First off, if I didn't love you so much I'd resent the implication that I'm desperately (because of my yawning spiritual void, my hatred of religion...etc etc etc) denying the existence of 'god' because of my personal views of religion. This is not true. I don't hate god, because I don't believe he/she/it/they exist. My problem is with (yes, I know...boring) organised dogmatic religion and the effects it has on the non-religious. I'm not 'trying hard' not to believe...I just don't, why won't people accept that ? Why ? Are you 'trying hard' not to believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, The Bogey Man ? You have has much 'faith' in them as I do in 'God', so why ask ? I tell you why- it's a typical 'religious' ruse (in the vaguest sense) but it might cause us to fall out so I'll keep it to myself. And secondly, by making that implication you are making the outrageous assumption that this 'god' actually exists and that I should believe it without a second thought. Why's that then ? You've never told me.The "God" you are trying so hard not to believe in
Yes, that's what I hear. We aren't meant to take it literally, anymore. That's very convenient, wouldn't you agree ? Possibly just a little tiny bit suspicious that in recent times, when the nonsense (let it be whispered - horror) of the bible/koran/whatever in the face of unchained free thought has become apparent, we are suddenly not meant to take it literally ? Oh yes, it's just parables, metaphor now, the world isn't flat after all...sorry our mistake.....hmmm......OK. So, taking that on board, how are we to assume that it is the word of god ? What if Moses wasn't 'taken literally' when he came down from the mountain. Maybe it's all wrong. Maybe god actually said 'You SHALL lie down with thy neighbors wife'. Maybe all the psychopaths have got it right after all. Who's to know ? I tell you what, if I were a religious leader I'd just make it up, take a good look at it, and pick out the bits I like and forget the bits I don't. Oh, they've beat me to it. Where's the literal interpretation in that ?the bible was written by people for people - and is not and was never meant to be a literal account
Yes? Last time I looked I wasn't a crocodile or a tree (except in my saddest moments, a soggy old weeping willow), so what else do you expect of me ? You're human, I'm human, everything that anyone has ever said or done or thought or read was from another human. What else is there ?can only be a human construct
Yes ? What are you saying ? It could be two things - either that you are astonished that we alive at all and can't think of any other reason than your supreme being made us, or you refuse to accept that we are just the product of non-random evolutionary mutations of primeval ooze (or rather, complex amino acids that we observe on, for instance, some comets and Titan, one of Saturn's moons) a planet that was created from the left overs of the formation of our sun - which in turn was created (as with all the other trillions of stars) in a natural process, which in turn was spewed forth from a universe created in a quantum vacuum ? Which is it ? Why can you not accept that the same science that powers the computer you are using to type on (very tangible), is the same science that points in completely the other direction from your supreme being ?You, me, this chair I am sitting in - all so precariously balanced between existing and not
Again I ask - why ? Why is it more believable to think that it was a supreme being when the evidence to the contrary is all round you, however baffling it is - and it is baffling. Why do you so readily dismiss 3000 years of human thought...geology, chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics, astronomy...?It simply isn't possible those things can be. Yet they are.
Sorry, you're wrong, it does make it invalid. If you can't explain it to me then how am I to make a judgment ? And sorry again, unless we both have undiscovered telepathic powers or you can write with runes, it's got to be words. I'm human, you're human. Should I accept anything as valid ? I'm not making a comparison (why do I always have to choose my words as carefully as I might choose moss covered rocks when crossing a river?) here, but should accept the ravings of a schizophrenic as valid ? David Koresh ? Osama ? My lampshade that tells me to set fire to kittens ? As Richard Dawkins said - 'Sure, let's keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out'. You have a point of view, and so do I, that's all. That's what makes us human, and that's what make debate so worthwhile.Is my inability to explain, with simple words or numbers, "existence" part of my "proof." Of course it is. Does that make it any less valid? No
Once again, I resent the implication here. Please refer to my first paragraph. You are citing my anger as proof of god ? I wish I were so deserving of such lavish praise.I think I'll just fall back on the proof you yourself provide: how can something that does not exist cause Martin to react so strongly?
By who's standards ? Your own ? Does the proof of your intelligence, which I'm not denying, mean that everyone else, or rather, those that don't agree with you, are wrong ? And remember, Pride is a sin. Be warned !! :wink:i am about as intelligent as a human critter can be
Please, don't feel sorry for my lack of faith. I'm so happy that I'm not cursed with it, honestly, believe me. Feel sorry, if you like, that I'm wracked with anxiety, depression, guilt, totally unrelated to faith. Or perhaps not - maybe that's where I'm going wrong eh ? On second thoughts, no, anxiety, depression and everything else seems to be shared equally between the religious and those of us who aren't. In fact, guilt seems to be an essential part of faith.I feel sorry for you truly
No. What they share is a compromise. And where does this compromise come from ? From fear. A fear of their faith being exposed for what it is. It's inevitable that all the different faiths (or rather - the faithful) have within, perhaps, the last fifty years (and it is recent, you'd agree with that - yes?) all come together and 'agreed' (while secretly believing that they are right and everyone else is wrong) that while on the outside their beliefs are mutually exclusive, a brief interpretation of these different faiths come to the same conclusion. Not surprising really is it ? It's a herding instinct. People (and all life come to think of it - which makes us no different) herd together out of either habit, or.......yep, you guessed it - fear. Can't you see what has happened ? The religious of all denominations huddled together in a corner, shuddering under the weight of life without faith, and coming to a compromise (I think it's related to Stockholm syndrome) so as to keep their faith staggering along.Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus & Buddhists (as well as others) share the EXACT same God.
It's free will apparently....but hang on, you seem to think differently..If there is this ever so powerful God that can do ANYTHING He wants, why does He let us suffer? "
So it's not free will then ? God created Good and Evil in equal measures ? Then why not call it something like 'Govil' and do away with both. Now I'm confused. But, hang on again....My belief is that one thing CANNOT exist without the other.
What does that mean to me? Good & Evil. The Light & The Darkness
.The energies of the Universe.
I agree...so.........?Evolution IS real.
Oh yes. Have you? How about:You have read the Bible yes, but have YOU really read it?.
Yet another implication. You're not asking a question, you're assuming to know the answer, aren't you ? So why bother asking ? I'm not going to ask you whether you read the bible with an open mind, I wouldn't dare.Did you go into it with an open mind or did you have a pre disposition?
Much like a disease eh ? We 'pick up' or 'catch' illnesses all the time. I can't ever remember anyone 'picking up' or 'catching' a cure. Oh well. So much for analogies.I was baptized as a child but my folks weren't church going people. I picked it up on my own