I don't think he mentioned any anxieties @Raoul
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I'd love to know this too.
They usually go deist and say its all intelligent design and that obviously the whole thing with the earth being created in a few days is not literal but God created the big bang and behind fine-tuning of the universe. Only God knows what the point was with the dinosaurs. You could say without them we wouldn't have birds and crocodiles.
I actually find this explanation oddly satisfying.
In a way....these things allow people a convenient "out" from having to objectively commit to something. There are phrases in the Abrahamic religions like God Willing, Inshallah etc. that seems to allow people to obfuscate from dealing with objective reality.
Actually I am sympathetic to people who feel an- existentialist safety net in believing a all-powerfull, sometimes compassionate and sometime not so compassionate Deity. I used to be a practioner, or least tried to practice Dzogchen, thus being a Dzogchenpa. Afer my health declined due to MS, I stopped practicing, but I still be believe in the core concepts/doctrines. The buddhist idea of cosmology is even more crazy and superstitious than the ones of monotheisms. In Buddhism there is an infinite number of universes which start with a expansion and ends with a crunch. Buddhists once they met the west considered the idea that from nothing the entire universe came into existence doesn't make any sense, since logically from nothing there is no cause and therefore nothing. But I found it at least interesting that there idea of multiple or infinite universes is a legimate considered hypothesis in physics. Roger Penrose wrote an article about how there most likely was a universe before the big bang. Not to say, this proves that the Buddhists were or are right, but it holds up better on that front that any other of today major religions.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...Sh-ci5wZCLj_B2W0CJhbADCKdVQqO9vMNXRFJcoX50mh4
Last edited:
'Stupid' is relative. And I don't think it's binary, anyways. On a scale from 0 to 100, I don't think there's anyone with 0 stupidity.
For what it's worth: I didn't call the Christians in Group 2 stupid. I just think that they are no less stupid than the Christians in Group 1. For some reason, many Christians who believe in evolution and don't mind gays getting married think they are so much wiser than the hardcore Christians. But the way I see it, you've just managed to look past the most obvious bullshit.
Think of it this way: if a rambling maniac stumbles out of the forest and makes a whole bunch of claims where pretty much every thing that can be disproved is disproved, then why on earth would you believe in the other stuff? His credibility ought to be shattered.
At least the most hardcore Christians understand that their house of cards is fragile. That's why they deny science altogether and think that anyone who challenge them are lying.
Damn, I feel a bit dangerous now.
Last edited:
I did not expect this kind of response.
The groups thing is a nonsense that you just invented. I chose one simply to start the post in some way.
You don't need to reflect on the intensity of the word stupid on those so-called lists. At least it was not my intention.
Your explanations seem good to me. Very interesting like others in this thread. The problem is the mocking tone and the provocative desire that you announced.
Well yeah. But from a logical standpoint it makes sense to divide Christians into those 3 categories. You either believe in the bible, don't believe in the bible, or something in between. The "in between" category is massive of course, as it contains people who believe in 99% and all the way down to 1%.
My point still stands. Group 2 has no right to act intellectually superior over Group 1(not saying that you do that, btw).
Groups are really the least of it.
The issue is to call a group stupid.
As I told you, I don't like that someone suggest that I am stupid and for a matter of education it seems wrong to use those terms.
It is a matter of respect and education. Can you imagine that now I go to the black lives Matter thread and say that its followers are stupid, divided into 3 groups, looters, illiterate and those who have joined to follow the herd ,or about Muslims, also stupid, with 3 groups too. My complaint is that in certain matters and threads there is no respect, it is toxic and does not really invite to participate in the forum
Your arguments are all over the place now. The bible is pretty relevant to Christians, wouldn't you say? And would you not agree that as far as the bible goes, there are only 3 possible stances(you believe everything, something or nothing)? If you can think of another stance than "is", "is not" and "is partly", then I'm genuinely impressed.
I didn't call anyone stupid. I just said that Group 1 and 2 are equally stupid. Big difference
Surely it's that, me English no good, and I do not understand the subtleties.Your arguments are all over the place now. The bible is pretty relevant to Christians, wouldn't you say? And would you not agree that as far as the bible goes, there are only 3 possible stances(you believe everything, something or nothing)? If you can think of another stance than "is", "is not" and "is partly", then I'm genuinely impressed.
I didn't call anyone stupid. I just said that Group 1 and 2 are equally stupid. Big difference
I'm not here to correct you or talk about catechism, simply to suggest / ask you not to be so impolite next time.
Tbh I would this more true of American Protestantism(Which is barely a religion in the first place)than other forms of Christianity.
Chess matches with pigeons ensue.
Absolutely provides an out. Similar in a way to when athletes immediately give thanks to the imaginary when they win, do well, etc.
Both are odd defiances of reality.
That’s pretty much true for all god believing religions, no point in singling out one particular group.Christians(and probably religious people in general) fall into 3 categories:
1. The nutcases who believe in every single word in their holy texts.
2. The people who just pick and choose at random what they like from the texts(they believe in the "main story", though).
3. The people who admit that it's all bullshit, but that there is some wisdom and good messages to be found and thus they still define themselves as Christian.
Number 1 can't be reasoned with, but luckily they are rare.
Number 2 is the most common and the most annoying overall. And, in a way, just as stupid number 1.
Number 3 are not really Christians, but they call themselves that for whatever reason(probably social pressure).
Now that I've dropped a bomb: see you later, gonna eat dinner and watch a movie
I think it all bullshit there is no god, no heaven, it divides people more than it unites people, it gives people like trump the means to use it as a weapon in this case if religion isn’t there you’d see there true colours.
And the sentence "God works in mysterious ways" or " He has a reason for everything even if you don't see it"
All religions are simply a belief. There is and always has been zero actual evidence of a/the Gods. All you need to do is to be able to convince the gullible.
But science is capable of providing almost all the evidence of how and why things are as they are.
It’s the religious version of ‘Because I’m the parent, that’s why.’
But at least parents have some semblance of reality & truth when stating the above as they were once children.
My stance on this topic is pretty harsh. I've got no sympathy for those who believe there is a God. We live in the 21st century, you've had more than enough opportunities to grow out of it.
Perhaps it's for the best if I leave it at that.
Perhaps it's for the best if I leave it at that.
The whole concept is preposterous.
I mean I wish it was true and there was a happy afterlife but its so fantastical a story I really don't see how anyone in this day and age can believe it.
I mean I wish it was true and there was a happy afterlife but its so fantastical a story I really don't see how anyone in this day and age can believe it.
There is evidence, but not proof.
In my experience much of this debate comes down to what people deem admissible as evidence.
Last edited:
Ok then. What is this evidence?
It's written in a book, d'uh...
And that is your evidence is it.
The same so called evidence that says that the Universe is a few tens of thousands of years old....
I suggest that you understand the definition of evidence.
Think Grylte was being sarcastic there
Well as I said it's my experience that much of this debate comes down to what people deem admissible as evidence.
So for example, someone could cite the evidence that most of us are familiar with; namely the existence of Jesus Christ. Or, someone could find the existence of God in the explanation for the origins and apparent design of the universe, the latter of which is very important. Or, someone could allude to something abstract...that say he/she finds life itself a religious experience and infers from that the existence of a higher being.
Whilst none of the above constitute proof of the existence of God, they do constitute evidence for the existence of God. Many people just confuse the two terms and use them pretty much interchangeably, but they are separate terms. The strength and persuasiveness of the evidence then is down to the individual.
Your point fails completely when you say that... the existence of God in the explanation for the origins of the Universe.
What Genesis says about the origins of the Universe has been completely disproven by the masses of scientific evidence.
Anyway. If you are happy to believe in that then good luck to you.
I am the one who would rather choose death over leaving my religion (as in Spanish Inquisition), or reject 1M dollars in exchange me leaving my religion.
Do you ever wonder why (other than I am being stupid or brainwashed)?
Do you ever wonder why (other than I am being stupid or brainwashed)?
No. Not at all. Everyone has to believe in something. You choose to believe in a belief. Because that is what a religion is.
I choose to believe in proven scientific evidence.
Lots of it's, but's and maybe's.
None of which come even remotely close to being actual evidence.
"If someone could find the existence of God in the explanation for the origins and apparent design of the Universe", sounds like a classic god of the gaps argument.
It doesn't fail, and I made no mention of the book of Genesis.
In respect of the origins of the universe I'm referring to the simple idea that the universe is the result of a purposeless accident, and the denial of that notion.
It is evidence, whatever about actual evidence.
I have no problem people in believing in a religion if it gives them comfort as long as it doesn't affect other people, that they don't try to force their beliefs on other people, or use it to think they are nicer or better than other people or worse, use it as a weapon to hurt other people or use it as something to hide behind to justify their actions.
Is there a proven scientific evidence that there is no God or some sort of higher power? No.
Same as there is no proven scientific evidence regarding the existence (or non-existence) of alien life.
In both cases it's natural that people will hold different beliefs and opinions regarding their existences.
Same as there is no proven scientific evidence regarding the existence (or non-existence) of alien life.
In both cases it's natural that people will hold different beliefs and opinions regarding their existences.
The only thing that describes the creation of the Universe is in Genesis is in not. So you were referring to it.
Exactly my view as well.
I wasn't. I've never read it so I wouldn't refer to it any case. I'm only familiar with the first verse.