Recently , I have had some discussions with some friends about why they don't believe in GOD or at least the existence of a god, (not necessarily the Christian God.)
I would like to hear your top three reasons why you think this is so and after I get a few replies I will try to address each one.
*Remember, Please respect each others beliefs and don't insult each other. Go ahead and say your opinions and feelings but do it in an intelligent way at least.
*Try to keep your responses to one or two paragraphs at the most. The shorter the better ( I hate threads that are long as books to read through)
Thanks.
I would like to hear your top three reasons why you think this is so and after I get a few replies I will try to address each one.
*Remember, Please respect each others beliefs and don't insult each other. Go ahead and say your opinions and feelings but do it in an intelligent way at least.
*Try to keep your responses to one or two paragraphs at the most. The shorter the better ( I hate threads that are long as books to read through)
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
コメント(235)
193>
Maybe maybe not right? How ive been studtying ancient buddhism, thats how i understand the whole what goes around comes around theory. but its just my belief so it really is pointless for me to be controversial :S I guess i should make a period here.
195>
Lol, well you can call it extremely useful and non-religious because obviously ideology is something that you believe in at the unconscious level. Then you might say even tho u grew up in hypersexualized north americanized country but u still dont believe in ideologies of 'love'(just an axample). But since you are able to see some ideologies not useful or criticize them, they are no longer ideology to you and you are not an ideological object affected by them.
Im sorry if i was messing around with my point.. aside from it, learning english for 2+half years doesnt make my debate skill any good!!! :S
Maybe maybe not right? How ive been studtying ancient buddhism, thats how i understand the whole what goes around comes around theory. but its just my belief so it really is pointless for me to be controversial :S I guess i should make a period here.
195>
Lol, well you can call it extremely useful and non-religious because obviously ideology is something that you believe in at the unconscious level. Then you might say even tho u grew up in hypersexualized north americanized country but u still dont believe in ideologies of 'love'(just an axample). But since you are able to see some ideologies not useful or criticize them, they are no longer ideology to you and you are not an ideological object affected by them.
Im sorry if i was messing around with my point.. aside from it, learning english for 2+half years doesnt make my debate skill any good!!! :S
196 KEiTA
I think you're a bit off. Science is not an ideology, so much as a methodology. You don't "believe" in it, so much as you *use* it. With religion, it's all very nice to talk about reincarnation and so forth, but it doesn't make crops grow any faster, or cure diseases, etc. Science, of course, does.
This is why it's wrong to call science a religion. If I say something like "the theory of quantum mechanics is true", that doesn't mean that scientists "believe" in QM in the way that religious people believe in god. It means only that there is lots of good evidence for QM, and no good evidence against it. In other words, when you try to predict how the world behaves, you get better results with QM than without it.
Thus, when scientists "believe" a theory to be true, it's not for ideological reasons, but because it's useful. If the theory ever stops being useful, scientists will stop believing in it. That sort of thinking does not exist in religions.
I think you're a bit off. Science is not an ideology, so much as a methodology. You don't "believe" in it, so much as you *use* it. With religion, it's all very nice to talk about reincarnation and so forth, but it doesn't make crops grow any faster, or cure diseases, etc. Science, of course, does.
This is why it's wrong to call science a religion. If I say something like "the theory of quantum mechanics is true", that doesn't mean that scientists "believe" in QM in the way that religious people believe in god. It means only that there is lots of good evidence for QM, and no good evidence against it. In other words, when you try to predict how the world behaves, you get better results with QM than without it.
Thus, when scientists "believe" a theory to be true, it's not for ideological reasons, but because it's useful. If the theory ever stops being useful, scientists will stop believing in it. That sort of thinking does not exist in religions.
198>
well, curing disease has been done without science believe it or not.I dont know much about QM and I see your point. I guess the science is something that can reach anything as long as there are good evidence to prove, but in human technology limitation. It sounds like you are talking about Christianity rather than religion as well. And how you see the science and various theories as a useful object is caused by the fact that the science IS an ideology where they cannot reach absolute truth because of lack of 'knowledge' rather than technology. and it is not an absolute truth(well it is to the majority) because they have too many things that they cant explain. And "that sort of thinking"(ditch theories if they cant be used anymore) exist in science also because its not a stable truth to believe in. And as another example, the science cant describe some apprehension of a murderer who got accused by a woman who had memories of past life killed by him.
199>
Let me clarify my point about karma. I didnt understand the second line of yours. Do you mean why they are in such bad conditions because of the karma? You sorta see karma as something that involves luck, am i right? Karma isnt luck, its something that you get by doing something equivalent. So the reason that all the humans are born differently and unfairly is that the karma that they have been piling up from past lives is affecting them. Well can i prove it completely crystal clearly right, id say no(because im a way inferior being to the point of epiphany). But the unfairness cannot be proven by any means but law of karma. So thats what i believe :)
well, curing disease has been done without science believe it or not.I dont know much about QM and I see your point. I guess the science is something that can reach anything as long as there are good evidence to prove, but in human technology limitation. It sounds like you are talking about Christianity rather than religion as well. And how you see the science and various theories as a useful object is caused by the fact that the science IS an ideology where they cannot reach absolute truth because of lack of 'knowledge' rather than technology. and it is not an absolute truth(well it is to the majority) because they have too many things that they cant explain. And "that sort of thinking"(ditch theories if they cant be used anymore) exist in science also because its not a stable truth to believe in. And as another example, the science cant describe some apprehension of a murderer who got accused by a woman who had memories of past life killed by him.
199>
Let me clarify my point about karma. I didnt understand the second line of yours. Do you mean why they are in such bad conditions because of the karma? You sorta see karma as something that involves luck, am i right? Karma isnt luck, its something that you get by doing something equivalent. So the reason that all the humans are born differently and unfairly is that the karma that they have been piling up from past lives is affecting them. Well can i prove it completely crystal clearly right, id say no(because im a way inferior being to the point of epiphany). But the unfairness cannot be proven by any means but law of karma. So thats what i believe :)
I have no problem with "GOD" there could be one there could not be, i dont care. what i DO havea problem with is ORGANIZED RELIGION. It pretty much ruins everything. and whoever thought HEY! religion should be part of out government is an ASSHOLE. ya know. Organized religion is like the worst idea ever. not really but ya know what i mean. its a bad idea nonetheless.
202 KEiTA
> ...science IS an ideology where they cannot reach absolute truth...
> And "that sort of thinking"(ditch theories if they cant be used anymore) exist in science also because its not a stable truth to believe in.
Yes, exactly - science cannot reach absolute truth, and science is inherently stable. However, this is **precisely** why science is useful, and religion is not. I'll try my best to explain.
The most basic difference between science and religion is that science deals ONLY with claims that are disprovable. For example, if I said "there will be an eclipse next week", that's a disprovable claim; you can just watch for an eclipse to see if I'm right or not. If however I said "humans have a soul", or "murder is worse than robbery", those are not disprovable claims. You can argue for them or against them, but there is no test you could ever make (regardless of technology) that would prove them false.
Now it should be obvious that disprovable claims are inherently unstable. You might have a set of beliefs, but if they are disprovable then naturally something might happen one day to prove one of your beliefs false. You'd then have to throw away that belief. In this sense science is unstable.
However, every time you throw away a belief, you know more about the world than you did before. Even better, if lots of people spend lots of time trying to disprove these beliefs, then after a while the ones that haven't been disproved get to be very useful. You don't know for sure that they're "true", but you do know that they're hard to disprove, which means that in most circumstances you can assume they're true and you won't be let down.
This is what I mean when I say that science is useful. I mean that if you follow the rules of science, your knowledge of how the world works increases. And that's how science gives us cars, vaccines, nuclear power, and so on.
Religion, however, is different. The main areas of religious thought - morality, karma, god, souls, etc - deal only with claims which cannot be disproved. You can start out with any set of beliefs, and as you study and research into it you might decide to change some of those beliefs, but it's certain that even after many lifetimes of inquiry, none of them will ever be disproved.
For this reason religious beliefs can be stable, but this is exactly why they are useless. With no belief ever disproved, there is no way that one generation can ever know with certainty more than the generation before. And even worse, when none of these beliefs can ever be disproved, then even after centuries of study there is no reason to suspect that the beliefs which are widespread are any more sold than those which aren't. You can believe them, or not, and study them, or not, and the one certainty is that you'll never be able to do anything or know anything that you couldn't have done or known already.
So yes - religion is stable and science isn't. Religion is so stable, in fact, that it hasn't made any progress in thousands of years. I think I'll stick with science.
> ...science IS an ideology where they cannot reach absolute truth...
> And "that sort of thinking"(ditch theories if they cant be used anymore) exist in science also because its not a stable truth to believe in.
Yes, exactly - science cannot reach absolute truth, and science is inherently stable. However, this is **precisely** why science is useful, and religion is not. I'll try my best to explain.
The most basic difference between science and religion is that science deals ONLY with claims that are disprovable. For example, if I said "there will be an eclipse next week", that's a disprovable claim; you can just watch for an eclipse to see if I'm right or not. If however I said "humans have a soul", or "murder is worse than robbery", those are not disprovable claims. You can argue for them or against them, but there is no test you could ever make (regardless of technology) that would prove them false.
Now it should be obvious that disprovable claims are inherently unstable. You might have a set of beliefs, but if they are disprovable then naturally something might happen one day to prove one of your beliefs false. You'd then have to throw away that belief. In this sense science is unstable.
However, every time you throw away a belief, you know more about the world than you did before. Even better, if lots of people spend lots of time trying to disprove these beliefs, then after a while the ones that haven't been disproved get to be very useful. You don't know for sure that they're "true", but you do know that they're hard to disprove, which means that in most circumstances you can assume they're true and you won't be let down.
This is what I mean when I say that science is useful. I mean that if you follow the rules of science, your knowledge of how the world works increases. And that's how science gives us cars, vaccines, nuclear power, and so on.
Religion, however, is different. The main areas of religious thought - morality, karma, god, souls, etc - deal only with claims which cannot be disproved. You can start out with any set of beliefs, and as you study and research into it you might decide to change some of those beliefs, but it's certain that even after many lifetimes of inquiry, none of them will ever be disproved.
For this reason religious beliefs can be stable, but this is exactly why they are useless. With no belief ever disproved, there is no way that one generation can ever know with certainty more than the generation before. And even worse, when none of these beliefs can ever be disproved, then even after centuries of study there is no reason to suspect that the beliefs which are widespread are any more sold than those which aren't. You can believe them, or not, and study them, or not, and the one certainty is that you'll never be able to do anything or know anything that you couldn't have done or known already.
So yes - religion is stable and science isn't. Religion is so stable, in fact, that it hasn't made any progress in thousands of years. I think I'll stick with science.
all religions are a cult in my eyes.
Christianity being one of the biggest.
and Christianity has so similarities to Satanism... it's hilarious.
BIG example: Communion.
taking the blood & body of Christ.
symbolic NOW in modern day.
but back then, the real Roman Catholics would put their OWN blood
into the wine glasses and only the most faithful & pure would drink it.
and this Jesus fellow did use his own blood.
no joke, look it up.
i also found this out while reading books about ancient religions
& how the human psyche works
(various books basically about mental disorders & psychology)
i also read it in "Bizarre Diseases of the Mind"
Christianity a take on Satanism?
or is Satanism a take on Christianity?
irony is in the air.
KEiTA >>
so what justifies the right and wrong?
what about cultural morals & human morals?
and did you just point out that you're stuck up?
i'm confused. lol
Christianity being one of the biggest.
and Christianity has so similarities to Satanism... it's hilarious.
BIG example: Communion.
taking the blood & body of Christ.
symbolic NOW in modern day.
but back then, the real Roman Catholics would put their OWN blood
into the wine glasses and only the most faithful & pure would drink it.
and this Jesus fellow did use his own blood.
no joke, look it up.
i also found this out while reading books about ancient religions
& how the human psyche works
(various books basically about mental disorders & psychology)
i also read it in "Bizarre Diseases of the Mind"
Christianity a take on Satanism?
or is Satanism a take on Christianity?
irony is in the air.
KEiTA >>
so what justifies the right and wrong?
what about cultural morals & human morals?
and did you just point out that you're stuck up?
i'm confused. lol
Fenomas>
Firstable i really want to appreciate your continual and coherent discussion :) To sum up my point, its totally one's choice of what to believe and Id take buddhism lesson as my life ethic for the following reason.
Yes, science is very useful to improve the technology and all, but cars, vaccines, nuclear powers, ultimately dont do any good for me. Thats because that my life has turned out so easy and stable after I stopped thinking about getting girls, trying to look good with numerous clothes shopping, getting angry to someone who try to insult me and so on. Throwing away anything like greed, anger or delusion, I find that place as the happiest place. So i guess thats probably my goal in this life.
blasian>
Well, im confused as well lol Id like you to tell me where i pointed out I was stuckup? :S If anything I did say Im a way 'inferior' being to reach an epiphany(the absolute truth in buddhism term)?
The morals are something that are made up throughout human revolution, since the "moral" or ethic vary in different countries. So its nothing but values that are made within a certain ideological society.
Firstable i really want to appreciate your continual and coherent discussion :) To sum up my point, its totally one's choice of what to believe and Id take buddhism lesson as my life ethic for the following reason.
Yes, science is very useful to improve the technology and all, but cars, vaccines, nuclear powers, ultimately dont do any good for me. Thats because that my life has turned out so easy and stable after I stopped thinking about getting girls, trying to look good with numerous clothes shopping, getting angry to someone who try to insult me and so on. Throwing away anything like greed, anger or delusion, I find that place as the happiest place. So i guess thats probably my goal in this life.
blasian>
Well, im confused as well lol Id like you to tell me where i pointed out I was stuckup? :S If anything I did say Im a way 'inferior' being to reach an epiphany(the absolute truth in buddhism term)?
The morals are something that are made up throughout human revolution, since the "moral" or ethic vary in different countries. So its nothing but values that are made within a certain ideological society.
Hehe, I overlooked that. I too am curious about the source on vampiric catholics. Also:
205 ﾐｯ子 「blasian」
> Christianity has so similarities to Satanism...
Just a point, but of course christianity has similarities to satanism, "Satan" (in the sense people nearly always mean) is a figure from the christian pantheon of beliefs. That is, christians and satanists essentially share a common set of beliefs but a different set of values, the same way, for example, Zeus-worshipers and Athena-worshipers would both believe in the same set of mythologies.
205 ﾐｯ子 「blasian」
> Christianity has so similarities to Satanism...
Just a point, but of course christianity has similarities to satanism, "Satan" (in the sense people nearly always mean) is a figure from the christian pantheon of beliefs. That is, christians and satanists essentially share a common set of beliefs but a different set of values, the same way, for example, Zeus-worshipers and Athena-worshipers would both believe in the same set of mythologies.
トランス >>
ironically you said "holy fuck". i thought that was hilarious in itself.
i didn't get that info from whoever that you said..
simple: it's called Eucharistic Communion.
where they wanted to literally take the Real flesh and blood of Christ.
the literal take is called transubstantiation.
the symbolic take we see now is called consubstantiation.
heres a passage from a book i read called "bizarre diseases of the mind":
" ....."'Take it and eat. This is my body.' Then he took a cup and when he returned thanks he gave it to them. 'Drink all of you from this,' he said, 'for this is my blood.'"
These familiar words of Jesus at the Last Supper, as reported in Gospel According to Saint Matthew (26:26-29), take on a chilling new meaning when they are taken literally, Which is what the Roman Catholic church does. During the Catholic mass, according to official church dogma, the priest literally transforms the communion wine into blood. And the Catholic faithful drink it.
The great schism in Christianity of four hundred years ago known as the Reformation arose partly from an argument over whether the climax of the mass―the Eucharistic Communion―should be a literal cannibalistic and blood-drinking ritual or a symbolic reenactment or Jesus' final Passover supper.
The Roman Catholic church and the pop stuck with the belief in the literal mystical transformation of wine into blood―transubstantiation. The protesters, or Protestants, opted for the symbolic interpretation, onsubstantiation. This argument, among others, has kept the Christian world split into two main factions for centuries. ....."
even if you google you'll find it.
heres a link:
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
and it's not so much offensive if it's fact.
now if i lied, or made it into a horrible thing,
then it would be offensive.
i think that people need to take fact like it is...
or not bother living in the real world.
real life hurts. but you keep on living it.
now perhaps you were personally hurt by what i wrote..
and i apologize for hurting you,
but i cannot deny fact over fiction.
fenomas >>
thank you for that!
i think they both have similarties simply because of coming from one religion in itself.
but people use these rituals like communion as a positive thing,
yet, when a satanist does the same exact symbolic ritual (only with their own god)...
it's negative.
for everyone >>
i'm sorry if i offended anyone,
but like i said above.
i cannot deny fact over fiction.
if it's true, it's true.
i'm not going to sugar coat anything
or live my life viewing everything in rose colored glasses.
you can chose not to believe or not,
i'm not forcing anyone to read what i write.
so don't bash me on my personal opinions or the facts that i have.
i would ask for the same respect given to me,
as i give to everyone else.
ironically you said "holy fuck". i thought that was hilarious in itself.
i didn't get that info from whoever that you said..
simple: it's called Eucharistic Communion.
where they wanted to literally take the Real flesh and blood of Christ.
the literal take is called transubstantiation.
the symbolic take we see now is called consubstantiation.
heres a passage from a book i read called "bizarre diseases of the mind":
" ....."'Take it and eat. This is my body.' Then he took a cup and when he returned thanks he gave it to them. 'Drink all of you from this,' he said, 'for this is my blood.'"
These familiar words of Jesus at the Last Supper, as reported in Gospel According to Saint Matthew (26:26-29), take on a chilling new meaning when they are taken literally, Which is what the Roman Catholic church does. During the Catholic mass, according to official church dogma, the priest literally transforms the communion wine into blood. And the Catholic faithful drink it.
The great schism in Christianity of four hundred years ago known as the Reformation arose partly from an argument over whether the climax of the mass―the Eucharistic Communion―should be a literal cannibalistic and blood-drinking ritual or a symbolic reenactment or Jesus' final Passover supper.
The Roman Catholic church and the pop stuck with the belief in the literal mystical transformation of wine into blood―transubstantiation. The protesters, or Protestants, opted for the symbolic interpretation, onsubstantiation. This argument, among others, has kept the Christian world split into two main factions for centuries. ....."
even if you google you'll find it.
heres a link:
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
and it's not so much offensive if it's fact.
now if i lied, or made it into a horrible thing,
then it would be offensive.
i think that people need to take fact like it is...
or not bother living in the real world.
real life hurts. but you keep on living it.
now perhaps you were personally hurt by what i wrote..
and i apologize for hurting you,
but i cannot deny fact over fiction.
fenomas >>
thank you for that!
i think they both have similarties simply because of coming from one religion in itself.
but people use these rituals like communion as a positive thing,
yet, when a satanist does the same exact symbolic ritual (only with their own god)...
it's negative.
for everyone >>
i'm sorry if i offended anyone,
but like i said above.
i cannot deny fact over fiction.
if it's true, it's true.
i'm not going to sugar coat anything
or live my life viewing everything in rose colored glasses.
you can chose not to believe or not,
i'm not forcing anyone to read what i write.
so don't bash me on my personal opinions or the facts that i have.
i would ask for the same respect given to me,
as i give to everyone else.
trance >>
what i read was, indeed, from a book.
and i watched some specials about Catholicism on the History channel.
and yes i agree, not everything you read, or find is 100%
therefore, is what you read or what anyone reads 100% fact or fiction?
things like religion can be layered with lies or misunderstandings over centuries.
or anything can be heard through the grapevine.
or even the "telephone" effect.
so nothing is always what it seems.
not just religion, with other issues of life.
so yes, i totally understand what you're saying.
forgive me if i read through wrong things..
but i do see what i see.
and no, i wasn't born or raised Catholic..
but my dad was.
and i WAS a Christian..
so i know more about Christianity than Catholicism.
but i would definitely want to know more about this blood into wine thing.
what i read was, indeed, from a book.
and i watched some specials about Catholicism on the History channel.
and yes i agree, not everything you read, or find is 100%
therefore, is what you read or what anyone reads 100% fact or fiction?
things like religion can be layered with lies or misunderstandings over centuries.
or anything can be heard through the grapevine.
or even the "telephone" effect.
so nothing is always what it seems.
not just religion, with other issues of life.
so yes, i totally understand what you're saying.
forgive me if i read through wrong things..
but i do see what i see.
and no, i wasn't born or raised Catholic..
but my dad was.
and i WAS a Christian..
so i know more about Christianity than Catholicism.
but i would definitely want to know more about this blood into wine thing.
ﾐｯ子:
I think I can clarify a bit further on the blood thing. In the catholic eucharist, they drink some wine which represents the blood of Christ. However, there is a religious disagreement where some christians feel that the wine is merely a *symbol* of Christ's blood, and others claim that the wine is actually *transformed* into the real actual blood of Christ. (This doctrine is called "transubstantiation".)
Either way, they're only drinking wine though, and arguing about whether it is magically transformed into blood. It's not a case of drinking actual blood.
I don't blame you for being confused though. When people claim magical things are happening, it's bound to get a little silly and hard to understand.
I think I can clarify a bit further on the blood thing. In the catholic eucharist, they drink some wine which represents the blood of Christ. However, there is a religious disagreement where some christians feel that the wine is merely a *symbol* of Christ's blood, and others claim that the wine is actually *transformed* into the real actual blood of Christ. (This doctrine is called "transubstantiation".)
Either way, they're only drinking wine though, and arguing about whether it is magically transformed into blood. It's not a case of drinking actual blood.
I don't blame you for being confused though. When people claim magical things are happening, it's bound to get a little silly and hard to understand.
216<--. Where in the Bible does it say we should ever have a Pope? Or we should baptize infants? , Or some priest or holier than other people attending church and we must go to them to confess our sins instead of praying to God ourselves and confessing to him? It doesn't.
Catholicism is NOT the original Christian church. It is a man made version of the christian church with many changes made by men over hundreds of years. I'm not saying all Catholics are bad, I'm saying they have added things that were not given in the bible.
Catholicism is NOT the original Christian church. It is a man made version of the christian church with many changes made by men over hundreds of years. I'm not saying all Catholics are bad, I'm saying they have added things that were not given in the bible.
fenomas >>
see i know about the transubstantiation and the consubstantiation.
but i wanna really know if theres truth behind all of it.
チェイス >>
well- i agree and disagree.
i think everyone believing in what they believe has the right to do so,
and if you think it's not one thing, but another believes it is,
i think it would be better to respectfully let them do so.
if they believe horses talk, they can.
if you can give fact to a matter that you find, then by all means.
but religion is just one of those topics that is hard to people to talk about
and keep it at talking. lol
theres so many people who want to push their religion,
or get slightly insulted because one disagrees or tries to proves them wrong.
all i know, i personally feel that people should believe in themselves
before they devote themselves to just a religion.
or at least discover the other religions before sticking to one.
see i know about the transubstantiation and the consubstantiation.
but i wanna really know if theres truth behind all of it.
チェイス >>
well- i agree and disagree.
i think everyone believing in what they believe has the right to do so,
and if you think it's not one thing, but another believes it is,
i think it would be better to respectfully let them do so.
if they believe horses talk, they can.
if you can give fact to a matter that you find, then by all means.
but religion is just one of those topics that is hard to people to talk about
and keep it at talking. lol
theres so many people who want to push their religion,
or get slightly insulted because one disagrees or tries to proves them wrong.
all i know, i personally feel that people should believe in themselves
before they devote themselves to just a religion.
or at least discover the other religions before sticking to one.
I beleieve that there may well be some great force/power, that you might call 'God'.
Is 'it' a conscious/sentient intelligence? I have no idea.
I think that such things are beyond human comprehension, at least at this stage in our development.
But I certainly don't believe in a human-like God who watches over us and wants us to follow laws it has written in the way often portrayed by many established religions.
Is 'it' a conscious/sentient intelligence? I have no idea.
I think that such things are beyond human comprehension, at least at this stage in our development.
But I certainly don't believe in a human-like God who watches over us and wants us to follow laws it has written in the way often portrayed by many established religions.
I think this topic has enough comments, but my reasons?
If God existed, why did God create mosquitoes, cockroaches, mental illness, disabilities, etc etc etc
I know that mere mortals cannot understand the work of God, but I see so many things in the world that is not right, and no intervention.
If God existed, why did God create mosquitoes, cockroaches, mental illness, disabilities, etc etc etc
I know that mere mortals cannot understand the work of God, but I see so many things in the world that is not right, and no intervention.
indie_hunk-san
You are referring to the problem of evil, I guess. That is, why would a onmipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Goddess allow suffering?
There is a wide range of literature from theists trying to explain that. I am not familiar with it (as a Nietzschean atheist, I have no iterest in it). But of course, there is always Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil
You are referring to the problem of evil, I guess. That is, why would a onmipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Goddess allow suffering?
There is a wide range of literature from theists trying to explain that. I am not familiar with it (as a Nietzschean atheist, I have no iterest in it). But of course, there is always Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil
The existence of God cannot be explained. Some throw facts, trying to prove it, but every single of those facts has this mythical origin and really doesn't prove anything.
If you believe in God why don't you believe in Santa Claus, because both have the same foundation of believe.
Some people just want to have something to believe in, to have hope that it will help them. It's more of a psychological thing than a religious.
If you believe in God why don't you believe in Santa Claus, because both have the same foundation of believe.
Some people just want to have something to believe in, to have hope that it will help them. It's more of a psychological thing than a religious.
This topic is amusing. Although it has gone beyond the point of actually reading though all of it, many have made very interesting points.
This reminds me of the first part of that documentary Zeitgeist. I'm sure most of you have heard of it. If not, google zeitgeist the movie, and I'm sure it will pop up. The first part of it details the origins of "god" and how it is the "Greatest Story" ever told. As for myself, i've had my run-ins with religions of all kinds, and ultimately, they all follow a similar formula. Many here have expressed the same reason why I dont believe in god as well. My personal opinion is that the concept of god has done more harm than good. Thats just my personal opinon. Take it with a grain of salt.
This reminds me of the first part of that documentary Zeitgeist. I'm sure most of you have heard of it. If not, google zeitgeist the movie, and I'm sure it will pop up. The first part of it details the origins of "god" and how it is the "Greatest Story" ever told. As for myself, i've had my run-ins with religions of all kinds, and ultimately, they all follow a similar formula. Many here have expressed the same reason why I dont believe in god as well. My personal opinion is that the concept of god has done more harm than good. Thats just my personal opinon. Take it with a grain of salt.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
