I've been doubting God for a couple years now.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:32pm
Thread Topic: I've been doubting God for a couple years now.
-
Bob; MIGHT is the key word in thst whole thing.
and also when it comes to Evolution, we don't have all the evidence for that either, as I have been told by many people who are professional archeologists that only about 1/1000 species are actually fossilized, meaning that by which we creationists have "no evidence", neither do you.
never said it was the beginning. I just said that thats how OUR Universe started, but how the hell DID it begin, because there had to be a spark at some point.
I go to a Catholic school and we've learned about Evolution. Not much of a fight there.
We can see nebulas because of the stars IN them. What I'm talking about Is the Interstellar dust that Is not Illuminated by any means. That along with the dark matter In the haloes of galaxies; the mass Is there and we know It yet there Is no eay of knoeing what It Is truly made of or all Its properties. You don't strike up an argument about space with an astrophysicist if you're not one, which from what I can tell you aren't.
and I'm not rambling, but after this post I'm quitting this s--- because it always gives me a headache and I already had one before I started typing this so I'm pretty much finished with defending my beleifs against someone who has none, which really gives them a reason to cut down those who DO have beliefs.
my point exACTLY. you have no beliefs meaning that once you leave this planet, there will be no consequences for the actions you made. But ya know, Iguess yyou'd rather believe that you'll never see your family that has passed away or your pet or ANYONE once you die, since your conscienceness disappears into nothingness when you die. You'll never be able to do what you want for eternity since your gone once you pass. Really, that's such a happy ending to a painful and s---ty life, isn't it? But once we get to the next life, whatif Christians are right? Welp, I guess there'll be no God for you either way, since you'll probably go to hell where you never see God. So, have a happy ending. I know there's a chance that I'll go there too, but if I believe in God then if it turns out that Christianity is correct then I'll be going to heaven most likely, unless I go insane will like, murdering people and not even caring.
^THAT might be considered rambling but I do that when I try to make a point. Just me.
and Br0wnie about the priest and that church, I'm not sure which sub-catagory of Christianity that is but I've never seen anything like that with Catholics. And with that I mainly was taking into cconsideration the average context thst people keep saying. -
Now THIS is a good thread...i fought the bondage of classes, and the poletariat masses have me here to spit a thesis against all of your asses! Lets start with you there Frankenstein! Lookin like somethin out of rl stein!
Naw but:
@brownie. 1. You seem to understand that god is generally considered all powerful or extremely powerful, and yet you continue to act confused at his theoretical ability to create life...this is whats known as being obtuse. No, god would hypothetically not need to have sex to create you.
2. Sex is not evil in the bible. Sex is strictly controlled in the bible but meeting certain criteria it is permitted.
3. The issues you take with christianity are very hollow. I would invite you to question why your losing faith. Is it bevause it no longer makes sense, or because you wamt to portray your self as a sort of pariah atheist?
@rain what makes you think it was created in order to control? What group do you imagine holds or held that control? Who stands to benefit?
@tongue what makes you think it was created in order to control? What group do you imagine holds or held that control? Who stands to benefit?
@alex, ok, stop cussing, because your not good at it.
You gotta make sure those words make sense when you throw them in. Adding "f---" t your sentence may SEEM like it proves the seriousness of what your saying but in reality, it indicates only poor language skills.
Now as to what is or isnt random...well incidentally, whether god had something to do with it or not, is not evidenced by the amount of relative order or chaos in nature.
Consider for a moment that chaos and order are subjective properties. Which means that if were no looking, they cease to exist. Without consious perspective, there is no such thing; it is simply what it is.
And then also, your misunderstanding the argument of "i cant see it so it doesnt exist" the argument is not that we rely soley on our sense of sight, but that none of our senses or empirical perception at all show evidence of god. So we are therefore inclined to disbelieve.
@bob atheism is literally the lack of belief in deity; not the lack of religion. The irony is that regardless of its definition, atheism which has evolved to be synonymous with the lack of religion has actually evolved to become something of a religion.
Which brings me to my second point: religionis an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Its willful ignorance to reduce it to stories and cite a few traditions which happen to be inpractical
@vanilla...actually, i agree with you. -
Oh yeah and @rain your latest post displays all of the ignorance you accuse others of. So congratulations! Your a hypocrite.
-
We can't always agree on everything but thank you for showing that not everything one says is wrong.
Also, I usually agree with a majority of what you are saying, -
I would counter than any tradition that doesn't directly improve someone's state of life is impractical. Please elaborate.
-
Also how is she a hypocrite?
-
Fluff, bulls---, mysticism, old wives tales...things of this nature..impractical tradition maybe was a poor choice of words. All of those other seem to fit better
-
I'm not really seeing the difference between any of the stuff you stated and religion. Can you please provide me with an explanation oh how they're different?
-
Vanillas idea had some logic to it. I havnt given it much thought but its obviously a position which can be reasonablly defended.
Rains reply featured a cute bellittlement and hollow accusation, as the religious really havnt ever been shown to be any more ir less ignorant as a whole yhan none religious number one, and number two over generalizing the entire globes entire history of humanity is just as big a goof as it gets. Logical fallacy is logic fallacy. So in ight of that, calling bulls--- on an actually considered thought WAS hypocritical -
The main difference is that the stuff i stated is examoles of many individual ideas and practices which are decidedly incorrect or unsupported. Religion is very large, with many ideas and practices spanning many levels of practicality, logic, and beneficial vs harmful content. Like i said dude, saying religion is the same as an old wives tale is willful ignorance. Regardless of its merit, regardless of the merit of its practitioners, regradless of the logic of its ideals, religion is vast, and massively interactive with vast amounts of different cultures and civilizations.
-
Examples of single practices, not many
-
I believe I covered the ignorance in my post on the first page. The sub-par a graph labeled #notallchristians. And vanillas counter was addressed in the exact same post in the exact same paragraph. I believe that what rain was trying to draw attention to was the exact same thing that I'm drawing attention to right now. That even if information is provided it is forgotten and has to be resubmitted to the religious community over and over again. The impression we get from this is that they don't actually care to even have a discussion. They're just waiting their turn to yell. Which is far from a mutual goal. I can't blame rain for getting a little snide. I feel the emotion is a hard one to resist a lot of the time.
-
And so because religion is big and popular it can't be viewed as the same as an old wives tale? How do you figure?
-
Ignorance wasnt remotely covered. For every group of or individual person of religion who believes one thing, theres scores who believe things in totally opposing directions. Your point was (and correct me if im wrong) that the existence of minorities within an organization doesnt negate majority beliefs that you take issue with. My counter is that the majority you take issue with is defined by features not inherint in religion.
For every person of religion who attempts to hinder scientific research, theres hundreds of religious scientists working on that same research.
For every advancement the average person would see hindered, they support a different advancement which is likely just as valid. -
Oh yeah, and i certainly CAN blame her, or anyone, for blind anger.
AND popularity and size make a difference. But what i implied was that its more complex, and has a bigger impact so is moe widely used, more widely studied, and altered.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
