Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo a better course of action is to assume there is a God? This is a quote between two individuals known to each other. One is an atheist, the other a monotheist. Explain to me why it is not valid to "assume" the known fact that one party is a monotheist?
wrong it assumes many things on many different levels, firstly its a subjective point of view, secondly that the individual is monotheistic, thirdly that there is no God, its premise after premise after premise...its a complete failure of a statement
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes. Yes, it is.
move forward?, take a look around you for goodness sake, is this what you deem progress?
Would you prefer the dung covered hide clothing, stick rubbing fire making, sabertooth tiger prey past your ancestors were treated to?
Edit: You and I will never see eye to eye. Everything you type is done so with utter conviction. I'm left with the lasting impression that you're lecturing as if trying to convince me of something I just don't grasp or that, with my limited comprehension, will never understand. You follow this by continuing to lecture me until you no longer understand either and yet, you persist, with utter conviction. You leave no room for any dissenting voice or opposing point of view. In brief, its useless to have any discussion with you.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI am sure there are many reasons why religions start and spread, but I very much doubt that there is any significant trend in which they started and spread more in 'mankind's infancy'. If there is such a trend it may have more to do with modern communications than anything else.
Coherent and widely accepted religions do not spring up today as they did in mankind's infancy.
Also I have not yet heard of a religion that was coherent.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt seems to me that the Human invented the concept of the religion (ie "explanation"😉 because of his ignorance; then, considering that the "religion" he brought up it should be justified, he used his fantasy (theoplacia) and cooked up the differ religious doctrines accordingly.
I am sure there are many reasons why religions start and spread, but I very much doubt that there is any significant trend in which they started and spread more in 'mankind's infancy'. If there is such a trend it may have more to do with modern communications than anything else.
Also I have not yet heard of a religion that was coherent.
I think that HoH referes to the relevant ignorence of the Human, making a contrast regarding the fact that the Human of Today has a better understanding for everything due to his evolution by means of Philosophy and Science. You cannot, for example, step out today and state that a rainbow is a divine messase and expect to be taken seriously, whilst in the past this was the case, I reckon😵
Originally posted by black beetleYou seem to suffer from the delusion that there is such and entity as "the Human".
It seems to me that the Human invented the concept of the religion (ie "explanation"😉 because of his ignorance; then, considering that the "religion" he brought up it should be justified, he used his fantasy (theoplacia) and cooked up the differ religious doctrines accordingly.
I think that HoH referes to the relevant ignorence of the Human, making a ...[text shortened]... e messase and expect to be taken seriously, whilst in the past this was the case, I reckon😵
I can assure you that there plenty of people in this world who would take me seriously if I stated that a rainbow was a divine message. In fact there are plenty of people that do think it is a divine message.
Or did you know all that and were one step ahead of me? 🙂
It just always gets to me when people assume that humanity 2000 years ago was the small group of people living in the vicinity of the mediteranian and later the small group living in Europe and England and currently is the small group living in the US.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAh twhitehead, I see your point😀
You seem to suffer from the delusion that there is such and entity as "the Human".
I can assure you that there plenty of people in this world who would take me seriously if I stated that a rainbow was a divine message. In fact there are plenty of people that do think it is a divine message.
Or did you know all that and were one step ahead of me? 🙂 ...[text shortened]... he small group living in Europe and England and currently is the small group living in the US.
Maybe I should have state that the Human can become whatever s/he wants according to the evaluation of her/ his mind😀
PS: Did you spot the thread “Buddhism and quantum theory are one and the same”?
😵
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think the perfect counter-quote to this one would be...........
A truly magnificent quote!
I emphasize the last part again:
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Criticize this sentence when you understand it, not before!
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
-Removed-It may very well be my problem.
Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu for example? Hinduism is, afterall, the third largest religion and as good as any other don't you think? Hinduism is every much as fractured and disjointed as Christianity. Various sects squabble over doctrine and dogma just as much as Christianity or Islam. What makes Christianity the religion of choice for you? Why dismiss other religions?
'Freethinker,' a great word. It first appears at the end of the 17th century. And what it meant was someone who opposed orthodox religion, ecclesiastical hierarchy ... Freethinkers were not necessarily atheists or agnostics although they were always called that. Isn't it funny that religious fanatics always call anyone whose religion is different from theirs an atheist?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo with regards to that God (the one we both don't believe in) we are fellow atheists. But who would you describe my attitude towards the God you (or CS Lewis) do believe in? The quote presumably implies that I know nothing about that God. Would you say I am atheist regarding gods I know nothing about, or agnostic?
I think the perfect counter-quote to this one would be...........
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
Originally posted by knightmeisterHere is a quote I just read, forget the author:
I think the perfect counter-quote to this one would be...........
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
Belief in a god is not the start of wisdom but the end of it.
Sound advice if you ask me, which of course you won't.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateYou speak of some "primitive man" as though those who came before us were somehow lacking in sophistication and/or cognitive abilities. According to this line of thinking, it is those in the present who sit on the objective seat of reality while those in the past are somehow relegated to sub-par analytical abilities or elementary understanding.
That is not an easy question to answer. Perhaps the closest I can get is to express my own concerns about religion in general.
Coherent and widely accepted religions do not spring up today as they did in mankind's infancy. Human fantasy created God, Gods and various other spiritual incarnations. These beings, through acts of their will alone, ex ...[text shortened]... t monotheists will put forth against other religions. Pure fantasy all the way around.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Where are today's Bach's, Galilei's, Bacon's or etc.? Where are today's pyramid builders? They are nowhere to be found, replaced instead with such goose-steppers as Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins and much pedantic thinking.
Moreover, the underlying inference of your statement is that belief was manufactured for a specific purpose (lack of scientific understanding) and served such purpose for its time but should now be put aside.
Again, nothing could be further from the truth. For one, belief in God is as pervasive in man's history as man himself and no single person or group of people can be pointed out as the creator(s) of such belief. While some religions provide notable exceptions to a discernable entrance into history, belief in God has no such birth day.
Further, according to your statement, we are to believe that belief in God somehow served a bigger purpose in man's evolution, a type of mental patch until he could really figure things out for himself without Dumbo's magic feather, so to speak. What your contention doesn't explain (nor can it) is how fantasy/lies can be used in a system as supposedly fact-based as evolution. It just doesn't hold any water.