Time for a religion thread

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Maybe "God" is just an Asshole?

I tend to disassociate myself with assholes ;^)

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
What's God's problem with Jews?

Our horns. Reminds him of Lucifer.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is all metaphysical

Religion is one ignorant way to attempt to explain it because the human animal is superstitious and afraid of dying

I wouldn't say that at the root of the problem, humans are afraid of dying.
At the root, humans are afraid of life being meaningless.

Religion in some context has always been an integral part of human life. Whether it was mythical stories, belief in multiple gods controlling every aspect of the world, or simply believing in a creator of some sort, either just one that made life possible, or one that controls every aspect of life.

The "Heavens" have always been included in these beliefs, and an Underworld of some sort was equally present. Superstitions and myths revolved around how to prevent an eternal life in the Underworld. The Heavens were the play place of the Gods, located in the vastness above Earth - space. That's why for almost all of eternity, the gods were associated with the motion of the stars in the night sky.

A lack of understanding of the universe essentially led to a deity existing for every aspect that humans didn't have an understanding of, or a singular god controlling all those aspects.

But the root of all that, is because we can think. And because we view ourselves as so radically different than the rest of the animal kingdom, we tell ourselves we are special. Because we are special, we must be the product of something(s) even more special.
And because we are special, there must be a reason to be special, and thus there must be a goal to reach.

As I said earlier, it's not that the human species is afraid to die, it's that individuals are afraid that life isn't special. So, we tell ourselves there is a reason we have to continue living, and that's where the fear of dying comes from. We are pushed into believing that we will experience some kind of afterlife if we live a good life, so there is anxiety in the notion of death because we aren't sure if what we've done in life, no matter how old, has been enough to win that prize at the end.

It's essentially a fear of being forgotten. Humanity refuses to acknowledge the possibility that life is well... rather pointless. The goal of life in all of the animal kingdom is to procreate, and essentially exist in a balance of life. Some are more mindless and are the food for the more intelligent creatures. But the goal of all life, whether mindful or not, is simply to spread the seed of life, to increase population numbers, and to continue to live.

Until we experience another species that is just as capable as we are, we'll continue to live in the delusion that we are special.

That's why I hope some of the more ancient stories of gods visiting the people are true, because I'll take that to mean we were visited by aliens far more intelligent than early man (and maybe man in general). And maybe, like typical humans to what we don't understand, we'll piss these visitors off and start the clock to intergalactic war.
That'll force man to shape up or be exterminated, essentially. We NEED this, seriously. Or else we'll going to continue to sham ourselves, and just result in being an utterly worthless and futile experiment for nature.

My god is the universe. Not alive, not intelligent, simply... there. It has rules, regulations, a completely natural balance that cannot be altered. What happens, happens, and is the result of all the laws that shape the universe. No matter whether we ever fully understand all that is the Universe, and whether or not our grasp of the certain unbreakable laws in the universe is at all correct, there are most definitely laws. We, like the rest of life here on Earth, and potentially any life elsewhere, are simply the products of the universe working the way it does - certain parameters are met, and things can happen. Just like other parameters can all meet, and other things happen. It's just balance.

Likewise, that balance could have created other, far more superior lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. So capable these creatures could be, they may be able to manipulate certain parameters, or somehow ensure certain parameters are met in certain areas, so that they all come together. A rock could have been pushed in our direction that contained the seed for RNA/DNA, and the process went from there. They could have sent a comet that destroyed the dinosaurs once they thought "cool, life happened, but dumb as rocks life" and pointless to them. These beings could have the dream of pushing for a capable being so that they have friends that don't look like them. I sure as hell think it'd be cool to be able to talk with another species.

Whether that much is true, or we came to being as natural, uninterrupted processes led to our ability to come to existence... I don't know. But I surely cannot believe in a universe that was created by something. Unless this universe is a pet project of a being from another universe. Far back enough, such a multiverse would still be completely founded in pure, unalterable balance.

[This novella Copyright 2009, Destrekor Creative Enterprises]

 

[ConwayJim]

blah blah blah....i wish i had a nickel for each of these thread...then i'd have 3

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: ConwayJim
blah blah blah....i wish i had a nickel for each of these thread...then i'd have 3

I wish I received royalties every time someone read my hundreds of novellas I've written here over the years.

They get the opportunity to read the genius texts of a slightly off individual, all for free. And what do I get? sigh.

Maybe when I die someone can make an anthology of my posts, and sell them with proceeds going to the rest of the family, and astronomy/astrophysical research.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: lxskllr
Absolutely not. God is in control of all things good and bad. If you win the lottery that was God. If you get run over by a car, that was his doing also. If that isn't true, then there is no God. You can't be omnipotent, and powerless at the same time.

But you can be omnipotent andchoose not to act.

ZV

But you can't be omnipotent and benevolent and choose not to act.

That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There isn't any conceivable state of affairs that "must be" for an omnipotent being.

An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run.

Of course it is. There's no reason why an immediate good outcome must compromise a "long term" good outcome, because an omnipotent being can make both the immediate and long term outcomes good.

Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

We are not omnipotent beings, so your analogy makes about as much sense as a square circle.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

Horsepuckey.

 

[Nik]

^^^ basically.

If god is so awesome and in control of everything and knows everything, that means he knows who will and will not choose to follow his teachings. Why did he bother creating those evil people? Why would a "god of love" create someone knowing they would spend the rest of eternity suffering in hell? That doesn't speak love to me at all. Don't give me that "his thoughts are above our thoughts" bullshit, either; that's such a retarded copout.

 

[Miramonti]

This is a big question in assessing christianity and faith.

Of the various levels of christians and holy-rollers I've been around and known well, the general consensus/approach (within each) is that if it's good for themselves, its God, if its not good, it's either Satan (permitted to happen by God because after all he is omnipotent), or it's God 'challenging' themselves in order to build more faith and character in that person(s).

 

[videogames101]

no devil, no god, gtf over it...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable. An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run. Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

ZV

Benevolence doesn't start with the "greater good" when discussing god. After all, god loves all of his children equally and unequivocally, and is benevolent to them all.

For example: Letting your children kill each other doesn't possibly sound like it could be equally benevolent to either party now does it? Herein is the fundamental flaw in religion... an omnipotent benevolent god would not possibly allow this to happen. And more so, if said god is truly omnipotent, then that god would not have created mankind (which would ultimately commit such an act), let alone allow his children to be "tempted by the serpent" (re: Eden), and feel compelled to ask "Who told you that you are naked?"

Another example: How is letting a "soul" suffer eternal torment in damnation an act of benevolence or love?

I state again: You can't be omnipotent and benevolent and choose not to act.

You're missing the point.

1) I'm not arguing in favor of any god or religion.

2) Yes, it is possible to be omnipotent and benevolent and also choose not to act. You are constructing a very specific scenario and arguing strictly within that scenario. Yes, there will be situations that would require action. But not all scenarios. See my previous example of denying a child a candy bar (inaction that results in good). Yes, if that same child is about to stick his or her finger in a light socket then action is required in that situation. But the existence of the second situation does not negate the existence of the first. Therefore, there absolutely are situations in which it is possible to be omnipotent, benevolent, and to choose not to act. I did not imply that such situations were universal, only that they do exist.

3) Who says that "hell" has to exist if God does?

4) Who says that "hell", even if it exists, is a place of torture? Jewish tradition, for example, contends that "hell" is simply an afterlife outside of the presence of the YHWH and involves no "torture" whatsoever.

Release your preconceptions and view the discussion fresh. This has nothing to do with religion yet you seem unable to view it from any perspective other than that of Fundamentalist Christianity.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There isn't any conceivable state of affairs that "must be" for an omnipotent being.

An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run.

Of course it is. There's no reason why an immediate good outcome must compromise a "long term" good outcome, because an omnipotent being can make both the immediate and long term outcomes good.

Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

We are not omnipotent beings, so your analogy makes about as much sense as a square circle.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

Horsepuckey.

You're taking the lazy man's way out. What you are claiming boils down to "we can't possibly know anything about god so it's pointless to speculate".

ZV

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
4) Who says that "hell", even if it exists, is a place of torture? Jewish tradition, for example, contends that "hell" is simply an afterlife outside of the presence of the YHWH and involves no "torture" whatsoever.

One may argue that god is the ultimate fulfillment. Hell, a separation from god, means an eternity of unfulfillment. Just because it's not literally an eternal fire burning off eternally-regrowing flesh or something doesn't mean it's not torture.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There isn't any conceivable state of affairs that "must be" for an omnipotent being.

An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run.

Of course it is. There's no reason why an immediate good outcome must compromise a "long term" good outcome, because an omnipotent being can make both the immediate and long term outcomes good.

Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

We are not omnipotent beings, so your analogy makes about as much sense as a square circle.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

Horsepuckey.

You're taking the lazy man's way out. What you are claiming boils down to "we can't possibly know anything about god so it's pointless to speculate".

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm left wondering if you even read anything that I wrote.

I'm plainly stating that it is inconsistent to claim that an immediately undesirable circumstance should be a necessary prerequisite for a longer-term desirable outcome in a reality which stipulates the existence of a purportedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Such a being could accomplish the longer-term desirable outcome without the necessity of the immediately undesirable outcome -- that's what it means to be omnipotent.

Read for comprehension this time, please.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There isn't any conceivable state of affairs that "must be" for an omnipotent being.

An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run.

Of course it is. There's no reason why an immediate good outcome must compromise a "long term" good outcome, because an omnipotent being can make both the immediate and long term outcomes good.

Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

We are not omnipotent beings, so your analogy makes about as much sense as a square circle.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

Horsepuckey.

You're taking the lazy man's way out. What you are claiming boils down to "we can't possibly know anything about god so it's pointless to speculate".

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm left wondering if you even read anything that I wrote.

I'm plainly stating that it is inconsistent to claim that an immediately undesirable circumstance should be a necessary prerequisite for a longer-term desirable outcome in a reality which stipulates the existence of a purportedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Such a being could accomplish the longer-term desirable outcome without the necessity of the immediately undesirable outcome -- that's what it means to be omnipotent.

Read for comprehension this time, please.

But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
4) Who says that "hell", even if it exists, is a place of torture? Jewish tradition, for example, contends that "hell" is simply an afterlife outside of the presence of the YHWH and involves no "torture" whatsoever.

One may argue that god is the ultimate fulfillment. Hell, a separation from god, means an eternity of unfulfillment. Just because it's not literally an eternal fire burning off eternally-regrowing flesh or something doesn't mean it's not torture.

Well if this all proves true, I've lived life so far without this god fellow. I think I'd get along just fine with an afterlife without him too. Though I'd still say an afterlife would be just as pointless as a normal life. Just as long as I can have a male child and raise him to be a capable man, I'd consider my life fulfilled.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable. An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run. Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

ZV

Benevolence doesn't start with the "greater good" when discussing god. After all, god loves all of his children equally and unequivocally, and is benevolent to them all.

For example: Letting your children kill each other doesn't possibly sound like it could be equally benevolent to either party now does it? Herein is the fundamental flaw in religion... an omnipotent benevolent god would not possibly allow this to happen. And more so, if said god is truly omnipotent, then that god would not have created mankind (which would ultimately commit such an act), let alone allow his children to be "tempted by the serpent" (re: Eden), and feel compelled to ask "Who told you that you are naked?"

Another example: How is letting a "soul" suffer eternal torment in damnation an act of benevolence or love?

I state again: You can't be omnipotent and benevolent and choose not to act.

You're missing the point.

1) I'm not arguing in favor of any god or religion.

2) Yes, it is possible to be omnipotent and benevolent and also choose not to act. You are constructing a very specific scenario and arguing strictly within that scenario. Yes, there will be situations that would require action. But not all scenarios. See my previous example of denying a child a candy bar (inaction that results in good). Yes, if that same child is about to stick his or her finger in a light socket then action is required in that situation. But the existence of the second situation does not negate the existence of the first. Therefore, there absolutely are situations in which it is possible to be omnipotent, benevolent, and to choose not to act. I did not imply that such situations were universal, only that they do exist.

3) Who says that "hell" has to exist if God does?

4) Who says that "hell", even if it exists, is a place of torture? Jewish tradition, for example, contends that "hell" is simply an afterlife outside of the presence of the YHWH and involves no "torture" whatsoever.

Release your preconceptions and view the discussion fresh. This has nothing to do with religion yet you seem unable to view it from any perspective other than that of Fundamentalist Christianity.

ZV

You're missing the point too. The argument applies to any god deemed as omnipotent and benevolent, which encompasses nearly every religion that I know of.

Said scenario happens daily, hence yet it happens. It moved completely contrary to the state of benevolence. This type of push and pull happens daily to some effect or other. We're talking about a supposedly omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent god(s) that intertwine themselves with humanity. If it is god's stewardship of the human race that is at question here, then I submit to you that being benevolent FORBIDS inaction on this scale. How can you possibly argue that inaction causing death of one of those you are supposed to watch over is benevolent?

Pandering to the heaven and hell concept - and rightfully I point out yet again - how can you possibly argue that allowing those you are steward over to follow a path of wrong ultimately leading to their souls to be damned is benevolent? Inaction can indeed be benevolent, but in every-day contexts (just read the newspaper) it is proven to not be.

Even giving you the benefit of time - inaction leading to a benevolent action - how can a god justify the loss of even ONE soul to damnation a benevolent act? Remember, the greater good can not apply, because as god you are steward over EVERYONE. Being omnipotent, said god should be able to devise a way to not only provide for the greater good over time, but also for the one individual that would otherwise be damned.

It is a paradox. You can argue all you want about it, but it doesn't change the logical fact that it is either:

A) God's design that humanity has elements of evil
B) God's flaw that humanity was given choice

Knowing what we know, (A) is the only logical explanation for an omnipotent god, but does it satisfy benevolence? Yes, only if god and satan/devil/evil are one in the same (thus capable of being ultimately benevolent to both groups good and evil). If (A) isn't or can't be true for whatever reason, then (B) stands as the only choice, and therefore proves that god is not omnipotent, because god would have known the outcome of the creation of humanity and thus being bound to benevolence not created humanity to avoid this very situation.

It is an uphill argument to go against. You either have to submit that your god is indeed fallible, or that god is evil. Take your pick - there is no gray area to choose from.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There isn't any conceivable state of affairs that "must be" for an omnipotent being.

An immediate good outcome is not always preferred in the long-run.

Of course it is. There's no reason why an immediate good outcome must compromise a "long term" good outcome, because an omnipotent being can make both the immediate and long term outcomes good.

Sometimes the pain from a small mistake can prevent much greater pain from a larger mistake in the future. For example, we don't give a child a candy bar every time he or she asks for a candy bar because, even though the denial causes the child some "pain" in the immediate future, we are protecting the child's long-term well being.

We are not omnipotent beings, so your analogy makes about as much sense as a square circle.

Now, I don't mean to say that things are always good, etc, because I don't believe that. But I am saying that it's possible to be both inactive and good if one is omnipotent. You just have to view that benevolence on a different time scale.

Horsepuckey.

You're taking the lazy man's way out. What you are claiming boils down to "we can't possibly know anything about god so it's pointless to speculate".

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm left wondering if you even read anything that I wrote.

I'm plainly stating that it is inconsistent to claim that an immediately undesirable circumstance should be a necessary prerequisite for a longer-term desirable outcome in a reality which stipulates the existence of a purportedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Such a being could accomplish the longer-term desirable outcome without the necessity of the immediately undesirable outcome -- that's what it means to be omnipotent.

Read for comprehension this time, please.

But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Please tell me you have posted this as an opportunity to make a joke, and you did not intend that as some sort of serious challenge to my position.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
You're missing the point too. The argument applies to any god deemed as omnipotent and benevolent, which encompasses nearly every religion that I know of.

Which is why adherence to Greek and Roman mythology is the only religion that makes any sense, given their many human foibles and petty squabbles.

Go Zeus!

 

[Peelback79]

"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is all metaphysical

Religion is one ignorant way to attempt to explain it because the human animal is superstitious and afraid of dying

I wouldn't say that at the root of the problem, humans are afraid of dying.
At the root, humans are afraid of life being meaningless.

Religion in some context has always been an integral part of human life. Whether it was mythical stories, belief in multiple gods controlling every aspect of the world, or simply believing in a creator of some sort, either just one that made life possible, or one that controls every aspect of life.

The "Heavens" have always been included in these beliefs, and an Underworld of some sort was equally present. Superstitions and myths revolved around how to prevent an eternal life in the Underworld. The Heavens were the play place of the Gods, located in the vastness above Earth - space. That's why for almost all of eternity, the gods were associated with the motion of the stars in the night sky.

A lack of understanding of the universe essentially led to a deity existing for every aspect that humans didn't have an understanding of, or a singular god controlling all those aspects.

But the root of all that, is because we can think. And because we view ourselves as so radically different than the rest of the animal kingdom, we tell ourselves we are special. Because we are special, we must be the product of something(s) even more special.
And because we are special, there must be a reason to be special, and thus there must be a goal to reach.

As I said earlier, it's not that the human species is afraid to die, it's that individuals are afraid that life isn't special. So, we tell ourselves there is a reason we have to continue living, and that's where the fear of dying comes from. We are pushed into believing that we will experience some kind of afterlife if we live a good life, so there is anxiety in the notion of death because we aren't sure if what we've done in life, no matter how old, has been enough to win that prize at the end.

It's essentially a fear of being forgotten. Humanity refuses to acknowledge the possibility that life is well... rather pointless. The goal of life in all of the animal kingdom is to procreate, and essentially exist in a balance of life. Some are more mindless and are the food for the more intelligent creatures. But the goal of all life, whether mindful or not, is simply to spread the seed of life, to increase population numbers, and to continue to live.

Until we experience another species that is just as capable as we are, we'll continue to live in the delusion that we are special.

That's why I hope some of the more ancient stories of gods visiting the people are true, because I'll take that to mean we were visited by aliens far more intelligent than early man (and maybe man in general). And maybe, like typical humans to what we don't understand, we'll piss these visitors off and start the clock to intergalactic war.
That'll force man to shape up or be exterminated, essentially. We NEED this, seriously. Or else we'll going to continue to sham ourselves, and just result in being an utterly worthless and futile experiment for nature.

My god is the universe. Not alive, not intelligent, simply... there. It has rules, regulations, a completely natural balance that cannot be altered. What happens, happens, and is the result of all the laws that shape the universe. No matter whether we ever fully understand all that is the Universe, and whether or not our grasp of the certain unbreakable laws in the universe is at all correct, there are most definitely laws. We, like the rest of life here on Earth, and potentially any life elsewhere, are simply the products of the universe working the way it does - certain parameters are met, and things can happen. Just like other parameters can all meet, and other things happen. It's just balance.

Likewise, that balance could have created other, far more superior lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. So capable these creatures could be, they may be able to manipulate certain parameters, or somehow ensure certain parameters are met in certain areas, so that they all come together. A rock could have been pushed in our direction that contained the seed for RNA/DNA, and the process went from there. They could have sent a comet that destroyed the dinosaurs once they thought "cool, life happened, but dumb as rocks life" and pointless to them. These beings could have the dream of pushing for a capable being so that they have friends that don't look like them. I sure as hell think it'd be cool to be able to talk with another species.

Whether that much is true, or we came to being as natural, uninterrupted processes led to our ability to come to existence... I don't know. But I surely cannot believe in a universe that was created by something. Unless this universe is a pet project of a being from another universe. Far back enough, such a multiverse would still be completely founded in pure, unalterable balance.

[This novella Copyright 2009, Destrekor Creative Enterprises]

Let me attempt to sum up your rather long post in a completely different manner:

we can IMAGINE *anything* and we can also imagine a heavenly family with a heavenly father like a human one
--But is is a stupid and ignorant fantasy to insist 'your'* BELIEF is real and to also insist that others respect your insanity and your need for order in the form of imaginary "laws"

Humans can think - but the ones with religion generally do not; that is a correct observation made over thousands of years; we do not know even know what religion other animals have on this planet - we observe loss and even some "death rituals" with some species besides ours

religion has proved to be a hateful divisive force that has been manipulated to make you a SLAVE; never mind what some say it could have been a moral force for. One may come to believe that they enjoy their slavery and their inability to "believe" what is real and instead swallow religion as an opiate and a sense duller although there is nothing to support it at all as even being useful .. nevermind real or true

Clearly there is fear of death .. or there would be no religion .. atheism or those who do not believe in gods has also been around forever; it was harder to speak openly against religion until recently - religion is that evil and that intolerant of dissent

=in fact, it is metaphysical and we are all playing in a sandbox ..

*edit .. when i say "you" ,, i am speaking the plural you .. addressing a general audience although replying to a specific poster as an example

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Peelback79
"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.

I'm not really concerned about whether Christianity works for anyone. What I'm concerned about is the fact that my choices, my wishes, do not have the power in and of themselves to make a thing true. Only when I link them to the things my physical body can do will they EVER have a chance of becoming true. Truth is what I'm concerned about. Not truth in some fuzzy, fantasy, moral, metaphysical sense, but truth in concrete terms. I see, smell, taste, hear, and touch the thing there, and other people do the same with satisfactorily consistent results; therefore it is true that the thing exists to the extent that it can be determined that a thing exists. If all 6 billion of us simultaneously make the "choice" to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man; That won't affect the truth of the thing one iota.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Peelback79
"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.

You don't "choose" to believe, you look at the evidence and decide what is most likely true. What you choose to believe doesn't change whats true.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Peelback79
"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.

You don't "choose" to believe, you look at the evidence and decide what is most likely true. What you choose to believe doesn't change whats true.

Sure you choose to believe something - or not

That is why christians speak of "converting" to their cult
- what one believes changes what is true to the person believing it

Religion is a big reason why this biosphere is still administered so ass-backwards and why humans are still superstitious and ignorant animals
- most accept a fraud and a fantasy as being true

dump those silly unfounded beliefs and we can make real progress

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Sure you choose to believe something - or not

That is why christians speak of "converting" to their cult
- what one believes changes what is true to the person believing it

Religion is a big reason why this biosphere is still administered so ass-backwards and why humans are still animals

You must have missed Crono's post. Governments are appointed by God, and are serving his will here on Earth.
But remember, if they do anything wrong, it's just because of corruption.:laugh:
You know, corruption, in logistical bodies ordained by God.


Oh, and what the hell, why not...
Text
Remember kids, this is not circular reasoning.

 

[cheesehead]

I've read a good chunk of the old testament with someone walking me through the bits of aramaic.

It's just a bunch of old goatherder's superstitions glued together with something resembling a code of laws and constitution.

The point when I became an atheist was when I found out that the Torah portion for my Bar Mitzvah was basically the ancient Judean 1040EZ.