Re: Religion – your views
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:51 pm
god has a sense of humor because he made monkeys
He has a sense of humour in forcing women to ride horses side-saddle and men not, and not the other way around.Bradandez wrote:god has a sense of humor because he made monkeys
But there are some commonly accepted, and unaccepted values such like killing innocent people, with which most people, and in this way, the most powerful people disagree.If someone believes they are doing something righteously they will believe they have a space reserved in heaven. That alone proves religion is false, as the billions of religionists on this planet each hold their own individual value beliefs.
No it's not, it's nature, and God created nature I think.
Well, I don't know if this is the adequate topic but, I never considered you as an enemy, and I never frequented the college humour channel tbh.gamerz31w wrote:I believe I was selfish,arogant,assholish and stalkerish to earthgwee like Amy Rose old stereotypes.I believe I made mistake that I revealed adsolution's top secret fangame.As for incognito I believe I did underrestimating his usual personality because of criticizing youtube channel called college humour.Please earthgwee and incognito forgive me.Being enemies won't solve anything.Let's become a friends shall we?
No, it ain't the rules of the community.deton24 wrote:So some code exists here?
Unbelievable.
The opposition of science and religion you are basing your reasoning on is a flawed premise, as it is perfectly possible to believe in God as well as in globally accepted scientific theories (I suppose that's what you meant by “believe in science”, as there's in fact no such thing as believing in science, science being, according to Wikipedia, “a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe”).Maz wrote:[rant]
I'm fully aware that science can't explain everything either, quite the contrary, which I believe is probably one of the reasons why people believe in God instead. But to me, it seems like there's at least indications for some of the scientific explanations to hold truth in them (I mentioned the ape-human-thing several times already), whereas I can't see any indication for God's existence.
I don't know whether it was thanks to these discussions, but I managed to at least get a glimpse into why people would possibly believe in God. I hope that you, on the other hand, can understand why someone wouldn't (unless you're non-religious as well and put that question out there just like that). It's just that to me, there's some proof (or at least indications, whatever) to science, but none to God. In my eyes, sticking with whatever seemed more reliable - as in, more seeming-to-be-proof being available - seemed like the logical choice.
[/rant]
I don't have proof that God doesn't exist, it just strikes me as odd that people who believe in God to explain things which science can't explain (due to lack of proof, I might add) can do so when it's just the same thing there. Because even if I don't have any proof, you don't have any either, right? And that's what my point was: Why not believe in science when there's no proof either way? Even if I'm somehow starting to see the reasoning of religious people, I still can't help but wonder.
I'd love to hear that logical reasoning.Sabertooth wrote:I realized that logically there is no god.
Those are very brash assertions, can you back up any of them?anaphasiia wrote:Religion cannot advocate tolerance, tolerance is a personal matter. Religion is only about the supernatural, and the supernatural can only encourage tolerance through threat. If only religion has motivated you to be kind to your neighbor, you are selfish. If you see good in humanity after becoming Christian, doing good to your neighbor was not a result of Christianity, it's an incidental side-effect. If a religious authority advocates tolerance, it is "side" objective reasoning, not related to religion.
But… The deals are so good nowadays!dartofthedavros wrote:and also please don't sell your kids to slave trades please.
Religious concepts require reasons involving the supernatural, otherwise they are not religious, whereas morals like "be kind to your neighbor" are secular because they have socially logical reason behind them. Since the only vehicle of religious reasoning is threat [of going to Hell, or facing punishment], or something completely artificial, it's similar to hitting a child to teach them a lesson: "it works until they're old enough to understand what they did was wrong", or "it strips them of dignity so they might, as a side-effect of that, think about what they did". The positive result is the true, non-selfish social realization, which is only incidental and has nothing to do with religion itself.Hunchman801 wrote:Those are very brash assertions, can you back up any of them?anaphasiia wrote:Religion cannot advocate tolerance, tolerance is a personal matter. Religion is only about the supernatural, and the supernatural can only encourage tolerance through threat. If only religion has motivated you to be kind to your neighbor, you are selfish. If you see good in humanity after becoming Christian, doing good to your neighbor was not a result of Christianity, it's an incidental side-effect. If a religious authority advocates tolerance, it is "side" objective reasoning, not related to religion.
Well you just described an atheist, so how are you not atheistic?dartofthedavros wrote:Personally I don't believe in any Gods or faith but I'm not Atheistic either