Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is just so much ignorance. What is the basis of Christianity? Christ. Please point out anywhere in the Gospel where Christ said it was okay to HATE people.
Those are people that say that. Christ didn't say that. You think if I stomp somebody out in the name of Jesus that I'm being Christ like and a representative of Christians?
That's like saying all (certain racial or ethic category of people) are evil because of one idiot that did something in the name of (certain racial or ethnic category of people).
Does that one person represent an entire class of people?
I have no idea what YOU are talking about. I was responding to a post discussing people who believe there are no "atheists in foxholes"; i.e., that people will call upon God when their lives are in danger. It isn't necessarily true, and I provided a personal example of how it was the opposite for me.
Your post above has nothing to do with anything I said.
Scaring someone into believing in a god has the same merit as disgusting someone into not believing. Either way we are talking about emotionalism. While emotionalism may be related to the reasons someone believes or does not, it has no relationship at all to whether or not there is any deity. The truth of the cosmos will be the truth, irrespective of how anyone feels about it.
And no one can argue with that.
The deacon in my church and I were discussing something similar the other day. She said, "If someone came to me and proved that Jesus never existed, I would be OK with that because truth is still truth."
I have no idea what YOU are talking about. I was responding to a post discussing people who believe there are no "atheists in foxholes"; i.e., that people will call upon God when their lives are in danger. It isn't necessarily true, and I provided a personal example of how it was the opposite for me.
Your post above has nothing to do with anything I said.
Yeah, I apologize. I was just getting attacked on another thread, so I must have taken it out on you. Sometimes, I need to just stop talking.
The deacon in my church and I were discussing something similar the other day. She said, "If someone came to me and proved that Jesus never existed, I would be OK with that because truth is still truth."
Which is why whenever asked whether I believe Jesus existed, I say it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't. Ditto with Ganesh or Odin.
If people believe it - it is true for them.
And I'm not sure there's a more powerful force than belief.
Which is why whenever asked whether I believe Jesus existed, I say it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't. Ditto with Ganesh or Odin.
If people believe it - it is true for them.
And I'm not sure there's a more powerful force than belief.
Or it may be that they believe in the truth that any of those entities represented to them.
Ganesh is interesting. He provides obstacles and then the means to overcome the obstacles. If you just say "oh that's silly, there's no such thing as a deity with an elephant's head", you miss the truth that life is full of obstacles and the need to overcome them.
How is a believer more "primitive" than someone who asserts there is no God, as you do, when in fact the truth is simply unknown. Your position is merely another version of faith. Almost seven decades of experience, observation and study have convinced me that there is a higher level of reality and that some intelligence we can reasonably call God does in fact exist. But I am not so "primitive" as to run around asserting "There is a God" as though I knew this for a fact, the same way I know my golf clubs are in the closet. As a sane human being, I acknowledge that I could be wrong - that either there is no God at all or that the truth is something far different from what I now conceive it to be. I assert simply "On the basis of my experience, observation and study, I have concluded that God exists and choose to live my life accordingly, at least until such time as further experience, observation and study drive me to a different conclusion." To confidently assert that "God doesn't exist" when you can't possibly know this, and that he "shows absolutely no signs of existing" when a multitude of scientists, philosophers and other scholars have concluded otherwise, is not really an effective approach for promoting atheism.
So, in all you experiences, observations and studies which of the the thousands of gods came out on top?
So, in all you experiences, observations and studies which of the the thousands of gods came out on top?
My vote is Brahman, or maybe Ahura Mazda.
But if excluding deities from ancient mythos, a Prime Mover or First Cause of sorts? Or, Engineers a la Prometheus? A highly advanced species that seeded life on earth?
Did anyone put it like that? There are plenty of evidences that can be put forward for a god's existence,but they are arguable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Nones" on city data
