Respecting religion???
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
That's a pretty embarrassing argument.
Billions believe because they were told to believe when they were young by people whom they trusted. Which is almost certainly why you believe as well.
You learned your religion as you learned English, and you weren't given a choice in either.
And another glaring hole of course is the corollary of VK-s argument - the clear implication that an concept has less objective true the fewer people believe in it.Billions believe because they were told to believe when they were young by people whom they trusted. Which is almost certainly why you believe as well.
You learned your religion as you learned English, and you weren't given a choice in either.
No, that's not my point.
What made people convert from polytheism and others to Christianity, especially during times of persecution of Christians? How can you explain this power?
And don't answer because people were threatened with death otherwise, civilisations that rule through fear have fallen and Christianity remains.
Does the idea of a rainbow snot ocelot really have the power and meaning of a man named Jesus existing, carrying out good deeds and teachings, dying for his cause and reforming society?
What made people convert from polytheism and others to Christianity, especially during times of persecution of Christians? How can you explain this power?
And don't answer because people were threatened with death otherwise, civilisations that rule through fear have fallen and Christianity remains.
Does the idea of a rainbow snot ocelot really have the power and meaning of a man named Jesus existing, carrying out good deeds and teachings, dying for his cause and reforming society?
///ajd said:
And you wonder why some atheists get frustrated and mock. Hardly surprising when you divert and then try and mock.
He asked a question, he got an answer, and the answer was purely scientific without any malice. Care to cahllenge the appropriateness of the answer in relation to his question?anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agnostics say there isn't proof either way so they take the position that either could be correct.
Atheists say that the lack of evidence for God after several billion people have spent several thousand years looking for it is good enough to conclude that he doesn't exist.
I cannot give an exact percentage, but when so many have looked for so long and still failed to find a single piece of evidence, the likelihood is vanishingly small.
There is no absolute (dis)belief in anything.
People like to believe stuff; Jesus, aliens, Thetans.
Scientology attracts followers (as well as other recently created religions) because people are attracted to it.
Rust comments on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM
Scientology attracts followers (as well as other recently created religions) because people are attracted to it.
Rust comments on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Surely you know what you did?1. You made an argument that suggested because "Billions" believe something, it gives it credibility.
2. This is patently false, and it was pointed out that billions thought the earth was flat many years ago, but that belief was false.
3. You then made the point that the belief that the earth was flat was so long ago, only half a billion people were in existence, and claimed this as winning the argument, with a triumphant "hope that helps".
Clearly your original argument was proven to be false in 2, but instead of recognising this you chose to divert from the point under discussion to argue about an irrelevant technicality which had no bearing on the point that infact you started to try and make. It was not therefore an appropriate response if you wanted to remain engaged in the debate at a grown up level - it was a response only worthy of a 10 year old or a troll.
But deep down you know that already. It is this kind of dishonesty that opens the doors for athiests to put down their manners and directly mock.
So, ajd, do you want to go back and pass judgement on all who you think have been 'cocky' on this thread, including your fellow doubters, or are you more interested in scoring points on the internet? I note you conveniently overlook where I explain what I mean about the numbers shortly afterwards.
And if you really want to be objective in your criticism you'd not mention atheists putting down their manners, in the case of WinstonWolf it is evident he didn't have any manners to put down in the first place, having set out to be an obnoxious irritant from the very start.
But yeah, conveniently 'overlooked'.
And if you really want to be objective in your criticism you'd not mention atheists putting down their manners, in the case of WinstonWolf it is evident he didn't have any manners to put down in the first place, having set out to be an obnoxious irritant from the very start.
But yeah, conveniently 'overlooked'.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th January 20:37
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it can't be mocked. At the start of the season it was possible that QPR would win the premier league. But I would have laughed in the face of anyone who thought it was going to happen.
Oh are you doing a Dawkins? Are you gradually realising the seveners are just another bunch of irrationals at the other end of the scale from religious absolutists and you are backtracking away from statements of certainty in your beliefs that you previously made?anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not interested in scoring points on the internet.Your attempt to belittle the perfectly valid observation about belief in a flat earth was lame, but lets leave that aside.
If you are referring to the post about the "power" of christianty, you are alluding to its "staying power" being an indicator of its "truth", lets turn to that:
VK said:
No, that's not my point.
What made people convert from polytheism and others to Christianity, especially during times of persecution of Christians? How can you explain this power?
And don't answer because people were threatened with death otherwise, civilisations that rule through fear have fallen and Christianity remains.
Does the idea of a rainbow snot ocelot really have the power and meaning of a man named Jesus existing, carrying out good deeds and teachings, dying for his cause and reforming society?
You imply therefore that the Christianity story has some characteristics that make it more convincing than a rainbow snot ocelot story. This is probably true but does not validate the Christianity story.What made people convert from polytheism and others to Christianity, especially during times of persecution of Christians? How can you explain this power?
And don't answer because people were threatened with death otherwise, civilisations that rule through fear have fallen and Christianity remains.
Does the idea of a rainbow snot ocelot really have the power and meaning of a man named Jesus existing, carrying out good deeds and teachings, dying for his cause and reforming society?
The flat earth example still applies - believable perhaps by many (and why not) until proven otherwise by facts. Now those facts are incontrovertible and no one claims it is not round.
Do you think the earth is only 6000 years old? This may have been as believable as a flat earth when the bible was written 2000 years ago; where does this leave other 'asserted facts' in that book? If the person who wrote the bible was as correct about Jesus as he was about the age of the earth, does this leave the whole exposed as just a story, derived and adapted from ancient sun worshipping as a comparison between various common features suggests?
If you did do a scientific study of religion, it would be interesting to join the dots as to how the human mind has nurtured and created and evolved to support religion as part of survival over the ages, and how religion itself can be explained as a feature of humanity, in the same way that we breath, walk, laugh and cry. Its just about us, nothing to do with a god, the world or animals or anything else - its just in our own minds. That's why god looks like us. Usually Father Christmas.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 24th January 20:45
Existence of Christ - not disproven.
Countered with flat earth (and an assumption that the whole world believed it at the time)- disproven.
Come on ajd, be objective.
Father Christmas? What, because he has a beard?
You're starting to allow Wolfie to drag you down.
Countered with flat earth (and an assumption that the whole world believed it at the time)- disproven.
Come on ajd, be objective.
Father Christmas? What, because he has a beard?
You're starting to allow Wolfie to drag you down.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th January 20:43
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff