Neither one of us has a credible study to point to, so we are reduced to our own personal experiences which appear to be quite different.
You call it Demontable sic fact, I call it anecdotal at best. Three examples from your personal life out of the billions of religious people hardly constitutes proof. If you could cite a million such examples it wouldn't even register as a measureable percentage of religious "converts" considering there are well over a billion Christians and several billion more followers of other religions. You also fail to admit that most religions are mutually exclusive, for one to be right all the rest must be wrong, which means positively billions of people are dead wrong on the subject.
since we can't seem to even agree on the underlying facts, this debate seems hopeless. as were the last three or four times we had this discussion.
It's one thing to profess a belief in a deity. At some level, I can understand that, simply for the desire of trying to understand the origins of the universe.
But why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for?
Why does anyone believe in an afterlife? Or in souls? Or in a mythical man named Jesus? Or in a really horrible dude what wears a red jump suit, sporting a pointy tail?
Do you believe in gobblins or knomes? The boogeyman, vampires, or zombies? Space aliens or honest politicians?
It's one thing to profess a no belief in a deity. At some level, I can understand that, simply for the desire of trying to ignore the origins of the universe.
But why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for?
Why does anyone believe in an no afterlife? Or in no souls? Or in a mythical man named Darwin? Or in a really horrible dude what wears a red jump suit, and a white beard at neutral Happy Holiday time?
Do you believe in global warming or apes that evolved while other apes stayed apes? Virgins, free lunches, or Noam Chomsky? Space aliens or any politicians' anal probes?
"Why does anyone believe in an no afterlife?"
Show me evidence that an afterlife exists.
"Or in no souls?"
Show me evidence that they exist.
"Or in a mythical man named Darwin?"
There's evidence of his existance.
"Do you believe in global warming or apes that evolved while other apes stayed apes?"
Of course not. But here lies your problem. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that either. Why do they not believe that? Because there's no evidence for it.
There is a difference between thinking we, and we alone evolved from apes, and the overwhelming evidence that human beings and apes have a common ancestor.
You choose to believe there is no this or that. Just like others choose to believe in this or that. You also choose to believe whatever evidence suits you. And there is no evidence that the mythical Darwin existed. Only Darwin the man. Your myths stink like everybody else's.
Show me evidence that an afterlife exists.
"Or in no souls?"
Show me evidence that they exist.
"Or in a mythical man named Darwin?"
There's evidence of his existance.
"Do you believe in global warming or apes that evolved while other apes stayed apes?"
Of course not. But here lies your problem. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that either. Why do they not believe that? Because there's no evidence for it.
There is a difference between thinking we, and we alone evolved from apes, and the overwhelming evidence that human beings and apes have a common ancestor.
talk about the ultimate oxymoron--------
The ultimate moronic paradox.
Show me evidence that an afterlife exists.
"Or in no souls?"
Show me evidence that they exist.
"Or in a mythical man named Darwin?"
There's evidence of his existance.
"Do you believe in global warming or apes that evolved while other apes stayed apes?"
Of course not. But here lies your problem. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that either. Why do they not believe that? Because there's no evidence for it.
There is a difference between thinking we, and we alone evolved from apes, and the overwhelming evidence that human beings and apes have a common ancestor.
It is all about faith you believe it or not concerning God."you do not believe in God but believe our GOVT did 911"
No I don't, on either count. I don't blindly accept the official story from the gov't. But that's a far cry from saying the gov't did 911.
"It is all about faith you believe it or not concerning God."
Faith, by definition, is believing in something that you have no evidence of. Tim, do you have faith in the belief in gobblins?
But why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for?
I was answering your question why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for and the reason is that they have faith .
-- Modified on 12/24/2010 12:59:26 AM
people are religious because that's the way they've been brought up for generations;think of it as a "moldy" tradition. Scared souls who think their pathetic existence will magically be transformed in "heaven". Religion is a "fairy tale" belief system for those terrified of the nothingness of death, which offers the bullshit canard of an "afterlife". Also, attribute it to a profound lack of education.
Perhaps I'm taking the 2 remarks literally, but Jesus ( albeit of the "nonmagical" variety ) & Darwin DID exist.
What FU & BM ( sounds like a comedy team ) fail to realize is that the evolutionary process takes many thousands, if not millions of years. The contemporary horse may look the same for thousands of years, but it evolved from the now extinct miniature horse the Eohippus ( evolutionary chart pictured below )
IMO, UFO's visiting earth are total bullshit, but, since as far as we know, the universe is infinte, even a hardened skeptic like me believes
there is intelligent life that probably exists on a far flung world.
However, with the moronic posts today of Rajai/Liorr & trannyboy, I seriously wonder if intelligent life exists on this board----
-- Modified on 12/23/2010 6:18:47 AM
http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/images/HumpbackWhaleSkeleton.jpg
here's an image of the skeleton of a humpback whale. Whales, like us, are mammals. It's theorized that whales are mammals because they are secondarily aquadic animals. In other words, their ancestors walked on land before returning to the sea.
Notice that the whale has two tiny bones along it's tail, precisely where legs would be if it walked on land. In the whale, these bones have no function. Maybe the Creator just did shoddy work that day.
Here is an image of a whale LEG.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/whale_leg.jpg
This developed from an abnormality, where the genetic code in the whale that turns off the development of their hind legs was turned on.
Looks quite a bit like a horse leg, doesn't it?
-- Modified on 12/23/2010 2:27:27 AM
It is easy to phrase religion in a way that makes it silly, even though that ignores the fact that many intelligent and educated people are believers, like Einstein, just to start, and thousand of other scientists who believe. (I know four who work or worked for JPL.)
Of course, a similar question can be asked of non-religious people on the left. Why do they believe that a government controlled economy will lead to fairness, justice, and similar values, when it can be demonstarted that every state that had more government control led to less of these. I don't want to go through my usual litany of oppressive states, but do your own ranking. List the ten most government controlled states in the last 50 years and see which one you would like to live in.
You can laugh at the people who believe in heavan (WHICH I DON'T), but I laugh at the reformers who look for utopia here, even though there is equally little proof it works, and lots of proof it does not.
But why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for?
Why does anyone believe in an afterlife? Or in souls? Or in a mythical man named Jesus? Or in a really horrible dude what wears a red jump suit, sporting a pointy tail?
Do you believe in gobblins or knomes? The boogeyman, vampires, or zombies? Space aliens or honest politicians?
I don't worship the state, nor do I worship an imaginary, invisible man in the sky. Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive, or rather mutually inclusive.
As for religion being "portrayed" as silly, that like saying that TrannyBoy is only portrayed as being an idiot. Just read their own texts, any of them. It is all but impossible for anyone but the simple minded to accept any of their teaching at face value. That's why people are indoctrinated into religion as children when their minds are much more malleable, and their bullshit detectors have not yet been formed.
BTW, I do agree about the equally simple minded sheep of the left who worship government almost as blindly as many worship dieties. That doens't make religion any less "silly" IMO
this is a good example of non-religious believing things that are demonstrably false.
You don't believe in God-utopia or State-utopia, but you still have a least one belief that you stick to even though there is evidence to the contrary that is overwhelming.
You say "It is all but impossible for anyone but the simple minded to accept any of their teaching at face value." However, it is not impossible at all. In fact, if you think about it you would see that many people who are not simple-minded do, in fact believe, a direct contradiction of your belief. I mentioned Einstein in my post, for one, and friends at JPL for another four. You may find it odd or shocking. But it is no more impossible than airplanes or TV.
But you believe that only the simple-minded can believe in "any" of it, so even though there are millions who believe that are demonstrably not simple-minded, you still adhere to a belief that is as false as the Easter Bunny.
BTW. I do believe in the Easter Bunny. I had him in a fanstatic Dijon sauce two years ago. Yummy.
As for religion being "portrayed" as silly, that like saying that TrannyBoy is only portrayed as being an idiot. Just read their own texts, any of them. It is all but impossible for anyone but the simple minded to accept any of their teaching at face value. That's why people are indoctrinated into religion as children when their minds are much more malleable, and their bullshit detectors have not yet been formed.
BTW, I do agree about the equally simple minded sheep of the left who worship government almost as blindly as many worship dieties. That doens't make religion any less "silly" IMO
I meant that it is rare for a person of intellgence to accept religious teaching "unless" he was taught that these fairy tales were true as a child.
It is another reason that people rarely, (not never) make a wholesale change of religion in their adult years. It happens but you would have to agree that many people believe what they do simply because "they have always believed that way", not dissimilar to partisans who have always been either Dems or Reps, they tend to rationalize the existing prevailig attitude of their party rather than be objective to the facts. Both sides are equally guilty of this IMO, not to the extent of religion of course,but it is still a fair anology.
I mean cmon, do you really think that a grown adult, never exposed to christianity would buy into a carpenter that was the "son of God" actually died for this persons sins, two thousand years before he was born. Maybe the simple minded but no one is going to buy that anyore than they are going to believe that there are 73 virgins waiting for the in paradise if they will just strap a bomb to their ass and blow themselves up for Allah.
No, I stand by my original point. unless indoctinated as a child the chances of any one of any intellectual or emotional strength adopting religion in their adult life are slim. Keep in mind most people are weak minded and need answers to what goes bump in the night.
If you, or any one of us, were crazy enough to still be a virgin at 33, wouldn't we think that
we're "the son of God" ?!
Something to think about.
I've heard some tall tales in order to get out of trouble with your father, but Mary takes the cake, and to think she has gotten people to believe it for over two thousand years. lol
It is true that the majority of people who are religious were raised that way. I agree that "many" are.
However, it is also undeniable that many people who later became religious were not raised that way, and it is equally undeniable that there are many converts.
My family is a case in point. We were not raised with any belief, per se. As secular as it gets. But two of my cousins became rather "observant," in spite of not being raised in the faith. And I would have to say that they are very intelligent, educated, articule, seemingly well-adjusted individisuals.
Likewise, one of the JPL scientist that I know was not raised in an observant family.
It is also undeniably true that many people who you would otherwise consider "intelligent" and not "simple-minded fit into these two groups.
You ask if I think it is possible that a grown adult of moderate intelligence can fall for the Christ-story (my paraphrasing). Yes. It is not only possible, but it is not as unusual as you might suspect. Again, you have to ignore what actually happens in order to keep holding your view.
Let me give you one last example. It is very common for people to knock Christianity. At times, although much rare, Islam comes into play, as you did with the virgins. However, I don't recall ever seeing a post about how Buddhists or Hindus are stupid - the opposite of intellegent. This is not to say it does not happen. Just that if it does, it is rare.
Now, Buddhism is a little cooler than Christ in popular culture, and I used to know a fairly decent number of converts to that religion. Some of the were what you would have to classify as "otherwise intelligent." In the 60's in my college it was not a rare occurance.
Now you can mock the Christ story, and since I am not Christian I have no bones to pick over that. But to believe someone might returns as a dog because he did something bad is in the same class.
Again, in order to stand by your point you have to ignore the reality of converts and people who became more religious
It is another reason that people rarely, (not never) make a wholesale change of religion in their adult years. It happens but you would have to agree that many people believe what they do simply because "they have always believed that way", not dissimilar to partisans who have always been either Dems or Reps, they tend to rationalize the existing prevailig attitude of their party rather than be objective to the facts. Both sides are equally guilty of this IMO, not to the extent of religion of course,but it is still a fair anology.
I mean cmon, do you really think that a grown adult, never exposed to christianity would buy into a carpenter that was the "son of God" actually died for this persons sins, two thousand years before he was born. Maybe the simple minded but no one is going to buy that anyore than they are going to believe that there are 73 virgins waiting for the in paradise if they will just strap a bomb to their ass and blow themselves up for Allah.
No, I stand by my original point. unless indoctinated as a child the chances of any one of any intellectual or emotional strength adopting religion in their adult life are slim. Keep in mind most people are weak minded and need answers to what goes bump in the night.
the reason that Christians are taking it on the chin here is that Buddhists, etal leave me the fuck alone. The next time a Buddhist comes knocking at my door on a weekend morning wanting to "save" me against my wishes, I'll start bashing the Buddhists as well, but unless and until they start impacting my life, I will return the favor. Why can't Christians grasp this simple concept?
My comment about Buddists not taking it on the chin was a side point.
My main point was that there are many otherwise intelligent people who adopted that belief, not having been born into it.
I am glad you think it is as silly as Christianity, but the fact remains that intelligent people who were not raised in it (or either) come to believe it.
That is a direct contradiction to your view that only the simple-minded or those raised in a faith believe it it.
And my ulitmate point is that no matter how many examples I give you of intellgent people adopting religion (or believing in it) you will always say that only stupid people believe.
Your belief if in direct contradiction to demonstable fact.
Neither one of us has a credible study to point to, so we are reduced to our own personal experiences which appear to be quite different.
You call it Demontable sic fact, I call it anecdotal at best. Three examples from your personal life out of the billions of religious people hardly constitutes proof. If you could cite a million such examples it wouldn't even register as a measureable percentage of religious "converts" considering there are well over a billion Christians and several billion more followers of other religions. You also fail to admit that most religions are mutually exclusive, for one to be right all the rest must be wrong, which means positively billions of people are dead wrong on the subject.
since we can't seem to even agree on the underlying facts, this debate seems hopeless. as were the last three or four times we had this discussion.
But your opinion rejecting is always right.
I will just say that I was a student on anthropology and sociology for four years, and that is a field totally dependent on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.
It isn't three out of billions. If I know three without thinking about it, try to exptrapolate.
My final word is a simpleton like Einstein believed and the religion he came to believe in was not strictly the one he was raised in.
You call it Demontable sic fact, I call it anecdotal at best. Three examples from your personal life out of the billions of religious people hardly constitutes proof. If you could cite a million such examples it wouldn't even register as a measureable percentage of religious "converts" considering there are well over a billion Christians and several billion more followers of other religions. You also fail to admit that most religions are mutually exclusive, for one to be right all the rest must be wrong, which means positively billions of people are dead wrong on the subject.
since we can't seem to even agree on the underlying facts, this debate seems hopeless. as were the last three or four times we had this discussion.
there really isn't anysense in continuing this conversation, just like the last time we had this conversation.
Cherry picking my words out of context might fly with the other lawyers on the board, but I won't put up with it when willy does it and i won't engage is such a conversation with you as well
Those are my FINAL words on the subject as well.
I've got chicas to fuck, see ya. lol
I didn't misquote or cherry pick. At the worst I paraphrased, which is perfectly legit. Unless I can't read or you can't write, briefly phrased, you basic premise was intelligent people can't be believers unless they were born into it. If that isn't a fair summary, I don't know what is, and I couldn't find anything that characterized it any other way.
Cherry picking my words out of context might fly with the other lawyers on the board, but I won't put up with it when willy does it and i won't engage is such a conversation with you as well
Those are my FINAL words on the subject as well.
I've got chicas to fuck, see ya. lol
"It is easy to phrase religion in a way that makes it silly, even though that ignores the fact that many intelligent and educated people are believers, like Einstein, just to start, and thousand of other scientists who believe."
That's an interesting statement Phil. How's this?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - Albert Einstein.
I would also note that majority of all scientists consider themselves to be atheists or agnostic.
"Of course, a similar question can be asked of non-religious people on the left. Why do they believe that a government controlled economy will lead to fairness, justice, and similar values, when it can be demonstarted that every state that had more government control led to less of these."
A different topic entirely, but does it make no difference in how such a thing is applied? Sweden's economy is VERY gov't controlled. It has more women in gov't than any other on earth too. I don't see too many Swedes clamoring to get out of Sweden.
So let's try to flip side of the coin. Let's find a nation where gov't has absolutely no control at all over the economy. Such a nation exists, and it is Solmalia. But I'm sure you'll find plenty of fairness and justice there.
-- Modified on 12/23/2010 9:54:36 AM
I have neve said anything on this board would in any way put me in an anarchist philosophy.
I make a general statement about excessive government contol and you just jump ALL THE WAY down the slippery slope to Somalia, failed states, tribalism, and chaos.
No. There is a little space between "The gov that governs least...." and no government.
Yep. I want to decide what type of insurance I want for myself and you have me pirating ships of the coast of Africa.
Finally, Sweden ain't so great. They are able to stay afloat because the import a large number of immigrants who do much of their dirty work, hate Swedish society, and kill their daughters if they date Swedes. (YES, I KNOW IT ISN"T ALL. But they do have a terrible problem with it.)
Question: WHy is there such a higher rate of immigration from the Swedish Paradise to the Hells of the U.S. than there is the other way around?
"I have neve said anything on this board would in any way put me in an anarchist philosophy."
No, you haven't. I probably wouldn't rag on you so much if you did.
"No. There is a little space between "The gov that governs least...." and no government."
No, logically there isn't. If the government that governs least governs best, then logically, the best government is one that doesn't exist. Enjoy your Utopia Phil.
"Question: WHy is there such a higher rate of immigration from the Swedish Paradise to the Hells of the U.S. than there is the other way around?"
Question: Why are most of the immigrants to the United States coming from third world countries? You keep calling Europe a hell hole, but where are all the Greek, Spainish, Irish, and Icelantic immigrants coming to the US?
A few statistics to keep in mind.
The US is the 4th largest nation in the world, with 310 million inhabitants.
Sweden is the 55th largest nation in the world, with 9 million inhabitants.
According to The International Organization for Migration, there are 200 million migrants around the world today. Europe hosted the largest number of immigrants, with 70.6 million people in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available. North America, with over 45.1 million immigrants, is second, followed by Asia, which hosts nearly 25.3 million.
Question for you Phil: Why is Europe seeing nearly twice as many immigrants coming to their shores than the US?
-- Modified on 12/24/2010 8:51:09 AM
I take it that you then support a 100% tax rate as you state that tax increases are "always" good for the economy.
You are both guilty of taking the other's arguement to a ridiculous extreme, the same as Phil did with his arguement with me yesterday.
Actually to be completely honest it seems to be the norm around here and is one reason that it is rare that anyone ever changes anyones mind around here. The arguments made on this board are frequently dishonest and you are both guilty of the same crime.
To paraphrase, you basically said that people can't be smart and believe. I gave example of where that was not true. You started with an almost "absolutist" position, so if I tried to show exceptions, that was not taking it to the extreme. It was pulling it back from your extreme.
You are both guilty of taking the other's arguement to a ridiculous extreme, the same as Phil did with his arguement with me yesterday.
Actually to be completely honest it seems to be the norm around here and is one reason that it is rare that anyone ever changes anyones mind around here. The arguments made on this board are frequently dishonest and you are both guilty of the same crime.
If you honestly cannot see the difference between limited government and no government, you really do not have the ability to make subtle distinctions. (Do you really think Paine was an anarchist?)
The world is filled with gradations. Killing can be justified, first degree murder, second, vol. mans., invol. The simple minded see mercy killing or abortion as "murder."
Can you really not see the difference between wanting to have a cigar in public and boarding oil tankers?
I could do the same for you. You want a higher degree of regulation, ergo you favor the government controllling every aspect of my life including what color underwear I have.
From limited to none is the same distance as from some control to total. It is just as dumb going in that direction.
Europe's huge influx of immigarants is from Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Poles are considered migrants, as are Russians in London. People from Eastern Europe have flooded the West, which is a large per cent of their immigaration.
Surely you have heard of the "Polish Plumber" problem in England and France.
The huge influx of immigrants to Europe is 99% from third world poverty areas, not for the U.S.
If someone leave Morocco for Paris that doesn't say too much about Paris v. NY
Finally, you must either live in a bubble or be blind and deaf. You ask where are all the Greek, Spanish, Irish, and Icelandic immigrants in the U.S. They live next door to the Italian waiters (and chef) at my two favorite tratorias, and next to the Greek deli on Pico, and near the the French guy with the gourmet chocolate shop on First Street, or the slew of French guys in L.A. with bistros and restaurants. I can't even begin to list them.) The poultry place I go to is Irish. There are two Spanish restaurants that I go to in L.A. (and I don't go to them all), and they have a SPanish owner and some of the staff (not all).
Santa Monica is called "The Last Outpost of the Empire," because on the number of Brits living there.
Go to an Irish bar on St. Paddys day and see if there are any musicians from Dublin.
Next time they have the mass swearing in ceremony, go as a visitor. I had a friend from France who got his citizenship and at the ceremony he went to (in a 3,000 seat auditorium) they listed countries represented and asked people to stand. True, it was L.A> so there were tons of Mexicans, Koreans, and Chinese, but there were a lot of Italians, French, Germans, and English.
I go to dance class and there is a girl trying to immigrate from Germany and a girl from Milan. I go to my cafe and a woman from Perugia has coffee there every day. There are dozens of teachers of French, German, Italian, and other European languages in L.A., and guess where they came from.
I could not avoid European immigrants if I leave the house.
And the same thing can be seen in every city in the U.S. Chicago, NY, DC, SF. How is it possible that you can live here an not see it?
There are not a lot of people from Iceland, but that only has a population of a few hundred thousand people. But I know one who left. And yeah, there are probably a very small number of immigrants from Andora or Lichtenstein.
No, you haven't. I probably wouldn't rag on you so much if you did.
"No. There is a little space between "The gov that governs least...." and no government."
No, logically there isn't. If the government that governs least governs best, then logically, the best government is one that doesn't exist. Enjoy your Utopia Phil.
"Question: WHy is there such a higher rate of immigration from the Swedish Paradise to the Hells of the U.S. than there is the other way around?"
Question: Why are most of the immigrants to the United States coming from third world countries? You keep calling Europe a hell hole, but where are all the Greek, Spainish, Irish, and Icelantic immigrants coming to the US?
A few statistics to keep in mind.
The US is the 4th largest nation in the world, with 310 million inhabitants.
Sweden is the 55th largest nation in the world, with 9 million inhabitants.
According to The International Organization for Migration, there are 200 million migrants around the world today. Europe hosted the largest number of immigrants, with 70.6 million people in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available. North America, with over 45.1 million immigrants, is second, followed by Asia, which hosts nearly 25.3 million.
Question for you Phil: Why is Europe seeing nearly twice as many immigrants coming to their shores than the US?
-- Modified on 12/24/2010 8:51:09 AM
If you really wanted to know why, you'd do a phenomenological study, conducting in-depth interviews with individuals, asking something like: "What is your experience of God," or "How did you come to believe in God," or "What have been the factors that have influenced your belief in God."
But, I'm certain you are not really all that interested, but rather just want to feel superior to those who do believe in God, and/or after-life.
and insist that we were only "open to the truth" we could be saved. You don't seem to like it too much when the shoe is on the other foot.
I have listened for the better part of fifty years. "what do you mean you don't believe in God? everyone believes in God" and then threaten me with "eternal hell fire" if I don't buy into not only thier fairy tale, but their particular version of the larger fairy tale.
We are taught from childhood to "respect other's relgious beliefs" but somehow that never extended to those of us whose belief is that it is all a bunch of hooey. I kind of like it that Christians in this country are getting a dose of their own medicine. Now if we could only extend this to the countries of Islam. Yeah, I know, wishful thinking.
the answer to that question. Note! I have not asked you "'what do you mean you don't believe in God? everyone believes in God,'" because I can understand perfectly well why you might not. Often I don't! But, there are times when I change my mind!
there have been enough "good christians" before you to jade me for a dozen lifetimes.
When Christians start respecting my beliefs, I'll return the favor.
By and large I do give most Christians respect, there is a huge difference in posting my opinions on an internet board designed for just that, the discussion of politics and religion. and going up to random christians and telling them that their beliefs are stupid, but that doesn't seem to stop many christians from coming up to me and asking me if "I know Jesus". Why is that any less offensive than my obviously fictional and boorish behavior? You can't deny that many Christians exhibit that type of behavior on a rather regular basis.
I your case however, I can imagine two groups who typically confront you; those who see you're having an entirely too good of time without them, and they're jealous. And, then there are those, who truly believe, that your lack of faith will lead to your eternal damnation. If they truly believe that, wouldn't you expect them to throw you a life-line? Though, those who only have that as their motivation seldom are very obnoxious in their approach. They usually just put out the proverbial welcome mat.
As for me, if there is a God, and if there is a heaven and hell, my only hope is for an extreme portion of grace and forgiveness, since I can't come knockin on the door based on anything that I did or didn't do.
but you won't see me knocking on their door threatening them with eternal damnation if they don't convert to my way of thinking, but after enough Jehovahs witnesses have come knocking on my door, I am rethinking that philosophy, for their own good of course. Do you see how terribly lame that argument is?
If there is a God, and thus a heavan and hell.Your only hope will be to have picked the right version of the fairy tale to believe in. Most Christians, Muslims etal believe that if you don't worship God in exactly the right way, you are doomed to an enternity of hellfire. So with all the possible religions to choose from, pick wisely or risk your immortal soul. lmfao
Just kidding, sort of. I have little issue with some well-meaning soul inquiring into my state of salvation. But, when a person asks me if I'm a Christian, and he follows up with, "But, do you have a personal relationship with JEEEEEZZZZUS," I want to get up and slap him silly.
However, you are misstating the case that religion is a fairy-tale. A better definition would be a legend, or myth. As the link points out, there is no expectation placed on a person to believe in a fairy-tale.
today that unfortunately talk about a God, a supreme being dispensing justice seems primitive. I know when those of us talk about the existence of God we may seem ignorant or even nutty. However your question: " But why do people believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for?" is a perplexing one. Willy just because something is unknowable does not mean that something does not exist.
Within the context of thought, ghosts, knomes, vampires, spirits were as real to primitive man, as atoms, particles, photons, are to modern man. Modern man has his myths too, you know.
The laws of physics and of logic... the number system, the principle of algebraic subsitution are all myths. As the Physicist Dr. Richard Feynman said in his book, "the Character of Physical Law" we believe in them so thoroughly, they seem real.
Dr. Feynman brings the example of the Law of gravitation. It seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and law of gravitation existed before Sir Issac Newton. It would seem nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity. The laws of gravitation have no mass, no energy of it's own. It didn't exist until after billions of years sIR iSAAC Newton magically discovered them in his mind. If you apply your principles of non-existence, the gravitational laws did not exist before Newton.
You see that is the contradiction scientists, you are stuck with, that of the mind. Mind has no energy or matter, but no one can escape it's predominance over everything we do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist in the mind. The Laws of nature are all human inventions, they are modern myths. The airplane did not exist except in some human inventor's mind. The computer, the TV, internet, the football games I watch are all human inventions. The world hAS no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. Steel does not exist naturally, does that mean the skyscrapers are not real.
Love has no matter or energy but because it cannot be quantified, does that mean it does not exist. I will not argue that Christ and Moses, the after life, the soul are myths, but if you do then you run the risk of saying everything around us is a myth. So the big question becomes, what is the truth?
PEACE
or possibly ever. That doesn't mean that would should just make shit up. damn now that sounds more like Willy. lol, but I digress. The law of gravity existed before Newton discovered it, just like there is an answer to what created life, the universe, etc, we just haven't disovered the answer yet, and it doesn't seem likely that any of us living today will ever know, just like every human being before us.
Today in many of our opinion believing in an all knowing, all caring god seems every bit as primative as the Greeks, or Romans, or Norse mythology. Of course we have the means to prove that those religions were false, we lack the means to prove that "God" does not exist. I also can't "prove" that Xfean is a drooling idiot, but most of the available facts point in that direction.
I doubt that you have ever heard me claim that there definitively "is no god", anything until proven impossible is possible. again with the Xfean analogy, it's "possible" that Xfean is actually a genius pretending to be a moron, but do you think anyone hear would actually believe that to be so. The Odds of there being some type of "creator" are within the realm of possibility, the odds of the Judeo Christian God that requires worship etc, out of all the possible fairy tales that have been told throughout time are so remote that I don't even consider the possibility.
So to answer your question the Truth is whatever the truth is, no living human being has the answer, Just because people claim divine knowledge doesn't make it so.
only GOD can explain that. Can you?
Hope you are having a great time sweety.
xxxxO
If believing in a "higher power" gives you comfort, then I am happy for you, but I will never share your belief.
You entering the conversation might force me to "be nice" but neither you or anyone else is going to get me to live my life based on a two thousand year old fairy tale.
On a happier subject, are you headed for a warmer climate for the holidays?
I hope I get to meet you in person one day. Troll problems will be done with.
Does this mean that you don't believe in an objective reality? Don't tell John that, lol.
I think you might be mixing up "existence" with "perception". Perception certainly is mallable, as I notice every time a smoke a bowl. But like GaG said, that doesn't mean we should just make shit up and hope for the best.
Simple Willy. Its called faith. Some have it, you don't. What part of this is so difficult for you to understand?