. I can guarantee you're all aged 16-25.
theirs nothing wrong with not knowing imo; however its when that unkowning turns into a shelter for ones self that's the problem... we as humans tend to try to defend ourselves from what we don't know, and when people choose to just say "their is no God" because they don't understand it is actually preserving ignorant thought and is therefore counter productive... so anyway keep your thoughts open is all...
Do you see the devout Christians running around robbing and murdering?
No, Do you honestly think you're any better than anybody else simply because you feel your opinion is more correct? Whether or not you believe in a god or not the fact that you try and shove your beliefs down the throats of others makes you a cunt. This post is more aimed at the OP but I feel since you replied to me that you fall into a similar mindset as the one I am attacking.
Are you smug in this moment, not because of some phone god's blessing, but because of your superior fedora collection?
right, that's why people still cling to it. To me , it doesn't change the reality, as unpleasant as it is. But my original point is, that they seem to have a better state of mind overall. I mean religious people believe there's just an eternal paradise waiting. who wouldn't want that? Every religion has an afterlife myth. It's not a coincidence. Otherwise, as an atheist you have a life of dread in front you. Yes, many find their own ways to cope but it's fairly depressing at the least.
proposed hypothesis= there is a god(s), etc.
null hypothesis=there is not a god(s), etc.
although you're right to say there we should remain essentially agnostic on the matter (like, seriously. im aware of the agnostic nature of the null hypothesis), the point that you effectively start from is atheism.
what i was originally responding to was the matter of the burden of proof. its on theists. you can't definitively accept atheism as truth because its claim is essentially a negative, but you cant get any further than atheism (that is technically agnosticism) without actual proof.
i feel like we should be in agreement on this.
well im actually trying to go a little more basic than that; im just saying that most people believe in a god, or gods or whatever. so it would be wise to look into the idea of it being a possibility that their is a god, or gods, because of the fact that you cant deny the thought of such an overwhelming majority of people.
btw I am a Christian :) wasn't raised one but I have found it to be true.
That's bullshit. We don't feed a starving man or clothe a child in need because we HAVE to. You're ignorant as all shit. Nowhere in the bible does it say that you HAVE to make charities and that you HAVE to help people. Jesus told people that they SHOULD basically because everyone should help everyone to make it a better world. I won't go to hell because I didn't give a bum my spare change and every Christian knows that.
I wouldn't call it dread the way I see it once your dead that's it so it's better to make the most out of the little time you have rather than waste it in the hopes of eternal happiness
Sure maybe not, but that only points to the controlling aspect of religion. It can be and was used to control the masses. Just as Islam was used to justify the murdering of your enemies and raping of their children.
Religion was and is still a tool used to control the stupid and impressionable.
>I see devout Christians spewing hatred
I call that the world playing church; obviously that's not what the bible teaches; its then obviously their own human nature that act out in evil ways.
Every person has infinite worth. Every person and organism is connected. The universe is god and we are the universe. We are all god. The pineal gland in our brain is our portal to infinity. Sadly people are unaware of their worth and potential because the pineal gland is under attack and has been for generations. Fluoride in the water, meat and the slaughter and cruelty of animals, staring at a computer screen all day... These are things that calcify and harden your pineal gland making it turn off essentially cutting off your antenna to the universe and it's beautiful mysteries.
The worlds fucked up. I never beleived in the first place, but all I know is this.
My dad spent everyday of his life waking up early to go to a job that he fucking hated just because he cared enough about his kids and his wife to do so, and one day what does he get? He fucking dies in a car accident on his way home from work to see the family he so desperately widdled his life away to support. And he just fucking dies.
So my point, and don't you EVEN try and give me that "He works in mysterious ways" fucking BULLSHIT. One of the most honest, and caring people i've ever seen gets to just leave and ruin a happy family, there sure as fuck isn't a god. If there is, he's a fucking piece of shit and i'd rather go to hell than spend eternity with him.
Fuck you christians, fuck you god, fuck you world.
you really are the same as preachers on street. crying you're right never minding how people would feel right?
keep it to your self nigger.
i'm an agnostic but i never say christians are wrong and atheist are right, because you would never know until you die
The default claim of there is not a god makes literally no sense whatsoever in any form. Even if that were somehow what's accepted scientifically, that sounds like some faggot shit some atheists did since the science community is ruled by atheists. There's literally no logical basis for it.
Thus, the burden of proof is not only on JUST atheists. The burden of proof is on one who makes a claim either way. If I say there is a god, I must prove it. If an atheist says there is no god then he must prove it. That's the ONLY side that makes ANY logical sense. Agnosticism is not a negative side. Agnosticism reserves judgement in either direction.
You ever met a 5 year old who without ever being told of a man in the sky, spoke of a man in the sky? Last I checked there were no babies praising Jesus with their first breaths unless their parents told them to do so.
>Sure maybe not, but that only points to the controlling aspect of religion.
That's my point, you need to control the masses to avoid anarchy.
You can do it through fear or you can do it through a moral system backed up by some inane fanciful mythology.
Which do you find preferable?
well that's why Pascal's wager is so beautiful; because it points out that its a choice that is needed to be made whilst living. therefore we one can not simply "wait" and see because by then it would be too late.
Those are considered wrong BECAUSE of religion. If religion never existed, those thing would likely not be seen as very bad. Think of the Stand Your Ground law. In Texas you can legally shoot a man just for stepping on your property and nobody will think you did anything wrong. Now imagine if religion never told people not to murder or rape or steal. Our whole government was made with religion. Our currency involves religion. Most charities around the world are made by religious groups. Religion IS necessary and always will be. Just accept it and go dust your fedora collection off.
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
God isn't a person. It's you. It's the man you loved who died. God is the universe. You have the choice to live in hatred of the force that connects us all, or you could embrace it and be happy.
>The bible is full of hatred, commanding the stoning of gays, non believers etc.
This is basically proof that 1) you've never read it and 2) don't understand the differences between the various books. You are totally ignorant.
>you cant deny the thought of such an overwhelming majority of people.
That's the thing though, you can. I do. A lot of people do.
I'm not saying I don't believe in a higher power of some sort, I'm just accepting that it is unknown to me, and that I'd be wise to avoid believing in some man-made religion.
I might be missing something.. I'm really sorry if I am. I can co-exist amongst peaceful religious people, because we all do irrational things - it's almost human nature.
I have read the bible
Is a valid quote
Exodus 19:13: Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.
Just a few quotes but you get my point
have you asked? assuming that their is a God, how can you expect him to come to you just because you heard about him? it's like thinking LeBron hast to come knock on your door because you saw him on tv... what I am saying is "talk" to God and just ask him to simply reveal himself to you.
And your point is what? You ever meet someone born in America, who without ever being told of India, spoke of India? Last I checked there were no babies knowing of other countries in the world, unless someone taught them.
What you said shows exactly how dumb a lot of atheists are. NO SHIT someone doesn't have knowledge of something before they're taught it or encountered it.
If you're saying why should people believe their parents, why should people believe their globes or people saying india exists? I've never been to India, how can I be sure it exists unless I get on a plane and go there?
>Leviticus 21:9 NAB
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.
>2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
>Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.
Have you read it?
it also has a story of a religious sect that tries to stone a woman to death in hatred but is stopped by Love. if you read the book in the entirety I assure you it becomes much more clearer.
My point is that how can someone believe in something they have no concept of? The one who initially tries to convince the child is usually the parent (theist) and so the burden of proof is upon them. It's a clear case, they want their child to believe in a God and so it is their burden to provide proof.
that's because we live in a Christian nation. but just because somebody calls himself a "Christian" does not mean he is really one. its the heart that matters and is evident in the fruit of their labors.
Yes there are stories that swing both ways, my point is that the bible contains hatred and anyone who says Christianity is all about peace and nothing else are sadly misinformed
I did, I used to be a christian. Being exposed to other religions caused me to question why I assumed christianity was the only true religion. Eventually I just felt it wasn't. It has the same evidence as any other religion, and my life wasn't any different.
As far as "no proof and all stories are fictitious and unbelievable", there is a dig site in the exact mountain range that Noah's ark was said to be landed where archeologists have uncovered massive quantities of shaped wood and other ingredients to make an ark so it's not like every story is just a feel good with morals. They really do at least point to very strange coincidences that stack up to being more believable.
Re: Leviticus- Judicial punishments are not "hatred." Obviously. There's also no evidence that such punishments were ever carried out.
Re: Chronicles - Chronicles is a historical record and not a theological or holy book. Obviously. Ergo, there are no theological implications therefrom.
Re: Deuteronomy - More judicial punishments, and a common one for theocracies (which during the time of Moses and the Judges, Israel was). The same rule has existed for other religions from Christianity to Islam to friggin' Buddhism. It also extends to political philosophies; counter-revolutionaries tend to be tortured to death. Basically every time a single idea obtains political power. This isn't even very different from executing traitors in the USA. Again, not about hatred, not unique, and not even surprising.
You clearly went to some atheist website and pulled up the hits you thought sounded best. Because you have to. And still are unable to think critically about it.
And if this is the best you can do, you're no persuading anyone.
I'm actually a wizard, and if you don't denounce your Gods I will unleash an eternity of rape and torment upon you and your family.
You don't believe me: you get tortured for the rest of eternity.
You believe me: you're safe.
So why not believe me?
And many times they do provide proof. They show them the bible and all other scriptures they think constitutes valid proof. Who says it doesn't? Do you think the ONLY way something is true or false is if it follows scientific procedures? That's bullshit too (not that I don't agree with scientific procedures). Science is merely a process followed which is the most accepted way of explaining our universe. So what if someone else wants to use less accepted ways? If the person believes their parents, then it was proven to them.
That's another thing a lot of people don't really understand. Proof is not some magical universal concept as much as we'd like it to be. Proof is entirely subjective. If it wasn't, then why are there a lot of accepted scientific theories that even scientists disagree on? Something proven in this circle is completely not proven by another circle who hates that theory, and they're looking for faults in their logic to disprove them.
>Hunter gatherer tribes form
>Hunter gatherer tribes begin to grow in number
>The originals get elevated
>A +1 if you will
>Tribe continues to grow in number
>More +1's for the originals
>Mythic status gained by the originals
>End result of this process is Religion
>All religions have astory
>Each has figures who are deemed divine in some way or another
>Each hunter gatherer tribe had their own originals
>Each claims to have the "true"story
>Religion is irredeemably primitive
Take out the "default claim" wording for the moment. I know i used it first but it seems to be causing some confusion here. If youre going to say there is a god, you have to reject the null hypothesis that there is no god. If you're going to say there is no god...have fun with that. you cant prove a negative; AND in this case its virtually impossible to disprove the null hypothesis that there is a god because what does that actually mean? talk to a few people and ask them to define god(s). they all give different answers. probe a little further, challenge their ideas and their definitions seem to change as they go. the definition of god is apparently rather fluid. im an IGnostic for precisely this reason: people dont even know what theyre arguing about in the first place so its a meaningless discussion. I'm an apatheist because i couldnt care less even if we did somehow prove there is a god(s).
Also, the atheist claim is that there is no god. it's a negative claim. you can't prove it. as such it can never be more than a strong opinion. and as ive said the opposite, theistic claim is so amorphous in the light of reason that when you really inspect it that its also basically just a strong opinion.
look at your link again. you can only reject a null hypothesis and say that an alternative MAY be true.
and if you read what i wrote again, i said the burden of proof is only on just theists, not atheists. that wasnt a typo. and i never said agnosticism was a negative side, i said atheism was
>>583004923you know their is a part in the old testimate where God actually explains why those things happen; God actually tells Israel that it wasn't because of their own righteousness that God delivered the nations into their hands but because of the other people UNrighteousness that needed to be judged, so god used them. I am sorry for I do not recall the verse number or book however im sure with some study you could find it.
btw that scripture came with a warning from God to the Israelites that if they did not repent that they would be headed down the same road as the nations before them....something to think about.
With that logic, anyone that is disrespectful of others isn't Muslim. Anyone that doesn't steal isn't Jewish. Anyone that sucks dick but is married isn't gay.
Like, come on man. You don't see Buddhist sitting in cells against their will.
Who said I wanted to persuade you? I just want to show you that there is indeed teachings of hate in the bible. Ok, maybe some of these things weren't carried out but this is a manuscript that some people follow to the letter. You can't tell me that there hasn't been any murders that were carried out under the pretence that 'it's in the bible'. You're right I did just find a site but what does it matter those references are easily found in an actual bible which I refuse to read. I read and heard enough of that bullshit in the church. I find it funny how in the "information age" where information is so easily accessible you still fail to see the disturbing messages that religion encourages. I'm leaving the thread now so don't bother replying. It's not like any minds will be changed anyway.
Though I do believe in a higher power, Pascal's wager has it's faults.
The most striking obviously is that it assumes that god in benevolent and rewards believing in him and doing good deeds. Perhaps God is and angry god? Maybe people who don't believe in him go to heaven. It's just not a very solid argument.
The primary problem that I find is the whole issue of 'faith'. If he's god and could have revealed himself at any point in time. Why choose one specific nearly illiterate time in history and in the most remote of countries?
If he revealed himself today I would be a straight up follower.
in Africa... Warlords and murder: definitely
in more modern countries.. there's still violence, hate, and shaming -- much of it forced onto kids
in the past, when people were more religious, it was a big encouragement for war
actually, it still us
but beyond that,
murdering somebody and convincing AIDS-ridden nations that condoms are evil share a similarity
thanks, pope benedict
If there is a god, why is he so cruel to create something as vile and repulsive as niggers?
Uhh, even if he chose today, you realize that while we'd believe in him and maybe we'd even record a lot of proof, in 10000 years our entire civilization could be gone and the people of that era will be in the same situation we are? You realize even if he proved himself now, in 500 years there'd probably be a decent amount of doubters. Take the moon landing. We have proof of that yet <100 years later, people are doubting that and claiming it's a conspiracy.
you are wrong kid....
religion is a collection of wisdom collected thru thousands of years, distorted by lots of mean people, but its esscence is to give humans an "A-B-C" of life, and if we can see just the esencial of any religion we can find that this is absolutely truth despite all the fantasies that often are attached to it
hmmm.... I am sorry to hear about that, I was raised in a new age religion called Eckankar "I know it's weird" and I was so hungry for the truth that when I first was introduced to God I jumped on it like white on rice on a paper plate in a snow storm... sorry had to use that. anyway I can only say keep praying and keep reading and I know you will find the truth.
There's absolutely no difference in whether something is a negative claim or a positive claim. Sometimes it's the positive claim that can be significantly harder to prove.
For example, in multivariable limits in calculus, all you need is a single path which shows that the value isn't the same from both sides. Thus the negative claim of the limit not existing is significantly easier. The positive claim requires you to take all infinite paths (or come up with clever logic) and confirm the limit is the same.
When doing calculus problems, you can't just say well I'm going to default to no limit, because it's someone who believes the limit does exist's responsibility to take all infinite paths and tell me that it's the same for all of them. That's some faulty logic and some faggot shit.
which might be the monsoon or the fruitful Nile happening with a bad twist.
God doesnt really hate you, it's just about the Nile or the monsoon heheheheeee - maybe that part of the story was lost.
btw, your mother is fat and stinks.
i'm sure it wouldn't take much effort for him to drop by and remind people he exists
like he does all throughout the old testament
which is quite long
if he does exist, i don't think he cares about us at all
why would he?
it's pretty arrogant to think that he made man 'in his image', loved them long time (even though he gives babies AIDS and puts sperm brushes on the penises of ducks), and he then created a jillion other planets just so we had something to look at with our telescopes
You guys are all homosex. Come on gays you just gotta pray your gay away.
what I am saying that just because somebody says that he is something does not mean he really is that something...for whatever religion. I was just pointing out that for the Christian community
We do have times where he supposedly dropped by and reminded people he exists. Do you know what we call those people? Nutjobs. Do you want him to appear in the sky with some kind of global broadcast every year and be like "Yo guys, I'm still here watching out over you all?" Why should he reveal himself to someone like you, who makes others out to be liars if they truly believe they saw God?
That's one off branch of Christianity who believes a bit differently. Not to say we are 100% different, but they have different teachings and different teachings. They believe that Polygamy is ok and even the country frowns upon that. The Bible says that you should have 1 wife and no more. I can't really speak for other religions though. I'm too ignorant of most other religions to speak on their behalf. I can only argue for the most prominent religion throughout history, Christianity.>>583004249
And you missed my point. The Bible says that you are a sinner. That's it. You are a sinner no matter what you do, BUT God loves you. He doesn't ask for perfection because he know we aren't capable of it. He asks that we do our best. We sin all the time, but if we repent, our sins are forgiven. It's like being told your parents will give you the best presents you'll ever get for Christmas if you do well in school. They know you're not the best and that you can't get straight A's, so they just expect your best. A's and B's are just fine, but they won't throw out the gifts because you got a C in December. God forgives as long as we do what's right to fix it or understand just how bad what we did was and ask to be forgiven. You're too focused on the "Hell and fire" aspect of it. No Christian who truely leads a good life is afraid of going to Hell. I'm not perfect at all and I sin quite a bit, but I understand that it's bad and I feel bad that I do and ask God to forgive me for it. I've never felt that I had to do more and more and more in fear of Hell. You think that all Christians do the right thing out of fear of going to Hell, but we don't. We do what we do because we know that it's the right thing to do to make our lives and the lives around us better. Being nice/friendly/etc. and doing good deeds are for making the world a better place for all people to live.
just sidestep all wrong assumptions and personae, ignore the people that lived in a time that didnt have many improvements that are everyday life for everyone today, assume parables or metaphors when it is lies, assume parables for anything so there's predictions in there too. believe in mystified public people that could do whatever they wanted - and maybe medicine might really be one day able to revive the dead after accidents - anyone who could do that just by himself would not be put on a cross in any sane society no matter what insanity the girl or guy had - people tend to develop myths and exaggerations.
>2014 + 0
>not even Religious
What a bunch of plebs
>make myself priest
Maybe you're right. I suppose life is a journey to discover ourselves. Maybe I'll find something, maybe I won't. I just know I'll try to live my life to the fullest. I'm glad it worked for you though.
the church bells tend to drop by and startle me ever so often.
then there's people from that organisation that want me to tell them i am guilty of anything unspecific when i go there. sucks. would want the church bells to be melodic, polyphonic or silent.
so whenever they describe or want to define god it could be the church bells and their meaning (in terms of how i feel when i hear them) instead.
I'm not Scottish, but I get it. You say 90% are Christians because they go in and start being a Christian in prison, right. That's how my uncle became a born again. Probably my least favorite "type" of Christian because of the stereotype he fits SO well.
LOL! LMAO! ROFL! LMFAO! YOU CHR(ETARD)ISTI(DIOT)ANS(S) ARE FAIL AS FUCK! SERIOUSLY, DO YOU EVEN LOGIC, REASON, RATIONALITY, INTELLIGENCE, SKEPTICISM, FREE/CRITICAL THINKING, SCIENCE & REALISM? DARWIN, FREUD, DAWKINS & KRAUSS HAVE ABSOLUTELY & IRREPARABLY ANNIHILATED YOUR FAILED PATHETIC EXCUSE OF AN ATTEMPTED "WORLD-VIEW"/"RELIGION". DARWIN OBLITERATED CREATIONISM WITH EVOLUTIONISM, FREUD DEMONSTRATED THAT "RELIGION" IS AT BEST NOTHING MORE THAN SHALLOW MAGICAL WISHFUL EMOTIONAL THINKING FUELLED BY FEAR, IGNORANCE & DOGMATISM. THE BIGGEST & MOST VILE CANCEROUS PARASITIC MIND-VIRUS/PLAGUE/DISEASE/INSANITY TO LITERALLY CON PEOPLE TO DEATH. A VAPID DELUSIONAL FALSE FAIRYTALE WHICH CAN ONLY EVER POSSIBLY DESERVE DISMISSAL WITH RIDICULE & SCORN. DAWKINSIANISM PROVED & EVIDENCED ATHEISM TO BE ACCURATE & CORRECT & TRUE BY INCINERATING ANY & ALL SO-CALLED "LOGICAL" "ARGUMENTS" FOR "RELIGION" & DELIGHTED US WITH IRREFUTABLE VALID, SOUND, COHERENT, COGENT, STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM (YOU CANNOT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE,
GOD IS JUST AS PLAUSIBLE & CREDIBLE AS INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS OR THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, RELIGION IS FALSE BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS FROM A PARTICULAR COUNTRY/CULTURE INDOCTRINATED/ABUSED/RAPED YOU INTO THEIRS, GOD PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE GOD ISN'T NECESSARY FOR INTELLECTUALISM, EVOLUTIONISM IS A FACT, WHO CREATED "GOD"?), KRAUSS NULLIFIED THE VACUOUS "BELIEF" THAT SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS NOT NOTHING SO THE UNIVERSE/BIG BANG CAN SPONTANEOUSLY/ACAUSALLY FLUCTUATE/TUNNEL INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING THUS WRECKING THE "THOUGHT" THAT "GOD" NECESSARILY CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING. HAHA! GAME OVER, "BELIEVERS"! CONSIDER YOURSELF PWNED!
>i'm sure it wouldn't take much effort for him to drop by and remind people he exists
but if he did that then I would not require any faith to believe, and their is great reward in faith. if He did come down then that would be it, end of story, no go no mo.
call it social please, or welcoming instead.
but not cretinian, whatever the core values or the core ruleset of cretinian would be (and if it is the 10 commandments - maybe they lack in many ways starting with how they are formulated).
sorry about your mother.
a global broadcast would be nice
and why not?
he could stop a lot of fighting around the world, even if just for a lifetime or two
he can't honestly expect someone raised to believe in ancestor spirits or polytheism not to find the concept of him absurd, or for jews and muslims to not fight over the holy land
they had no power over it
really, as every one of our actions is decided by our current state of mind, and this is decided by past actions... a constant stream of them since birth, nobody is actually making a choice when they do something
if you rewound your life it would play back the same
judgement and damnation is pretty pointless
...even when he decided to forgive the worlds sins, he apparently couldn't think of a better way to do it than creating and sending down his 'son' for the sole purpose of torture and death at the hands of the people being absolved, then suddenly inventing the concept of the holy trinity to justify the whole thing
It provides illogical hope and comfort for stupid people. It may be illogical but it's still hope and comfort. Smarter people can't just ignore the nagging part of their brain telling them over and over this all sounds like B.S.
You know why Scientology is so big? Depressed.Well off.Dorks. The depression rates of the people who claim to be scietologist is astounding. They have a well paying job though so they keep making "donations" to the religion.
at that time in history they had no scripture; nothing to go on, they only did what they felt was right. so God found it prudent to come and start things going in the direction that He saw fit. now however man has had the old testament for over three millennia and we have had the new testament for over two... so therefore man has the testimony of those who came before of his existence and that is all that is required to believe. like you believe you have a great-great-great grandpa, though you never met him but somebody in the family told you about him.
Heh, well I tend to be attracted to these threads so actually fairly high chance. Religion still fascinates me. It's part of being human, and I understand that. By the way, I remember having these conversations with non believers years ago. So weird to be on the other side. I'm very aware of my decision though.
religion is just a philosophical stuff, that's all, and philosophy is not about facts even these days, if we look for "practical" stuff in religion then we gonna get crazy with all the anachronistic stuff that are attached in every single story inside the books of any religion....
the problem comes in the exaggerations you point, humans are stupid, this is the reason about making it something "sacred" because nobody wants this shit get altered by some moron. but this is what end to happen sadly...
Who can say no to the "No interest bank law" of islam?
who can say no to some of the moral values of some of the main religions?
who can say that our modern society is turning into shit and we are becoming animals without principles or any kind of value besides our primal needs?
i think we fucked every religion because we are stupids, we should embrace paganism like our last good option since every religion if really fucked right now