America Lucky or Blessed?

Why is it more illogical for a God to not have to have been created then it is for a universe to not have to have been created?

If the universe made everything, what made the universe?

Just asking the same question in a different perspective...
it is far more illogical Please read your own second paragraph very carefully, and the answer will hit you like a sledge hammer between the eyes. It's a rather inane and simplistic question, somewhat like why the statement, "This statement is untrue"
But aside from that, it is nothing to do with what I said was it? I merely showed that "Chance" was a lot more logical than the illogical and incredible, or should that be, the patently ridiculous theory that requires some mystical middle man to negotiate the terms of reference for the creation of his very own little universe?

This is not some weird business deal done in heaven, it is no more than a crutch to support those without backbone to face reality or logical thought processes, to ease their consciences and answer those things they don't understand.

Do you believe?:
[FONT=arial, Helvetica]Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16] [/FONT]
 
LeMask,

You intone the exact same beliefs I have purported on this site, and in this very thread, time and time again:

That God, whatever your concept of "God" is, whether it be Christian or Muslim or Wicca, is one of those things that our limited minds simply haven't the capacity to contemplate in its entirety. And it is this reasoning that provides my short fuse for people who deem to know all about God, or who deem to know there is NO God.

There are so many billions upon billions of intricacies in just this one life, this one life FORM, this one planet, that we just do not know. We speculate, we derive, we formulate and assume and, honestly, arrogantly lambaste one-another with our "mission statements" of God, the universe, mother nature...

The truth is, we are human. We are fallible, prone to mistakes. We are not perfect.

Because we are not perfect, we do not, we cannot, know it all. And in all reality, given the absolutely amazing scope of the mastery of life and all of its patterns, we actually don't know squat. We think we know what "love" is. But how can we? All we can REALLY measure and evaluate is the action that love produces - sacrifice, undying giving, selfless motivation. But these are ACTIONS, not feelings. How do we KNOW, how do we scientifically MEASURE what love is? We can't... all we can do is assume that good works are a product of something we refer to as "love" in its various forms.

Did two rocks colliding make "love" out of the inter-spacial and intergalactic friction and gravity waves that found their way into our being?



My point is and has been that anyone who demands that they know for a fact that God is not real is incredibly short sighted. They demand that I prove my belief through scientific results, equations and solutions. But they cannot do so with the easiest, most taken-for-granted human emotion of love. They say it is "real," that we know it is "real" because of how we feel about, say, our wives. But can you PROVE how you feel about your wife? Nope. All you can do is TREAT her a certain way, which is an ACTION, not an EMOTION.

We take for granted that an action is a derivative of a state of presence, a state of absolute truth. Yet a belief in God does not exist just because people do good works in the name OF God.

It's a complete double standard, and it is laughable that anyone who argues against something does so with a standard that completely disproves their own logic, as well. If you believe that an action indicates a reality, then good works mean that God is real. If you argue the opposite, then you deny that love exists.



Personally, I believe only that I know enough to know that I know so little that my "enough" relates to absolutely "nothing" in the larger picture of what this universe, this life, its beginnings and its end, can possibly consist of.

But that's why I am no bible thumper. I figure that if God is God, He sure as hell doesn't need something as small and insignificant as limited man to explain Him to other, small and insignificant men.

In my humble opinion, the best way to speak "for" God is to allow your actions to do so - like love. Admit that, yes, I "love." But the word "love" is meaningless to someone who has never believed in love, who has never experienced it.

And that, of course, means that love really doesn't exist. Because it is just what someone feels, and there is no scientific formula to prove to anyone who has never felt it that it is real.

After all, how do you explain the white snow to someone who is blind? Or the whisp of a breeze to someone who cannot hear? Or the change of meaning when tone and inflection change to someone who cannot speak?

To them, none of these things are real unless they CHOOSE to believe they are real. They can never know for a fact. They take it on faith, the faith of others, that these concepts are tangible, real, and meaningful.

But to people who can see, or hear, or speak, they are every bit as real as life.

That is the difference between believers and atheists.
 
it is far more illogical Please read your own second paragraph very carefully, and the answer will hit you like a sledge hammer between the eyes. It's a rather inane and simplistic question, somewhat like why the statement, "This statement is untrue"
But aside from that, it is nothing to do with what I said was it? I merely showed that "Chance" was a lot more logical than the illogical and incredible, or should that be, the patently ridiculous theory that requires some mystical middle man to negotiate the terms of reference for the creation of his very own little universe?

This is not some weird business deal done in heaven, it is no more than a crutch to support those without backbone to face reality or logical thought processes, to ease their consciences and answer those things they don't understand.

Do you believe?:

Well, my friend, since you have already labeled me as a man who lacks a "backbone," who needs a "crutch," who cannot process information with reality or logic, who needs an ease of conscience, I think we're done here.

I have not once in this thread ever insulted anyone who doesn't share my belief. To the contrary, I have shown you and those who believe like you nothing but absolute respect towards your own wishes, politeness in disagreement, and understanding in our disparities.

I have never ONCE on this site or ANYWHERE referred to any non-believer as lacking a backbone, needing a crutch, or without logic or rational thought.

What I have stated is that BOTH those who portend to know all about God and those that outright dismiss the possibility of God are short sighted.

I've got pretty damn thick skin. But you know nothing about me, what I have done and accomplished in life, or who has benefited from my existence in life. You have no clue what kind of "backbone" I stand with, or how my "reality" and "logical thought" works to help better those in my community who are in need - which I do in spades.

Congratulations on finally showing your true colors, your contempt for anyone who may believe differently than you, your holier-than-thou attitude towards anyone who doesn't accept your linear line of thinking. You just joined the ranks of all the Christians who do the exact same thing that you, and I, despise.

Our conversation is terminated - for good. if you ever wish to apologize and convey to me the respect I have EARNED in this life, the consideration that you're no more a man with a "backbone" than I just because your indignant self deems your beliefs superior to everyone else's, you know where the PM feature is and, I assume, how to use it.

Until that time, enjoy you seat in the pew as the self-righteous knower of all things that make you better than anyone else.
 
Myth:
You actually know that God exists, but you are in denial for some reason.

Response:
This is a very common claim, perhaps for a number of reasons. Some people are so sure of the existence of their god that they have trouble imagining that someone else could honestly not feel the same way. Some may also imagine that the existence of evidence for their god is so abundant and so overwhelming that genuine disbelief cannot exist. It may be possible for a person to be confused as to what the “real” God is, but not that God does exist.

Because honest disagreement is not possible, the cause of disbelief must be denial. Such an attitude has a venerable pedigree, going right back to Paul:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.(Romans 1:18-21)

Paul's point here is that no one can claim not to know that a god exists — there are no agnostics or atheists. The alleged reason is that God has “showed” us his existence, evidently through the existence of things in the natural world. If anyone claims not to know that a god exists (much less use that as a basis for not believing in a god), then they are lying to the theist and/or to themselves.

When this claim is made on the basis of the alleged evidence in nature for the existence of God, then the claimant is assuming the validity of the Argument To Design. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear in Paul’s passage what it is about the “things that are made” which are supposed to “show” us that God exists. If he is talking about the natural world generally, then the claim simply begs the question because it would need to be shown that the natural world is evidence for some particular god. That isn’t something which can simply be assumed without questioning.

Whatever his rationale, what Paul wrote is not only question-begging, but it is also little more than an ad hominem fallacy. One would have to have very good reasons to assert that a particular person, much less an entire class of people, were all deceiving themselves and/or others. The mere assertion that the alleged evidence for this god is “obvious” is insufficient. How would theists feel if they were told that they “really knew” that their god did not exist, but that they were “in denial” because they were afraid to face a world where they are on their own?

Such a statement, made in such a manner, is an ad hominem argument (specifically, the Genetic Fallacy) because it purports to dismiss the validity of theism by attacking the alleged motivations for theism. Theism, however, can only be rationally rejected by examining the theistic claims themselves — not people’s motives for being a theist. Such a statement is also an implicit statement of self-superiority because the underlying message is, “At least I’m not afraid to face life on my own.”

All of these problems also exist for the claim that atheists are in denial. So, if a theist finds the above to be insulting and irrational, then they shouldn’t say the same about others. Sadly, some atheists do make the above statements about theists, and they should learn better.
 
Not mocking you infantry or mocking your beliefs, but the way you speak about love... You sound like a bible seller.

It's very christian to link love and god. God is love and sacrifice... These are Christian concepts. They have little meaning for other religions. And an atheist wont even care to listen to a speech about an emotion like "love" in particular if you link it with the concept of a deity.

Believe it or not, you think about god through the prism of Christianity. And you know how the church worked to use and exploit the concept of god.

And we are here on this forum discussing the use of the concept of god. Do you think that the atheists are sick of the idea of god? No, they are sick of how mankind is using the concept of god to reach their own goals.

The church is sacred. America is blessed. Muslim holy lands. Same problem...

We have to admit that science cant help us much when we speak about religion. And that our knowledge about god, if we have any, is flawed, twisted and pretty poor.

Before translating the bible. The line between "having faith" and "practicing faith" wasnt existent at all. It was the same thing. So what you said about the emotion/action topic wasnt a real problem back then.

Muslims too dont have this problem. For them religion is like a story about mankind and it's creation. Then, the rest is all laws and rules. they went directly to politics/economy. Huge potential for mankind. This is why I studied it. And we are still working on it as the Islamic finances were the only economic branch not to suffer from the crisis.

Huge topic guys...

And myself, I dont really care much about "converting" others... If the atheists dont like religion, it's their damn problem. Works the other way round too...

We dont have to agree to live together. And if someone dont like and tries to wipe out the other, he will be the one wiped out. And not for his beliefs but for his arrogant ways.

To the end of times, as long as mankind exists, there will be bad/good people, faithful/faithless people, rich/poor people, sad/happy people, beautiful/ugly people etc etc...

Human nature...

The question isnt "what do do with religious people/atheists", but what to do when they will start bashing each others...
 
Well, my friend, since you have already labeled me as a man who lacks a "backbone," who needs a "crutch," who cannot process information with reality or logic, who needs an ease of conscience, I think we're done here.

I have not once in this thread ever insulted anyone who doesn't share my belief. To the contrary, I have shown you and those who believe like you nothing but absolute respect towards your own wishes, politeness in disagreement, and understanding in our disparities.
No insult implied, merely a statement of available facts.
 
Well, my friend, since you have already labeled me as a man who lacks a "backbone," who needs a "crutch," who cannot process information with reality or logic, who needs an ease of conscience, I think we're done here.

I have not once in this thread ever insulted anyone who doesn't share my belief. To the contrary, I have shown you and those who believe like you nothing but absolute respect towards your own wishes, politeness in disagreement, and understanding in our disparities.
No insult implied, merely a statement of available facts. Only you have the ability to stand up and start taking responsibility for your own actions without the need of a universal undefined, unproven and unexplainable entity to blame.

"The fairies done it"
 
In no other battle in my opinion is it more apparent that god is on our side. We had the enemy's location, perfectly placed our forces to best deal with the incoming threat and still managed to screw up our initial attack. To me to many factors lead up to the perfect Carrier attack ( the opposite of what American Carrier doctrine is at the time.) to be interpreted as anything less then divine intervention.

I think most people would call this luck, but there was some help from a good US intelligence network and incompetent and ill timed Japanese decisions. The Japanese carriers and aircraft were also high susceptibile to damage.

If God looked kindly on a nation he would ensure they were involved in no wars and certainly none with the slaughter of the US Civil War, WW1 and Vietnam, the former which can't be won by definition.

It's a dangerous assumption to think God is on your side. For one thing it's tempting to believe you have the moral authority to commit what are subsequently seen as atrocities, secondly you will discover there is no such thing as divine power when you lose!
 
Last edited:
No insult implied, merely a statement of available facts. Only you have the ability to stand up and start taking responsibility for your own actions without the need of a universal undefined, unproven and unexplainable entity to blame.

"The fairies done it"

That is where your complete ignorance about me reaches its head and your lack of knowledge assumes to the point of being bitterly insulting.

You watch too much TV.

I have never once in my entire life failed to take responsibility for my own actions, choosing instead to cast my own gross inadequacies upon God. Never. I'm human, so I make mistakes. I accept that, I apologize where warranted, and I learn from it and move on.

I have never once said or believed that, "God made me do it" or that "God didn't let me do it."

Had you read the thread, you'd have known that.

Of course, I have never insulted people out of ignorance because my bias was so deep that I just knew what they had to be all about, either...

It sure is wonderfully hypocritical of you to talk about not lumping everyone into a single classification and then turning right around and lumping all believers into excuse machines.



Not mocking you infantry or mocking your beliefs, but the way you speak about love... You sound like a bible seller.

It's very christian to link love and god. God is love and sacrifice... These are Christian concepts. They have little meaning for other religions. And an atheist wont even care to listen to a speech about an emotion like "love" in particular if you link it with the concept of a deity.

Believe it or not, you think about god through the prism of Christianity. And you know how the church worked to use and exploit the concept of god.

<snip>

LOL, I don't even read the bible much less sell it.

It's my liberal side poking its head out, I suppose. My supreme wish in life is to be left alone and to leave others alone, to get along with others as equals, to actually practice brotherly love on this planet and not just talk about it.

Utopian, I know. But it is why I am so fundamentally supportive of ending the regimes of people like Hussein, Il and others who refuse their own people peace and harmony in the vanity of power. The apparently stern attitude I have that supports military force to rid the planet of those who would use innocence for their own benevolence comes from a protective nature of those things that are clearly wrong, EG: NK pointing nukes at SK, Iraq cutting off childrens hands, Iran executing people by burning a tire around their neck, and Pakistan throwing people into the middle of the desert to die of thirst for petty offenses.

But I admit that I am a walking dichotomy: I fully support capital punishment and would, given the chance, institute public execution by way of China's two-rounds-to-the-head style; and then bill the families for the cost of the execution, including the bullets.

But the difference lies in justice, which the last paragraph takes to its ultimate and unfortunate conclusion from the need and desire of those who would abuse others, exampled in the first paragraph.

Yes, I do look at my belief as jaded through a prism of Christian faith. But one also practices that exact same bias in atheism and every other religion. When you believe in something, you are biased towards it. The intelligent and fair members of a society are those who can remain faithful to their beliefs and yet be open minded enough to consider other beliefs that may disagree with theirs as worthy of consideration. If this is openly and honestly considered and cast aside as "not true" for one person, then I expect that person to accept the challenge unmet and allow their rival the exact same respect for their beliefs as the other man holds for his own. To 'shake hands and move on,' if you'll allow me the cliche'.

The problem with many atheists and believers alike is that they refuse to admit that they just don't know it all.

The problems in the world today are a prodigy of this. Brotherly love stops where one's arrogance begins, a shameful trait of human beings to need to be superior over those who are equals.

That's why it is next to impossible to debate a stringent, relative, almost linear concept such as "God:" those who do not believe mock those who do, and those who do believe mock those that do not.

And for all my flaws in life, for all the rotten things I've said and done, for all the egregious mistakes I have made and improprieties I have conducted... I have never mocked another for believing differently than I.

That's why I will never be accepted into the Christian OR atheist circles. And I am completely happy not to be, to try and live my life granting freedom to others to do the same without my (unwarranted) judgment.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, so typical, now I see it all, it's my fault because I accept the facts, whereas you have an unproven theory to fall back on, making you right.

Every time a person brings "god" into a debate, they are slipping further into lala land, either refusing to accept responsibility or trying to evade having to think about fixing the problem. "It's all god's will"

It's not making mistakes that sets these people aside, it's their steadfast refusal to accept that god had nothing to do with it, thereby releasing them from either accepting responsibility or trying to find the root of the problem.

Again, do you believe this?:...
[FONT=arial, Helvetica]Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16][/FONT]
 
Ahhh, so typical, now I see it all, it's my fault because I accept the facts, whereas you have an unproven theory to fall back on, making you right.

Every time a person brings "god" into a debate, they are slipping further into lala land, either refusing to accept responsibility or trying to evade having to think about fixing the problem. "It's all god's will"

It's not making mistakes that sets these people aside, it's their steadfast refusal to accept that god had nothing to do with it, thereby releasing them from either accepting responsibility or trying to find the root of the problem.

Again, do you believe this?:...

No, Seno, you've missed my point entirely.

I am not "blaming" anyone or anything. I never have. I never will. You and I have never once disagreed that man makes his own falls and ascensions and is completely responsible for his own decisions and ramifications.

It no one's "fault" about any debate with God, because neither of us can prove or disprove His existence - that's why it is a THEORETICAL debate: we are discussing possibilities, not facts.

You keep bringing up this incessant need to state that I, and others like me, use the concept of God as a crutch... "releasing them from either accepting responsibility or trying to find the root of the problem."

How many times must I say that I have NEVER failed to take responsibility for my own actions?

In fact, MOST Christians ardently believe that the greatest freedom mankind has is to screw up. To err is human, and all that rigmarole.

Why can you not accept that I live my life accepting my flaws as a character in need of revision? There's no God about that at all. Just Richard and how he REACTS to life as he ACTS in it.

I don't believe God excuses me for anything. I believe that God created me with a sense of right and wrong, with the free will to do the right or wrong thing, and with the intelligence to know that what I receive will be based on the wrongs and the rights I deserve for those decisions.

I don't help people believing in some reward, and I don't rob banks expecting reprieve and leniency. None of these things are either part of my faith or evidence OF my faith. They are my CHARACTER, my morals and principles, my ingrained sense of compassion, right and wrong.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you so wish to paint me with such biased brushes. My God is a God of LOVE and of JUSTICE. He is a God of FREE WILL, of NON-INTERFERENCE, a sideline cheerleader more than a referee. He refuses to use His power to direct me (or anyone), because doing so wouldn't allow me to freely love Him. It would demand I do. That is not the God of my understanding.



And, no, I do not place any merit or credence in the verse you quoted. The bible, while full of great principles, is a work of authorship that has been translated umpteen millions of times by... flawed men. "Good" book. Not "Perfect" book.

The verse you quoted is the precept for the argument of pre-ordainment, otherwise known as predestination, which was removed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. You can't take a verse like that out of context. And you really need a Concordance to develop the true meaning in the original writ.

It states that, yes, God knows it all before we do it. He exists on a plane that is not controlled by the parameters of place or time as we ourselves understand them.

But it is also clear that through Christ, God will never again interfere with man's free will. So while God KNOWS, He doesn't CONTROL.

Think of it this way: you know that your kids play with toys. You have bought the toys, so you know what toys they have. You set the rules for playtime, so you know when and where they are supposed to be playing with them, and when and where they are NOT supposed to be playing with them. And you know that you bought them to be played with a certain way.

But do you actually get down there with them and demand that they play with them according to your expectations, your very demands of how YOU would play with them were you still underdeveloped enough to take pleasure in such things?

No. You let your kids play with their toys to foster their imagination and growth. They may not play with them when you figured they would, choosing instead to climb a tree; or how you figured they would, choosing instead to enter their own imaginary world without your interference.

That's a tiny bit of the way I PERSONALLY see God: loving, caring, wanting us to have the best, but knowing that our best only comes when He's not trying to force Himself on us.

I told you: I am not your "average" Christian. You have a good argument with them. But not with me, my friend.
 
Senojekips, your view of religion is really really negative.

You speak about lala land and fairies... But I see it more like a "philosophy".

Some religious people are nuts, I give you that. But many arent the dumb people you describe.

I can bring a mathematician to tell my that I have one chance on billions to win the lottery. And if I win, you will call it luck. Or just a mathematical possibility... Other will call it the will of god.

Now, who cares?

And if we look carefully, we will find more proofs that god exist than otherwise.

You have no proofs that god doesnt exist. And you will never be able to prove it even if you travel in space for centuries...

And yet, all we need as proof that god exist is the feeling that there is something there. And dont tell me that we cant trust a feeling or our intuition.

When you read holy scriptures, you can feel a superior intelligence behind it.

Dont tell me that any idiot can write the Torah, the Bible or the Koran... It takes more than a genius to create these concepts in such times of ignorance.

Maybe it's a lie. That it was a man who wrote these things. But some chose to believe it and to follow that path.

And if you care that much for science, if there is so many religions and so many religious people... Then maybe that religion is the answer to a human need. Maybe it's supposed to be part of our environment.

Now some are stronger (or weaker) than others... Why do you have to be a jerk with anyone who dont share your views?

And if tomorrow the religious people become stronger than you. Do you want them to treat like that?

So listen to Jesus and be nice. Or god's wrath will be on you. ;)
 
Senojekips, your view of religion is really really negative.

;)
But of course, I am a product of the 20th and 21st centuries, not the dark ages when people believed in things like, The Evil Eye, Witches and warlocks and some man in the sky who has all of these powers yet refuses to use them.

My view of incest, vandalism and serial murder, are similarly negative. Forgive me if I despise people who will not use their eyes ears and brain, but will willingly use unproven and illogical theories on which to base their lives and not only that, try to use it to cripple the advancement of rational and logical persons, dragging them back to the dark ages using religious mumbo jumbo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, Seno, you've missed my point entirely.
No I haven't.

It no one's "fault" about any debate with God, because neither of us can prove or disprove His existence - that's why it is a THEORETICAL debate: we are discussing possibilities, not facts.
Speak for yourself, I am discussuing facts, and I certainly agree that you are discussing theory, because you "god" is only that.

You keep bringing up this incessant need to state that I, and others like me, use the concept of God as a crutch... "releasing them from either accepting responsibility or trying to find the root of the problem."
What other reason is there that might possibly explain why any person with normal faculties would have to believe in a mythological (unproven) entity. It is no more than an escape from realism, some people resort to drugs, some to excessive use of alcohol and others to an invisible man. It is at very best, only a crutch.

In fact, MOST Christians ardently believe that the greatest freedom mankind has is to screw up. To err is human, and all that rigmarole.
but that goes against what is written in the bobble???

Why can you not accept that I live my life accepting my flaws as a character in need of revision? There's no God about that at all. Just Richard and how he REACTS to life as he ACTS in it.
I am not talking about your life, unless you have forgotten I am discussing the use of 'god' to explain things, as was first done in this thread
3.Midway - In no other battle in my opinion is it more apparent that god is on our side.
It is you who brings your belief in god to this debate, not proof, just a belief.

I don't believe God excuses me for anything. I believe that God created me with a sense of right and wrong, with the free will to do the right or wrong thing, and with the intelligence to know that what I receive will be based on the wrongs and the rights I deserve for those decisions.
And, no, I do not place any merit or credence in the verse you quoted. The bible, while full of great principles, is a work of authorship that has been translated umpteen millions of times by... flawed men. "Good" book. Not "Perfect" book.
Ahhh so you are a believer who does not believe the bible,.... tell me more.

The verse you quoted is the precept for the argument of pre-ordainment, otherwise known as predestination, which was removed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. You can't take a verse like that out of context. And you really need a Concordance to develop the true meaning in the original writ.
Why,??? because it is written in the book that you state you do not necessarily believe,... a book that you know is full of fallacies and the most blatant and ridiculous contradictions, a bit like those people who purport to believe in god, yet state that they don't believe in "his book"

The truth being that both the concept of god and the book written to justify that fallacious concept, is a complete sham. In writing the book the writers, like lawyers have tried to cover all eventualities and in doing so have tied themselves in knots. This is bought about by the fact that they are writing about an imaginary thing, and because of that have no "truth" to follow.
 
Last edited:
The truth being that both the concept of god and the book written to justify that fallacious concept, is a complete sham. In writing the book the writers, like lawyers have tried to cover all eventualities and in doing so have tied themselves in knots. This is bought about by the fact that they are writing about an imaginary thing, and because of that have no "truth" to follow.[/QUOTE]
"Following is the quote from hindu saint vivekanand hope you understand there's something of higher power than humans and that's within us:-
I am the thread that runs through all these pearls," and each pearl is a religion or even a sect thereof. Such are the different pearls, and God is the thread that runs through all of them; most people, however, are entirely unconscious of it.

All that is real in me is God; all that is real in God is I. The gulf between God and human beings is thus bridged. Thus we find how, by knowing God, we find the kingdom of heaven within us.

God is self-evident, impersonal, omniscient, the Knower and the Master of nature, the Lord of all. He is behind all worship and it is being done according to Him, whether we know it or not.
 
Senojekips, you are a total jerk with religious people. But I love you man, I enjoy reading you.

May god bless you and protect you from the evil eye...

I just want to add one thing. If there is no god, what's the point? what the point in life? Why should we care about the truth? Why being intelligent if being stupid works?

Why do we need ethics? morals? Why cant people have children with their sisters if there is no god to forbid incest?

We built a lot on religion.
 
Why do we need ethics? morals? Why cant people have children with their sisters if there is no god to forbid incest?
Because these 'children' will be ugly monsters with down syndrome. I really hope the majority of people on Earth keep morality for themselves, not for god, God or 'God'. I don't believe in God and never used to, but i don't want to have sex with my sister.
 
Insult me all you want, Seno.

You're just another self-proclaimed Christian that you detest preaching your own intolerance of anyone disagreeing with you, no matter how politely.

I was painfully cognizant to respect your beliefs. In return, you've done nothing but insult me and my personal beliefs.

Enjoy your one-sided discussion. It only tells everyone just how incapable you are of mature and intelligent debate. Oh, sorry, I forgot - I'm the idiot without a backbone who needs an escape route. Funny ho it didn't turn out that way. But then again, pomposity is not something I've ever needed to feel good about myself, neither feeling an overwhelming passion to slap anyone who doesn't agree with me.

Boy, you sure impressed me...
 
Senojekips, you are a total jerk with religious people. But I love you man, I enjoy reading you.

May god bless you and protect you from the evil eye...

I just want to add one thing. If there is no god, what's the point? what the point in life? Why should we care about the truth? Why being intelligent if being stupid works?

Why do we need ethics? morals? Why cant people have children with their sisters if there is no god to forbid incest?

We built a lot on religion.
Yeah,... like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the proselytising of the "ignorant" for monetary gain, and of course as we have been finding in recent years, the church is a hotbed of child slavery and paedophilia, not only ignoring these practices when bought to their attention, but actively participating and hiding any evidence that was found.

I find your reasoning to be very shallow on this question. Did you ever stop for one single second the think of the converse? Your question is shaped purely on the stupid religious premise that one must need a god to live a good life and have some morals.

Morality, like so many things is it's own reward, it leads to a more peaceful and safer existence and therefore a happier life for all concerned. It's far simpler than religion would have us believe, with the threat of god's wrath. A wrath that is totally at odds with reality, after all, if their god were all seeing and all powerful, he had the ability to prevent the alleged "sins" against his teaching but elected to totally ignore them. Hardly the actions of a teacher, or anyone who proclaims to want to make people better persons, but absolutely typical of what we see in ill thought religious lies.

Insult me all you want, Seno.

Boy, you sure impressed me...
I care not at all about impressing adults who still believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens. In fact I see it as a good sign that my powers of reason have developed past those of a four year old that we disagree.
 
Last edited:
Well, you bet on human intelligence in this case then. But there is a lot of people around who dont get it. If they have to chose between their egoist interest now and moral, it will be their interest everytime...

And for the crusades, inquisition, these are only examples of how men can twist reality to follow their own will. Crusaders butchered jews all over Europe in their path to Jerusalem for money and resources. Jesus never asked for such things...

And what about Hitler? All the war lords who didnt follow any religion? All the dictators mankind provided to prove how men are stupid and evil...

You dont need an angry god to be a murderer.
 
Well, you bet on human intelligence in this case then. But there is a lot of people around who dont get it. If they have to chose between their egoist interest now and moral, it will be their interest everytime...

And for the crusades, inquisition, these are only examples of how men can twist reality to follow their own will. Crusaders butchered jews all over Europe in their path to Jerusalem for money and resources. Jesus never asked for such things...

And what about Hitler? All the war lords who didnt follow any religion? All the dictators mankind provided to prove how men are stupid and evil...

You dont need an angry god to be a murderer.
You are starting to get it. The fact is, that you don't need a god,... period.

Religion makes no difference whatsoever to those who elect for self interest over morality, that is no more than lack of depth of character, and I have no hesitation in saying that in fact, those who do lean towards self interest and immorality see religion merely as a way of easing their guilt. This has been catered for very well in some religions who preach that if one confesses to their wrong doings they are absolved to start again, which they do with monotonous regularity, quite deliberately and with no shame whatsoever.

In my personal experience, I can say that our virtually all of our town's most immoral persons are regular church goers. Some of them being seen by their peers as our town's leading citizens.

Look at most of the worlds politicians, who are almost entirely acting in self interest and often have very few morals, yet they are some of the most regular church goers.

There is no proof that Jesus actually "asked" for anything. I think what you actually mean, is what the bobble asks for, in his name, and we know how inconsistent and contradictory the bobble is, don't we?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top