Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

Dying for your beliefs is basically the highest devotion you can show for anything, and that level of devotion doesn't simply come from reading some stories. These people must have experienced something greater than life, something that convinced them that their religion is the right one. They accepted the fact that they would get killed for their beliefs and they took their punishment with pride. That's what makes it special.

People have done the same for causes that have nothing to do with religion. The women's suffragete movement, or black civil rights for example. It's just silly to assume that because someone is willing to die for something, that it must be part of 'something greater' that humans are incapable of understanding by their volition.

 

There are many people in America who would defend freedom of speech with their lives if called upon, not necessarily because of religion, but because freedom of self-expression is so valued in American culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to ask yourself - why was the bible written down at all?

 

If the events were frankly untrue, nobody would have listened; they would have shrugged them off as foolish mis-truths (just as we do so with pastafarianism today).

If the events were merely meant to lie to people, why would hundreds of people have died for a lie?

 

The only logical conclusion is that the events dictated in the bible have some basis in fact.

 

@ginger: Yes, that's exactly the point he's making. People who died for womens rights, or for civil rights, had dedicated themselves to it - they most firmly believed in it and were ready to die for what they stood for.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dying for your beliefs is basically the highest devotion you can show for anything, and that level of devotion doesn't simply come from reading some stories. These people must have experienced something greater than life, something that convinced them that their religion is the right one. They accepted the fact that they would get killed for their beliefs and they took their punishment with pride. That's what makes it special.

People have done the same for causes that have nothing to do with religion. The women's suffragete movement, or black civil rights for example. It's just silly to assume that because someone is willing to die for something, that it must be part of 'something greater' that humans are incapable of understanding by their volition.

 

There are many people in America who would defend freedom of speech with their lives if called upon, not necessarily because of religion, but because freedom of self-expression is so valued in American culture.

 

I wasn't claiming that for someone to sacrifice themselves they needed religious reasons, I was responding to a claim saying people that died in name of their religion didn't have any significance. I'm not in any way claiming that people can only sacrifice themselves for religious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, in the same way I don't respect Scientology. We know exactly when they were created, we know exactly who they were created by, and we know exactly the reasons they were created, which weren't "divine inspiration." Its also a similar reason to why I don't respect Mormonism as a belief - the belief not the believers. Unlike Scientology and Mormonism, I have no respect for "believers" of "Pastafarianism" - simply because they don't exist. Anyone who says they believe they were touched by the magical noodly appendage is openly mocking organized religion. And, if they are being serious, I feel bad for them because they're too stupid to see the point and purpose of their "religion." We thought of the most absolutely ridiculous thing we could think of, then we applied everything we knew about other religions to it, and then challenged them to disprove their own parodied religion.

 

Again, how do we know that the flying sphagetti monster DOES NOT EXIST? I know that the ideology was initially intended to be a mockery, but how does the intent of an idea determine if the idea is true?

 

Again, the original intent of the idea of a wormhole was to amuse people with a work of fiction. Yet, we now are seeing wormholes could be quite possible. How does the intent of the idea determine whether or not the idea is true?

 

Yes, I respect Christians and Christianity, in the same way I respect the beliefs/believers of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and other major religions.

 

Why? What evidence do we have that the soul, afterlife, and divine creator exist?

 

Its deserves special treatment because it isn't openly mocking people.

 

Actually, Christianity openly denounces non-believers and homosexuals.

 

And because no one believes it anyway, versus the 6 billion people that believe in something and recognize morality / good and evil, and unknown or difficult to understand forces not of this earth.

 

Billions of people in the past believed that the Earth was the center of the universe...does that deserve merit too? We also thought that all objects had a distinct mass that can never change. Do we want to discredit special relativity and the relativistic mass?

 

Its not a complete joke because 11 of the original 12 followers of Christ were martyred for their belief. Laying all this academic mumbo jumbo aside, can you think of anything you believe in so strongly that you would die for it? Do you honestly think the so called believers of the FSM would stand firm and refuse to renounce their belief if they were tortured, only to suffer a slow and excruciatingly painful death?

 

If there was nothing to religion, why would it stand the test of time for thousands of years, why would people spend their lives and deaths devoting themselves to a "joke"?

 

What? People died for Christianity and this somehow proves it is correct?

 

People die for Islam...is that correct too? Are all religions correct because people died for them?

 

People died for the Nazis. Are they correct also?

 

You also have to ask yourself - why was the bible written down at all?

 

If the events were frankly untrue, nobody would have listened; they would have shrugged them off as foolish mis-truths (just as we do so with pastafarianism today).

If the events were merely meant to lie to people, why would hundreds of people have died for a lie?

 

The only logical conclusion is that the events dictated in the bible have some basis in fact.

 

 

I could replace the word "Bible" with "Torah" or "Baghavad Gita" or "Koran" or "Veda". Hell, I could replace "Bible" with devil worship, Nazism, slavery treaty, etc...anything. We enslaved humans for thousands of years and people died to perserve the slave trade. Is this cause right also?

 

The people died for a lie because they believed the lie, obviously.

 

This is like saying "If saturated fat doesn't actually cause heart disease, why did everyone start making low fat products and buying vegetable oils?" They did it because the scientists did bad science and people believed it. Humans don't have some inate ability to see whats true and what isn't.

 

If the geocentric model of the universe is wrong, why did people accept it untill a few hundred years ago?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dying for your beliefs is basically the highest devotion you can show for anything, and that level of devotion doesn't simply come from reading some stories. These people must have experienced something greater than life, something that convinced them that their religion is the right one. They accepted the fact that they would get killed for their beliefs and they took their punishment with pride. That's what makes it special.

People have done the same for causes that have nothing to do with religion. The women's suffragete movement, or black civil rights for example. It's just silly to assume that because someone is willing to die for something, that it must be part of 'something greater' that humans are incapable of understanding by their volition.

 

There are many people in America who would defend freedom of speech with their lives if called upon, not necessarily because of religion, but because freedom of self-expression is so valued in American culture.

 

I wasn't claiming that for someone to sacrifice themselves they needed religious reasons, I was responding to a claim saying people that died in name of their religion didn't have any significance. I'm not in any way claiming that people can only sacrifice themselves for religious reasons.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what was meant. I thought you meant that religious believers were privy to some information that was worth dying for, that non-believers were incapable of understanding because they weren't religious. The same accusation would have worked the other way; atheists who instantly dismiss believers as irrational simply because they happen to believe in something they personally don't are just as silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what was meant. I thought you meant that religious believers were privy to some information that was worth dying for, that non-believers were incapable of understanding because they weren't religious. The same accusation would have worked the other way; atheists who instantly dismiss believers as irrational simply because they happen to believe in something they personally don't are just as silly.

 

Do people also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat and not be called "irrational"? I mean they just happen to believe in something that you don't believe.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I could replace the word "Bible" with "Torah" or "Baghavad Gita" or "Koran" or "Veda". Hell, I could replace "Bible" with devil worship, Nazism, slavery treaty, etc...anything. We enslaved humans for thousands of years and people died to perserve the slave trade. Is this cause right also?

 

I never said the fact that people died for something made it inherently right - but it does at least indicate there is powerful evidence to believe it's true.

 

 

The people died for a lie because they believed the lie, obviously.

 

And why would they believe a lie? They were right there - they would have been the first ones to call bs if something was wrong.

 

This is like saying "If saturated fat doesn't actually cause heart disease, why did everyone start making low fat products and buying vegetable oils?" They did it because the scientists did bad science and people believed it. Humans don't have some inate ability to see whats true and what isn't.

 

If the geocentric model of the universe is wrong, why did people accept it untill a few hundred years ago?

 

Of course humans don't have inate lie-detection - but generally we believe things that are true, or at least when we have reasonable evidence of such. You're still not answering my question - these people died for Jesus right when these events were occuring. If Jesus was a fraud, surely they would have been the first to know - and why then would they have laid their lives on the line for that?

 

Once gain, I don't see anyone being martyred for pastafarianism.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what was meant. I thought you meant that religious believers were privy to some information that was worth dying for, that non-believers were incapable of understanding because they weren't religious. The same accusation would have worked the other way; atheists who instantly dismiss believers as irrational simply because they happen to believe in something they personally don't are just as silly.

 

Do people also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat and not be called "irrational"? I mean they just happen to believe in something that you don't believe.

 

No, they don't. We know for a fact the Earth is round and we've known this since the 16th century. We've sailed around it, we've seen it from space and saw that it was, in fact, round. There's simply not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise. Calling them irrational might be a bit unfair, uneducated would match the situation better. But honestly, show me anyone that thinks the earth is flat.

 

What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never said the fact that people died for something made it inherently right - but it does at least indicate there is powerful evidence to believe it's true.

 

Then every religion is true, along with Nazism, Marxism, and devil worship. Also I'm sure there are some psychos out there who died in the name of the voices they heard in their head. People have died in the name of Japan, is Japan the best country? Hell people have died for basically everything. People have died due to their scientific beliefs. I guess everything is true then?

 

And why would they believe a lie? They were right there - they would have been the first ones to call bs if something was wrong.

 

Why are there people who believe in Jesus and people who believe in Muhammad? Are both then true?

 

Of course humans don't have inate lie-detection - but generally we believe things that are true, or at least when we have reasonable evidence of such. You're still not answering my question - these people died for Jesus right when these events were occuring. If Jesus was a fraud, surely they would have been the first to know - and why then would they have laid their lives on the line for that?

 

Once gain, I don't see anyone being martyred for pastafarianism.

 

First of all, I'm not sure that theres really evidence that any of the disciples died for Jesus, or that Jesus even ever existed.

 

Secondly, why would people have died for Muhammad?

 

Thirdly, why would people have died for Hitler if his cause wasn't worth supporting? Better fire up the gas chambers.

 

No, they don't. We know for a fact the Earth is round and we've known this since the 16th century. We've sailed around it, we've seen it from space and saw that it was, in fact, round. There's simply not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise. Calling them irrational might be a bit unfair, uneducated would match the situation better. But honestly, show me anyone that thinks the earth is flat.

 

What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

 

And here we go around the circle again. We also don't have evidence for or against the flying spaghetti monster. We also don't have evidence that a giant undetecable beam of death isn't going to strike the Earth from a distant cosmic event.

 

We also don't have evidence that people hearing voices in their head aren't actually hearing a real voice from a supernatural source. Yet these people get committed to a mental hospital.

 

If you take your same defense of religion and apply it to any other scenario, it sounds completely crazy. The only reason "You don't have evidence for or against God" sounds like a reasonable argument is that you've been brainwashed into thinking religion must be accepted. You wouldn't say "You don't have evidence for or against unicorns, so maybe they exist"


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

Precisely.

 

I'm not too concerned about whether God does or doesn't exist, I'm more bothered by the process through which people arrive at their own belief. In my eyes, it's fine for someone to state they don't believe in anything that has no evidence, and then say there is no conclusive evidence that God exists, hence they're atheist. The problem is, some people take it further and say there is categorically no God based on no evidence either. It isn't consistent.

 

People try and dress that up by saying, "Burden of proof should go to religious people." That's a cop-out in my eyes. That just says to me neither side has any conclusive evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

Precisely.

 

I'm not too concerned about whether God does or doesn't exist, I'm more bothered by the process through which people arrive at their own belief. In my eyes, it's fine for someone to state they don't believe in anything that has no evidence, and then say there is no conclusive evidence that God exists, hence they're atheist. The problem is, some people take it further and say there is categorically no God based on no evidence either. It isn't consistent.

 

People try and dress that up by saying, "Burden of proof should go to religious people." That's a cop-out in my eyes. That just says to me neither side has any conclusive evidence.

 

Do you believe in unicorns?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, how do we know that the flying sphagetti monster DOES NOT EXIST? I know that the ideology was initially intended to be a mockery, but how does the intent of an idea determine if the idea is true?

 

Again, the original intent of the idea of a wormhole was to amuse people with a work of fiction. Yet, we now are seeing wormholes could be quite possible. How does the intent of the idea determine whether or not the idea is true?

Quite frankly, we don't know if God looks like a bowl of spaghetti or not, but the intent of the idea plays a role in whether the idea is respectable or not, should be given any serious thought or not, or just shrugged off as a joke. The letter back in 2005 made its point quite well, and the people carrying the idea on today are just taking it too far.

 

Its deserves special treatment because it isn't openly mocking people.

Actually, Christianity openly denounces non-believers and homosexuals.

Saying that a man sleeping with another man is unnatural/wrong is not openly mocking people. Try again.

 

And because no one believes it anyway, versus the 6 billion people that believe in something and recognize morality / good and evil, and unknown or difficult to understand forces not of this earth.

Billions of people in the past believed that the Earth was the center of the universe...does that deserve merit too? We also thought that all objects had a distinct mass that can never change. Do we want to discredit special relativity and the relativistic mass?

You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now.

 

What? People died for Christianity and this somehow proves it is correct?

Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between unicorns and God, there's no denying that. This discussion is about religion, not about unicorns. Have you ever seen someone pray to a unicorn?

 

On the subject of praying, there are people that are seriously influenced by their religion, that feel someone is listening to their prayers. I've seen it first-hand. It's not just "Yeah, sure, I believe in God.", but "I feel God is looking over me, protecting me and hearing my prayers." Who are you to dismiss what other people feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

Precisely.

 

I'm not too concerned about whether God does or doesn't exist, I'm more bothered by the process through which people arrive at their own belief. In my eyes, it's fine for someone to state they don't believe in anything that has no evidence, and then say there is no conclusive evidence that God exists, hence they're atheist. The problem is, some people take it further and say there is categorically no God based on no evidence either. It isn't consistent.

 

People try and dress that up by saying, "Burden of proof should go to religious people." That's a cop-out in my eyes. That just says to me neither side has any conclusive evidence.

 

Do you believe in unicorns?

No, because we've already explored every corner of land this planet has to offer and seen no reasonable observations that suggest evidence for unicorns may exist. Except for the insignificant probability they may one day be part of the several thousand new species discovered each year, there is no reason to believe in unicorns.

 

I'm not saying unicorns don't exist, I'm saying the probability that they do has been reduced so far that there's no significant chance of there being one..

 

Likewise, I'm not saying there is no God, just that in my eyes there is no significant reason to believe He exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that a man sleeping with another man is unnatural/wrong is not openly mocking people. Try again.

 

So theres something special about "mocking" that makes the idea discredited? If Pastafarianism said that Christians should be stoned, then youd respect Pastafarianism more? Since it is no longer mocking, but instead hating.

 

You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now.

 

Then imagine you existed 400 years ago. When astronomers said "Wait a minute, theres no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything" would your defense be "WAIT! Billions of people currently think it is!"

 

If you existed 150 years ago, when Darwin was developing his theories, would you have said "WAIT A MINUTE! Billions of people think man came from God...how can they be wrong?"

 

Hell, 6 months ago, scientists discovered life that is based on cyanide. Would you look at this discovery and say "Wait a minute! Billions of people know that life is only made of carbon!"

 

The defense that billions of people currently think something is not a valid point.

 

Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.

 

You're using a story from the Bible to justify your opinion....this is like saying "Well Noah build that whole damn ark and got all those animals, do you think he did it for no reason?????"

 

 

No, because we've already explored every corner of land this planet has to offer and seen no reasonable observations that suggest evidence for unicorns may exist. Except for the insignificant probability they may one day be part of the several thousand new species discovered each year, there is no reason to believe in unicorns.

 

I'm not saying unicorns don't exist, I'm saying the probability that they do has been reduced so far that there's no significant chance of there being one..

 

Likewise, I'm not saying there is no God, just that in my eyes there is no significant reason to believe He exists.

 

Replace the word "unicorn" with "God" and you have atheism. Atheism does not make any claims, it is the response to a claim.

 

If someone said "Unicorns definitely exist" you would say "Show me the evidence, or else I don't believe you"

 

This is what atheism is. If someone says "There's a god" we say "I don't believe you." Atheism is basically the only belief system that is classified by a lack of belief. The only thing you know about a person when they say "I'm an atheist" is that he does not support the God theory.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is an umbrella term for a whole set of beliefs, ranging from, "There is no evidence that God exists, but other supernatural things may," to "There is evidence that nothing supernatural has ever existed."

 

There is a difference between saying, "I don't know for sure, but based on anecdotal evidence I think God doesn't exist," and saying, "I know for sure; I have proof God doesn't exist."

 

I maintain that the strongest statement people on either side of this debate can make is, "I think but I don't know for sure", which doesn't make for great conversation. The interesting bit is that for those who do believe God exists, why they believe other Gods are wrong, but theirs is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is an umbrella term for a whole set of beliefs, ranging from, "There is no evidence that God exists, but other supernatural things may," to "There is evidence that nothing supernatural has ever existed."

 

There is a difference between saying, "I don't know for sure, but based on anecdotal evidence I think God doesn't exist," and saying, "I know for sure; I have proof God doesn't exist."

 

Yes, there is a difference, but this difference is not accounted for by the term "atheist". An atheist could be someone who firmly and stubbornly denies the possibility of God. Or, and atheist could just be somebody who says "I don't think you're correct" when someone says "There definitely is a God"

 

When you're trying to decide whether or not atheism is justified, the only thing you can look at is what you DON'T believe. An atheistic argument is one that says that your reasons for believing in God are flawed. If someone is constructing an argument that God definitely does not exist, this is not an atheistic argument.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now.

 

Then imagine you existed 400 years ago. When astronomers said "Wait a minute, theres no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything" would your defense be "WAIT! Billions of people currently think it is!"

Except you're forgetting a key point - "Wait a minute, there is no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything, and here is my evidence against conventional wisdom.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now.

 

Then imagine you existed 400 years ago. When astronomers said "Wait a minute, theres no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything" would your defense be "WAIT! Billions of people currently think it is!"

Except you're forgetting a key point - "Wait a minute, there is no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything, and here is my evidence against conventional wisdom.

 

And so then where is the evidence for God?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so then where is the evidence for God?

What do you want me to say, here is a notarized statement from 10 years ago that says God left His mark on this spot of land, along with the signatures of 1000 witnesses, and 25 independent verified video and tape recordings?

 

You've already rejected all the evidence that I have, that has been presented here and elsewhere. "Na na na that's not good enough na na na na I'm not listening na na na na you need better evidence" :rolleyes:


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell should a religious person need to give evidence? If he himself is sure that God is guiding him, why do you want to rain on his parade and ask for evidence? Religion isn't a science, it's a personal matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so then where is the evidence for God?

What do you want me to say, here is a notarized statement from 10 years ago that says God left His mark on this spot of land, along with the signatures of 1000 witnesses, and 25 independent verified video and tape recordings?

 

You've already rejected all the evidence that I have, that has been presented here and elsewhere. "Na na na that's not good enough na na na na I'm not listening na na na na you need better evidence" :rolleyes:

 

I've not just said "na na na" I've logically refuted your reasons. One of your reasons is that many people believe in Christ. I said, so what? Billions of people don't believe in Christ. Many people also believed in the Nazi cause. What does belief by many have to do with truth?

 

You've also said that the sacrifice of the disciples gives evidence for God. I said that it is ridiculous to use evidence FROM the Bible as proof that the Bible is true. Want to use evidence from the Pastafarian web site to show that Pastafarianism is a real religion? According to its own web site, it is.

 

I'm not saying "na na na" I'm giving you reasons why your evidence doesn't make any sense. This is how a debate works. Then, to defend your point, you can supply new evidence, or tell me why my critiques are invalid.

 

You're the one who just throws out random evidence, then when it is refuted, plugs your ears and pretends that the response never happened.

 

And evidence for God could be any number of things. Video recording of an angel coming down from the sky and saving somebody from getting hit by a bus. Scientific measurement of an energy that is inside somebody's body and then leaves their body to go into the afterlife. It's up to you. Show me the evidence, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

 

Why the hell should a religious person need to give evidence? If he himself is sure that God is guiding him, why do you want to rain on his parade and ask for evidence? Religion isn't a science, it's a personal matter.

 

If someone tells you that he talks to a leprechaun in his back yard who tells him what to do, is that a personal matter also?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not just said "na na na" I've logically refuted your reasons. One of your reasons is that many people believe in Christ. I said, so what? Billions of people don't believe in Christ. Many people also believed in the Nazi cause. What does belief by many have to do with truth?

I never said that, you should reread my previous posts to get an accurate view of what I said.

 

You've also said that the sacrifice of the disciples gives evidence for God. I said that it is ridiculous to use evidence FROM the Bible as proof that the Bible is true.

I'm using historical and verifiable facts as proof that there is something more to Christianity than there is to pastafarianism. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it fiction, especially when the events are non-secular.

 

I'm explaining to you why I can hold other religions in such high regard while simultaneously frowning upon other "religions", and I'm using Christianity as an example.

 

And evidence for God could be any number of things. Video recording of an angel coming down from the sky and saving somebody from getting hit by a bus. Scientific measurement of an energy that is inside somebody's body and then leaves their body to go into the afterlife. It's up to you. Show me the evidence, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

If those are the examples you want, look at any modern miracle, especially those used in the canonization of recent saints. Or listen to any tape recordings of exorcisms. In both cases the Catholic Church will exhaust all natural possibilities before jumping to a supernatural conclusion.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using historical and verifiable facts as proof that there is something more to Christianity than there is to pastafarianism. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it fiction, especially when the events are non-secular.

 

So what? If Christianity is more popular, has more history, and has more events that were taken place in its name...SO WHAT? What does this do to strengthen the case that God exists? How is human support of an idea a marker of truth?

 

 

If those are the examples you want, look at any modern miracle, especially those used in the canonization of recent saints. Or listen to any tape recordings of exorcisms. In both cases the Catholic Church will exhaust all natural possibilities before jumping to a supernatural conclusion.

 

I've seen plenty of tape recordings of an exorcism. I see nothing there that is evidence of a supernatural power. What specifically is there that can ONLY be explained by God?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? If Christianity is more popular, has more history, and has more events that were taken place in its name...SO WHAT? What does this do to strengthen the case that God exists? How is human support of an idea a marker of truth?

Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word

- why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different?

 

I've seen plenty of tape recordings of an exorcism. I see nothing there that is evidence of a supernatural power. What specifically is there that can ONLY be explained by God?

Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual?

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - http://vimeo.com/9704635.

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.