[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]I cant think it was on the front of their minds...Yes, who has time for science when there's so much work to be done in the more important areas of sexism, homophobia, and helping to ensure that millions in the developing world die a slow and agonising death? One's interpretation of the bible differs from anothers.Yet it took the Catholic Church until 1993, yes 1993, to recognize Galileo.
ohgodohman
My Letter to Atheists
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ohgodohman"][QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]I cant think it was on the front of their minds...DroidPhysXYes, who has time for science when there's so much work to be done in the more important areas of sexism, homophobia, and helping to ensure that millions in the developing world die a slow and agonising death? One's interpretation of the bible differs from anothers.I'm protestant and I have no idea whats going on there.
I said that I wont answer that particular question. That's convenient. Do you believe that a native in Brazil born pre-Colombus goes to hell? No, I do not. But that is a different type of question than the other one.[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] So you will take no other questions? Why? You're here, you obviously have the time.dsmccracken
Why does it matter if my question would be "imperfect"?[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="greenskittles"]
All I ask is for your imperfect opinion to answer me whether it is ok if lets say my hell-bound soul went and suffered in hell, if it was all Gods choosing? If you won't answer it this time I'm going to end this conversation because it won't go anywhere.
greenskittles
What, I don't get it, when did you ask a question? I'm asking it.
Oops, shouldve said "opinion".
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
It was a comment seemingly quite unrelated to the subject at hand - even if an insult.
You're right, because it was a joke between the two and I completely missed that point. If during an argument however, someone makes a point, and my response is, "nice tie... yellow and green... really nice...." that's ad hominem (or ad fashion :P ) and a red herrring. I was wrong here though; I leapt on what was apparantly a friendly jibe. @DroidPhysX: I don't believe in god, but the answer to that is: "yes". Of course, that same could could then render the rock moveable by it... Personally I always wondered by a god would be doing rock-moving in the first place, but I guess even divinities need hobbies. :DEven if it was an insult, it quite clearly didn't, say, attack one's capacity to create a legitimate argument. The merits of a username have positively nothing to do with the argument in any manner whatsoever. The post wasn't part of the argument, and I don't think I've seen him continue said argument, either. To call it an ad hominem is completely indefensible. It mightn't necessarily have been a red herring either were the insult legitimate, but it certainly could have been - so I didn't address it.
I'm sorry, it's just that I see the term abused too frequently to ignore. Ad hominem, that is.
To undermine someone, in whatever fashion by directly attacking them, is ad hominem. If you said that my name was pretentious; another example of my failure to fully appreciate GR, it would undermine my credilibility in general. If I said that, "cool beans" is a ridiculous phrase, and a more ridiculous name instead of responding to your argument, I'm offering a red herring by way of attacking your person rather than substance. It's all about what you can imply in the context of a comment; I took it initially to mean roughly, "The only thing worth commenting on is your username... which is not creative at all." That is undermining the notion that the user is capable of creativity in general, if they can't even muster it for their username. That is purely ad hominem, but in the service of creating a red herring, not attacking an argument directly. Ad hominem doesn't have to be so simple as, "Well, you're a twit so whatever you say is wrong." Of course, I was wrong; it was a joke between two people arguing the same points so none of this applies. I'm assuming you know that, but disagree with my characterization of it as ad hominem, so we're doing this for the sake of argument? If so, I'm still on board, but I don't want it to seem as though I'm still arguing the original point; I conceded that I misunderstood.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] The Bible (which represents Christianity) is from God. It is the people, who could be wrong about it.gaming25So... you believe that the christian bible is correct, but that christianity in terms of any given sect and interpretation is not? I am saying that we could have disagreements and with that some of us might have a wrong view. Then my question to you is: Christianity is NOT one religion, but a group of sects. When you say, "Christianity is correct," which sect are you referring to?
God comes down and tells you to murder a random person. Do you do it? DroidPhysX
What I just said still applies to that as well.
So do you do it? I'm agnostic, with atheistic leanings, but I can answer this one. If there WERE a real god, or a being so powerful that I couldn't tell the difference.... hell yeah you murder someone. I suppose you make like Abraham and hope for last minute reprieve, but if you've already accepted that there's a god in this hypothetical, the only sane response is to follow instructions. If on the other hand, it's your neighbours dog who you THINK is god telling to you to kill... seek help. Gaming25 is using a lot of circular reasoning, but you're posting a question that begs the question too! What fool would disobey god? Your question, and greenskittles both assume that there IS a god; so yeah, you do whatever it tells you to do because by definition it's omnipotent and omniscient.[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] So... you believe that the christian bible is correct, but that christianity in terms of any given sect and interpretation is not?Frame_DraggerI am saying that we could have disagreements and with that some of us might have a wrong view. Then my question to you is: Christianity is NOT one religion, but a group of sects. When you say, "Christianity is correct," which sect are you referring to? Christianity is one religion, we worship the same God and follow the Bible.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="gaming25"]So do you do it? That was a bad question. Because God would not just ask a person to kill another.What I just said still applies to that as well.
realguitarhero5
Ummmm... Abraham begs to disagree. Still, it isn't a good question for other reasons. IF the god I don't believe in DOES exist, then anything it tells you to do is right. AFAIK, that's the Judeo-Christian religious framework... period. If god tells you to dance with peanut butter on your nipples while wearing a pith-helmet... you do that. The issue here is that we're assuming a god exists and has proven credentials, and it's an ominipotent, omniscient, and living god. If you're assuming ALL of that... why even ask the question? Still... a lot of people seem to believe that various scriptures provide a framework for killing people under a divine mandate. That is a much more complex issue than some hypothetical which offers a fait accompli.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I am saying that we could have disagreements and with that some of us might have a wrong view.gaming25Then my question to you is: Christianity is NOT one religion, but a group of sects. When you say, "Christianity is correct," which sect are you referring to? Christianity is one religion, we worship the same God and follow the Bible. Catholics and Protestants disagree enough to kill each other over the differences, and a fundamentalist baptist vs. a methodist, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon won't agree on quite a bit. There are a LOT of sects, many of which are radically different in their pracitices and beliefs. You worship the same god, but since each interprets the bible differently... some literally, some as parable, some through the lens of Catholocism, and some with the addition of a later text (Mormons). They can't all be correct in their views of what god is, how it operates, its goals, and rules for human behaviour.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Then my question to you is: Christianity is NOT one religion, but a group of sects. When you say, "Christianity is correct," which sect are you referring to?Frame_DraggerChristianity is one religion, we worship the same God and follow the Bible. Catholics and Protestants disagree enough to kill each other over the differences, and a fundamentalist baptist vs. a methodist, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon won't agree on quite a bit. There are a LOT of sects, many of which are radically different in their pracitices and beliefs. You worship the same god, but since each interprets the bible differently... some literally, some as parable, some through the lens of Catholocism, and some with the addition of a later text (Mormons). They can't all be correct in their views of what god is, how it operates, its goals, and rules for human behaviour. I never said that all of us are correct.
Yet it took the Catholic Church until 1993, yes 1993, to recognize Galileo.
I cant think it was on the front of their minds...Yes, who has time for science when there's so much work to be done in the more important areas of sexism, homophobia, covering up the rape of countless children by Catholic priests, and helping to ensure that millions in the developing world die a slow and agonising death? That does take a lot of time and energy... :P For a dummy account you're no dummy.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Christianity is one religion, we worship the same God and follow the Bible.gaming25Catholics and Protestants disagree enough to kill each other over the differences, and a fundamentalist baptist vs. a methodist, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon won't agree on quite a bit. There are a LOT of sects, many of which are radically different in their pracitices and beliefs. You worship the same god, but since each interprets the bible differently... some literally, some as parable, some through the lens of Catholocism, and some with the addition of a later text (Mormons). They can't all be correct in their views of what god is, how it operates, its goals, and rules for human behaviour. I never said that all of us are correct. You said, "Christianity is correct." When you say Christianity then, I'll ask again, which sect are you referring to?
I don't believe in god because he does not exist. I can strongly make that claim despite not having an explanation for why matter or energy exist.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Catholics and Protestants disagree enough to kill each other over the differences, and a fundamentalist baptist vs. a methodist, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon won't agree on quite a bit. There are a LOT of sects, many of which are radically different in their pracitices and beliefs. You worship the same god, but since each interprets the bible differently... some literally, some as parable, some through the lens of Catholocism, and some with the addition of a later text (Mormons). They can't all be correct in their views of what god is, how it operates, its goals, and rules for human behaviour.Frame_DraggerI never said that all of us are correct. You said, "Christianity is correct." When you say Christianity then, I'll ask again, which sect are you referring to? I meant Christianity as the religion, our doctrine.
My view on that is similar, running down the lines of: I see no evidence of god, and LOTS of evidence that people tend to invent gods. If god is a claim, the burden of proof is not even CLOSE to being met. On the other hand, physics attempts to explain the behaviour of nature at the most basic level, but does NOT attempt to explain the origins of "stuff". I can accept that, because I see a discipline which recognizes its limits. I sincerely doubt that the origin of a concept like time is something the human brain is equipped to grapple with. I enjoy metaphysics, philosophy and the study of religion, but like you I simply accept that "stuff" exists, and turn to science to explain how it behaves after it began to do "things". Sound about right?I don't believe in god because he does not exist. I can strongly make that claim despite not having an explanation for why matter or energy exist.
EntropyWins
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I never said that all of us are correct.gaming25You said, "Christianity is correct." When you say Christianity then, I'll ask again, which sect are you referring to? I meant Christianity as the religion, our doctrine. Right, but there are multiple doctrines, so which do you think is the right one?
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You said, "Christianity is correct." When you say Christianity then, I'll ask again, which sect are you referring to? Frame_DraggerI meant Christianity as the religion, our doctrine. Right, but there are multiple doctrines, so which do you think is the right one? I meant The Bible when saying doctrine.
Some people need religion to get through the day. i understand that weezyfbThat's naive, not to mention condescending.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're right, because it was a joke between the two and I completely missed that point. If during an argument however, someone makes a point, and my response is, "nice tie... yellow and green... really nice...." that's ad hominem (or ad fashion :P ) and a red herrring. I was wrong here though; I leapt on what was apparantly a friendly jibe. @DroidPhysX: I don't believe in god, but the answer to that is: "yes". Of course, that same could could then render the rock moveable by it... Personally I always wondered by a god would be doing rock-moving in the first place, but I guess even divinities need hobbies. :DFrame_Dragger
Even if it was an insult, it quite clearly didn't, say, attack one's capacity to create a legitimate argument. The merits of a username have positively nothing to do with the argument in any manner whatsoever. The post wasn't part of the argument, and I don't think I've seen him continue said argument, either. To call it an ad hominem is completely indefensible. It mightn't necessarily have been a red herring either were the insult legitimate, but it certainly could have been - so I didn't address it.
I'm sorry, it's just that I see the term abused too frequently to ignore. Ad hominem, that is.
To undermine someone, in whatever fashion by directly attacking them, is ad hominem. If you said that my name was pretentious; another example of my failure to fully appreciate GR, it would undermine my credilibility in general. If I said that, "cool beans" is a ridiculous phrase, and a more ridiculous name instead of responding to your argument, I'm offering a red herring by way of attacking your person rather than substance. It's all about what you can imply in the context of a comment; I took it initially to mean roughly, "The only thing worth commenting on is your username... which is not creative at all." That is undermining the notion that the user is capable of creativity in general, if they can't even muster it for their username. That is purely ad hominem, but in the service of creating a red herring, not attacking an argument directly. Ad hominem doesn't have to be so simple as, "Well, you're a twit so whatever you say is wrong." Of course, I was wrong; it was a joke between two people arguing the same points so none of this applies. I'm assuming you know that, but disagree with my characterization of it as ad hominem, so we're doing this for the sake of argument? If so, I'm still on board, but I don't want it to seem as though I'm still arguing the original point; I conceded that I misunderstood.Attacking someone only can potentially be an ad hominem insofar as it is used to undermine an argument -- to be honest, making a snide remark about a username doesn't really seem to make an attempt to. His statements certainly didn't relate to his arguments; it wasn't even in his quote chain, IIRC. One can insult others independent of making an argument. I see now how you made that jump ("The only thing worth commenting on is your username... which is not creative at all."), but even then it is a bit on the presumptuous side to declare his intentions with that statement. To call it a full-blown argument doesn't quite stand to reason, IMO.
I understood that clearly. We are, for the sake of argument, assuming that whoever that person was did in point of fact directly insult that other guy.
[QUOTE="weezyfb"]Some people need religion to get through the day. i understand that musicalmacThat's naive, not to mention condescending. Is it? The OP of this thread describes finding religion after struggling to literally get through the day. In this case it's frankly topical. If you study organizations such as the 12 step programs, you find people who also can't get through the day without religion.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I meant Christianity as the religion, our doctrine.gaming25Right, but there are multiple doctrines, so which do you think is the right one? I meant The Bible when saying doctrine. And if you get someone from each sect I mentioned to agree on what the bible means, and what doctrine it outlines, I'll eat my shoes. You're still dodging. @Coolbeans90: It doesn't have to be some grand stroke to be ad hominem. If in the midst of arguing with me you make an offhand comment about my breath being bad to get some laughs from those watching, undermining me in a small way, setting me off my game, etc.... it is an attack on the person, not the argument. Logical fallacies of the broader catagory such as "Ad Hominem" are composed of dozens, if not hundreds of sub-fallacies that diverge somewhat from the prime example. If I'd been right, and the comment about the username had been part of an argument, the fact that it wasn't a very GOOD red herring by way of ad hominem doesn't make it less of either... just a poor attempt at them.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Is it? The OP of this thread describes finding religion after struggling to literally get through the day. In this case it's frankly topical. If you study organizations such as the 12 step programs, you find people who also can't get through the day without religion. musicalmacIt's far more typical to people to feel as though they can't live without their beliefs after they have subscribed to them, not before. This specific case seems to be the much rarer latter case. Yeah, it certainly seems to be rare, but as it is the case, very topical. I think a case could be made, althoughI personally don't care to make it, that the process the OP describes going through would be a broader case if people didn't tend to grow up in a particular faith. When people change religions with a period of "searching" between the two, it's not uncommon to hear about what sounds like near-clinical depression. It may be used as a snide insult, but in this case perhaps we have a unique insight into one of the machanisms that casuses so many people to turn to religion. It could very well be like the resolution of cognitive dissonance, and the discomfort that preceedes it. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the notion, even if the poster of that comment meant something completely different.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Right, but there are multiple doctrines, so which do you think is the right one?Frame_DraggerI meant The Bible when saying doctrine. And if you get someone from each sect I mentioned to agree on what the bible means, and what doctrine it outlines, I'll eat my shoes. You're still dodging. @Coolbeans90: It doesn't have to be some grand stroke to be ad hominem. If in the midst of arguing with me you make an offhand comment about my breath being bad to get some laughs from those watching, undermining me in a small way, setting me off my game, etc.... it is an attack on the person, not the argument. Logical fallacies of the broader catagory such as "Ad Hominem" are composed of dozens, if not hundreds of sub-fallacies that diverge somewhat from the prime example. If I'd been right, and the comment about the username had been part of an argument, the fact that it wasn't a very GOOD red herring by way of ad hominem doesn't make it less of either... just a poor attempt at them.
In order for an insult to qualify as an argumentum ad hominem, it needs to be detrimental (or at least feign the attempt to be) to the argument at hand. He just straight up ignored the argument and proceeded to insult the other person in another quote chain - implying that the comment was unrelated to the rest of their discussion. Unless one can make a strong case that said statement is related to the argument, which is what I take contention with, then claiming that said hypothetical insult is an ad hominem is an untenable position.
so you accept all these scientific explanations, but apparently, just behind the curtain of the natural world, there are supernatural forces pulling the strings and guiding everything? sorry. I see no reason to lend credence to such ideas. supernatural claims have consistently been revealed to be bogus throughout history. all that happens is that they get pushed further and further back and now they have reached the furthest point they can. and that is the origin of reality itself. at one point supernatural explanations were used to explain the grass growing and why it rained. and now they are used to answer only the most dubious questions we have, since science has stomped them out of every other sector of inquiry.
Rather then make a new topic i'll just ask here.
If you follow any Monotheism (Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc) wouldn't you then consider anyone who doesn't follow your specific religion and believe in your specific God to be an Atheist? If you believe your God is the one and only true god then to believe in any other god is to believe in no god at all therefor making them an atheist right?
I know Islam has a word for "non-believer", but I don't know if they'd equate it to athiesm. I know the tolerate followers of those 3 Abrahamic religions accept they all worship the same God, albiet they call him different things and worship him in different ways. iirc the Torah, Bible and Koran all feature many overlapping stories/events.Rather then make a new topic i'll just ask here.
If you follow any Monotheism (Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc) wouldn't you then consider anyone who doesn't follow your specific religion and believe in your specific God to be an Atheist? If you believe your God is the one and only true god then to believe in any other god is to believe in no god at all therefor making them an atheist right?
mattisgod01
I know Islam has a word for "non-believer", but I don't know if they'd equate it to athiesm. I know the tolerate followers of those 3 Abrahamic religions accept they all worship the same God, albiet they call him different things and worship him in different ways. iirc the Torah, Bible and Koran all feature many overlapping stories/events.[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
Rather then make a new topic i'll just ask here.
If you follow any Monotheism (Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc) wouldn't you then consider anyone who doesn't follow your specific religion and believe in your specific God to be an Atheist? If you believe your God is the one and only true god then to believe in any other god is to believe in no god at all therefor making them an atheist right?
DigitalExile
Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning "Without God". So logically if you see someone worshipping false idols then are they not "Without God"?
This was not made to offend in any way. Please read all of this before posting.
Hello atheists, agnostics, and theists of Gamespot. Tonight I have come to spread some divine wisdom that suddenly struck me right before I was about to fall asleep. I've known this for awhile, but there are many atheists on Gamespot and the internet in general. No, I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but some of your reasons why science can disprove religion are really bogus. I'm not trying to preach or anything, I just want to address these problems and explain why I think that they are wrong.
Many people who choose not to follow any religion say that their reasoning is based on science, whether it be the big bang or evolution. I respect those who aren't religious just because nothing seems to fit with them. Claiming that something totally unrelated to religion can disprove religion just grinds my gears every time I have to read the same excuse.
You might ask me, "How do you know there is a God?" My answer is that I just take a look around myself. Objects can be broken down by what exactly they are made up, whether it be material, element, or even how many protons, electrons, and neutrons there are in it. You might now be asking "Well how does this prove in your belief of a God?" My answer for that is that we don't know how the elements were created, or how atoms came to be. In my own opionion, I would believe that a divine entity created everything in the universe, and that we are slowly understanding what anything is made of through science.
Then there are those that "disprove" religion by pointing at the theory of evolution. To me, evolution and Christianity goes hand in hand. The first book, Genesis, can fit right into evolution. Genesis tells about the birth of our species while mixing in metaphors and mythology. Who knows if the first human male and female were ever named Adam and Eve, but if that's what God wants them to be called, then so be it. Everything before the creation of humans through evolution was never really spoken about in the Bible, because it doesn't have any relevancy towards God's interaction with Humans.
Finally, the last way that atheists try to claim that a religion couldn't possibly be right is by claiming that the big bang created everything in the universe. In my mind, creationism and the big bang fit perfectly together. A God could have started the events that lead to the big bang occuring. After all the elements are done settling down in space, he forms the Earth for a few million or billions of years to make it hospitable for humans to live on.
Then there are those that don't follow a religion, because they say that religions are too restrictive. You don't have to have the Bible or a priest dictate how you must follow your life. Go ahead and live the way you want to live. Sin a little, nobody is perfect. Just don't sin to spite God. I have only read the first two books of the Bible, yet I can say that I believe in Christianity. When I read the Bible, I read it for divine inspiration, not to learn what I am and am not supposed to do.
Well I'm sorry that this was really long, but I had to get this out of my brain and onto paper. Tell me what you think about my thoughts.
NiKva
this is so misguided. do you mind if i ask what age you are in and how far you have gone into scientific studies? because it seems like you have a basic high school grasp of it.
I know Islam has a word for "non-believer", but I don't know if they'd equate it to athiesm. I know the tolerate followers of those 3 Abrahamic religions accept they all worship the same God, albiet they call him different things and worship him in different ways. iirc the Torah, Bible and Koran all feature many overlapping stories/events.[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
Rather then make a new topic i'll just ask here.
If you follow any Monotheism (Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc) wouldn't you then consider anyone who doesn't follow your specific religion and believe in your specific God to be an Atheist? If you believe your God is the one and only true god then to believe in any other god is to believe in no god at all therefor making them an atheist right?
mattisgod01
Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning "Without God". So logically if you see someone worshipping false idols then are they not "Without God"?
moreso a "false god", where an atheist like me has no god at all[QUOTE="mattisgod01"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]I know Islam has a word for "non-believer", but I don't know if they'd equate it to athiesm. I know the tolerate followers of those 3 Abrahamic religions accept they all worship the same God, albiet they call him different things and worship him in different ways. iirc the Torah, Bible and Koran all feature many overlapping stories/events.
wis3boi
Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning "Without God". So logically if you see someone worshipping false idols then are they not "Without God"?
moreso a "false god", where an atheist like me has no god at allYea but isn't a false god the same as no god at all? At The end of the day what you are worshipping isn't god.
moreso a "false god", where an atheist like me has no god at all[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning "Without God". So logically if you see someone worshipping false idols then are they not "Without God"?
mattisgod01
Yea but isn't a false god the same as no god at all? At The end of the day what you are worshipping isn't god.
no a false god is not the same as no god.
atheists are just aware of the simple fact that no god has ever, or will ever exist. that's all. we worship nothing.
moreso a "false god", where an atheist like me has no god at all[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning "Without God". So logically if you see someone worshipping false idols then are they not "Without God"?
mattisgod01
Yea but isn't a false god the same as no god at all? At The end of the day what you are worshipping isn't god.
atheism is the lack of beliefs in any god, if you believe in any god at all, you are not atheist
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
[QUOTE="wis3boi"] moreso a "false god", where an atheist like me has no god at allKrelian-co
Yea but isn't a false god the same as no god at all? At The end of the day what you are worshipping isn't god.
atheism is the lack of beliefs in any god, if you believe in any god at all, you are not atheist
How do you worship something that doesn't exist? What makes an act of worship an act of worship and not just pointless meaningless gestures?
mattisgod be messing with us.
If you are born in India, you would most likely be brought up as a Hindu. If you were born in the time of the vikings in Denmark you would believe in Thor. If you were born in ancient Greece you would have believed in Zeus. If you were born in Iraq you would most likely be a Muslim. They can't all be right, they can't all be telling the truth or leading you to a truth and herein you see the problem, somebody is leading you astray and somebody is wrong. If you believe one thing, why do you not believe the others, why believe they are wrong and you right? It is because you didn't grow up in ancient Greece or born in the time of the vikings or born in Iraq or born in India and you weren't involuntarily made believe anything and that is the only answer.Cloudwolfe
"God has no religion." - Mahatma Gandhi
[QUOTE="Cloudwolfe"]If you are born in India, you would most likely be brought up as a Hindu. If you were born in the time of the vikings in Denmark you would believe in Thor. If you were born in ancient Greece you would have believed in Zeus. If you were born in Iraq you would most likely be a Muslim. They can't all be right, they can't all be telling the truth or leading you to a truth and herein you see the problem, somebody is leading you astray and somebody is wrong. If you believe one thing, why do you not believe the others, why believe they are wrong and you right? It is because you didn't grow up in ancient Greece or born in the time of the vikings or born in Iraq or born in India and you weren't involuntarily made believe anything and that is the only answer.Victorious_Fize
"God has no religion." - Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhi didn't come up with that, just so you know. It's from Christian doctrine. And besides it doesn't even make any sense. By implying that such a god exists implies that such a religion exists with him as a figure and if a religion exists then it would be that someone is following it and back to square one, if you were born in a different country or a different time you would believe something different. You could believe that there is a god and that you will go to heaven or you could believe there is no heaven and you will be reincarnated as a goat. It doesn't change the fact that someone is wrong.[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"][QUOTE="Cloudwolfe"]If you are born in India, you would most likely be brought up as a Hindu. If you were born in the time of the vikings in Denmark you would believe in Thor. If you were born in ancient Greece you would have believed in Zeus. If you were born in Iraq you would most likely be a Muslim. They can't all be right, they can't all be telling the truth or leading you to a truth and herein you see the problem, somebody is leading you astray and somebody is wrong. If you believe one thing, why do you not believe the others, why believe they are wrong and you right? It is because you didn't grow up in ancient Greece or born in the time of the vikings or born in Iraq or born in India and you weren't involuntarily made believe anything and that is the only answer.Cloudwolfe
"God has no religion." - Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhi didn't come up with that, just so you know. It's from Christian doctrine. And besides it doesn't even make any sense. By implying that such a god exists implies that such a religion exists with him as a figure and if a religion exists then it would be that someone is following it and back to square one, if you were born in a different country or a different time you would believe something different. You could believe that there is a god and that you will go to heaven or you could believe there is no heaven and you will be reincarnated as a goat. It doesn't change the fact that someone is wrong.Doesn't matter who said it, still means the same thing. You don't need a religion, more so a "true" religion, to believe in God(s). Most people I know believe in God, and what follows suit is their ways of reaching to him. The overused notion that there are many religious institutions (keyword) proclaiming truth, thus, invalidating them all, is a an argumentation formed in poor taste to me. Religious dogma and authority are ever changing and ever (rightly) challenged. Spirituality however, have not.
Here's another colorful quote attributed to Gandhi when he was asked whether he is a Hindu or not: "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew"
As far as my progression goes in my very very poor theological teaching so far, I've come to know, that in both Christianity and Islam, when taken from a certain perspective, every good man will enter heaven, regardless of religion. Although it is true odds are less than likely as differing views and conflicting actions challenges what both said religions constitute as a "good" person.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
Yea but isn't a false god the same as no god at all? At The end of the day what you are worshipping isn't god.
mattisgod01
atheism is the lack of beliefs in any god, if you believe in any god at all, you are not atheist
How do you worship something that doesn't exist? What makes an act of worship an act of worship and not just pointless meaningless gestures?
who worships something that doesn't exists? atheism means you don't worship anything
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
atheism is the lack of beliefs in any god, if you believe in any god at all, you are not atheist
Krelian-co
How do you worship something that doesn't exist? What makes an act of worship an act of worship and not just pointless meaningless gestures?
who worships something that doesn't exists? atheism means you don't worship anything
Well is worshipping something that doesn't exist still worship or just meaningless gestures? An Atheist doesn't beleive god exists so anyone who claims to worship god is actually worshipping nothing and is the act of worshipping nothing still worship?
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
How do you worship something that doesn't exist? What makes an act of worship an act of worship and not just pointless meaningless gestures?
mattisgod01
who worships something that doesn't exists? atheism means you don't worship anything
Well is worshipping something that doesn't exist still worship or just meaningless gestures? An Atheist doesn't beleive god exists so anyone who claims to worship god is actually worshipping nothing and is the act of worshipping nothing still worship?
This is an old cliche. Can you prove it does not exist?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment