My views on religion

Post Reply New Topic

actually, science, the use of proof and logic, to try and establish how the world works, hasn't yet been able to disprove the existence of God. science has always just been the best guess. for instance the "theory of evolution" is still called a theory for just that, it's still a theory, it hasn't been proven outright.

i'm not saying i disagree with the theory, in fact, i believe it to be the most probable way we ended up as homo sapien. but that still no where near disproves the claims of the bible. the whole "God created the world in seven days", isn't to be taken as literal. I, as well as many others, see science, and the theory of evolution in particular, to be further testament to God's glory. as far as I'm concerned we're just making more sense of how He did what He did.

And also, the current Pope has spoken out against faith without reason, condemning it because of the atrocities such a process of thought has caused. but, in saying that, he's also spoken out against reason without faith, due to the fact that this also can and has caused atrocities. the Holocaust was one of these examples, using sheer logic and reason to determine the fates of millions of human lives.

science has yet to show an answer for the cause of the "big bang" on top of all this... it's proved that we do exist and that there are reasons for the way things are, but still has not answered the question of "why?".

Jesus loves you!

Amen

We wouldn't want to. It's dogmatism that is the problem, and it always has been.

This is all that anyone gets. We've just been more forthcoming.

A good Pyrrhonist never goes about saying he's proven things.

The "Big Bang" is an interesting theory, but I am not sure how relevant cosmology actually is. Time will tell, though.

Are you certain that it must ask?

Oh, I've been through the books. I used to be a Christian like you, though I was Protestant.

Why? I'm perfectly literate, and it's all supposed to be in there.

Not at all. I'm more interested in it for its historical relevance. I just don't see it as a perfect or unerring account.

No source or text, historical or otherwise, is perfect or in anyway an unerring account.
I was not implying that someone may be illiterate by suggesting seeking some sort of guidance in interpreting the scriptures, I was stating that there can be room for misinterpreting it.
For instance when I was 14, I was a very troubled and angry person, picked on at school and just starting adolescence. All of that plus having AS, well, it made me quite bitter. I was given a bible by a born-again Christian who came to speak at my school. I took it home and had a look through it. The words in the Bible, at that time, only served to make me angrier, and I felt condascended to by reading them.
Scripture alone, without some form of guidance, or at least a very open mind, can cause people to misinterpret what is said, and for it to have a less than positive effect on them.

I'm a comprehensive reader.

I just became very schizoid. The thing is, you never get tired of hearing your own head-voice, so, when someone does finally break you out of your own skull, it's hard to remember when you're supposed to shut up. Now it's almost like I'm extraverted, only all I really do most of the time is think at people. It's fun.

I'm pretty open-minded when I'm not feeling defensive.

Once again, I was not doubting you or anyone else's ability to read. My point, as already stated, was that, just like with anything, reading a text, watching a TV programme etc. if you are already in a specific state of mind, more often than not, you'll just read/see/hear what you want to.


I can relate. I can be quite withdrawn depending on the circumstances, ie. too much stimulus. But otherwise, I can't shut up, and in the same way, "think" at people, as you put it!

Well I don't really know what you're trying to say with that. Because, to me at least, the question of why we're here, and why we exist, is a very important question, and one that I feel must be asked.

yeah but it has disproved the descriptions used in the holy texts which means that those particular instances of gods don't exist in the capacities described and so therefore, they're wrong.


not to mention when you create an imaginary being that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and can be as big or as small or whatever, it's hard to track such a thing down. but of course, that's mainly just because it doesn't exist and people keep redefining it so as to allow their myth to live on. just wait till more and more new science comes in and they start going "oh, he can do that too!!"

Didn't god interact with people in the bible? Why does god not show any signs anymore or interact with us? You always read about monsters and stuff in the bible. Do you guys believe in monsters? When I was a kid I believed in god because I believed in monsters.

I have a question. Why is there so much emphasis on the devil in the Christian religion when he's only mentioned in the bible briefly?

God is refuted. But the devil...

never existed either. the two go hand in hand. when i refute god, i'm refuting the devil too and all of that superstitious garbage.

I read it from the standpoint of a curious scholar, which more people should try doing.

Oh, too much chatter and nattering in a classroom makes me so bonkers, I can't believe it. It puts me under a lot of stress because I'm trying to take it all in at once and just getting frustrated because I don't have the resources to deal with it at all. The only thing that helps is having a tough enough subject to concentrate on that I don't end up preoccupied with trying to sort out irrelevant stimuli.

Ah, the seriousness of the True Believer. It rears its head at the most awkward times.

Like when twoshots is quoting someone.

How sad it is that the language of the anti Christian is so lifeless as that of our pious atheists. It seems we couldn't root It out without salting the soil...