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.
I'm not speaking in sweeping terms, I'm explaining why christianity still has traction - meaning enough people to keep it going strong. Have you looked at the socionomic and economic picture of the US lately? it's ugly. Also, facing the mortality of loved ones and especially yourself is hard, even for tough guys like you and your friends.
There's nothing easy about being a human being these days, or ever for that matter. It's one big free-for-all competition, don't downplay it like its so great who cares if it ends in the abyss with no further meaning. For many people, it's not worth the pain and suffering if there's nothing more to it. Enter religion.
I'm taking a step further and explaining why something that has no proof exists like it does, sorry if I went past the whether it's true or not question - I assumed that was a given among those viewing this subforum.
I'm taking a step further and explaining why something that has no proof exists like it does, sorry if I went past the whether it's true or not question - I assumed that was a given among those viewing this subforum.
I think the reason christianity still has the traction it does is because of the bc/ad calendar thing. People think that if we started the clock over when Jesus was born, it must be for real. However, this actually doesn't mean squat.
You may have something there. I still recall a Christian at my work who (after i had explained the date discrepancy) flatly stated that Jesus was born in Nought B.C. This for him was a fact.
I don't think this is a hard one to dispel - that having a calendar based on the religion imposed in 290 or whatever proves nothing about the reality of that religion. If it hadn't been for Charles Martel and John Sobieski, we'd all be using the Islamic calendar today.
The AD/BC (I rather distain the 'Common Era' repaint job) thing is 'cultural Christianity' abich is neither something that has to be rooted out like all french words in the English language but left as cultural and not an atom pf Proof of the religion which is is quite simply (if evidence and logic counts for anything) not true.
When you ask for 'proof' from the religious they always say it is an act of faith. As an atheist it is an act of faith that there is nothing there!
To me it would be logical that any god would make their presence known and give us a list of needs or wants. There is something about leading one's life biased on written works from thousands of years ago and nothing else to prove god's existence. Even when we witness an event; we have a hard time immediately recording that event without errors. When we look at a holly book, that was not written at the time of the event and was later transcribed by those that had a vested interest in the outcome, it is very easy to question the authenticity.
OP Some scientist will point to our latest observations of the universe or of matter and say it is not possible without a god. But I think our side can also argue that if there is a god; where is it? God is certainly not all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present if it cannot even make a social call! So what we are left with is simply 'nature' and that does not qualify as a god.
So 2000 years ago, people had the same shortcomings as people do today. This isn't a surprise, it's all about the ego and id, and it takes longer than a couple thousand years to significantly change through evolution. That's the only thing that rings true - human nature, the rest is completely, utterly, disastrously, debunked.
Unless you believe you are a descendant from Adam and Eve and live on a 6,000 year old earth, you can't take the bible seriously.
exactly. A bible in proper context can be taken seriously.
we are exactly the same as them 2000 years ago. Other than resistant to pathogens and stuff like evolutionary difference in where we formed on earth.
All the literal magic stuff is just nonsense.
a literal bible is complete nonsense.
But how could he have been born in a year that didn't exist? Oh wait ....
I will say that I explained that at best (and true for all we know) Jesus could have been born in December 1 BC or January 1 AD (according to the present western reckoning) but not 'Nought BC' as there was no such year. He did seem to accept the point.
i used the word “proof” because that is what Phetaroi referred to in his OP. It might have been better to refer to evidence, which is certainly not anecdotal. Evidence can be verified, reviewed, duplicated given appropriate conditions, and has also not been provided in support of religion for 70, 700 or 7000 years.
how do you verify, review, duplicate "falling in love" ?
how do you test that? can you "fall in love" upon demand consistently and repeatedly by setting up specific conditions in the laboratory?
what evidence can you provide that you are "in love" ? what proof? and surely the "proof" you have can be logically explained away as 'you think you are in love but it is really something else': fear of being alone, control over another person, faking it to manipulate a situation, monetary gain, social pressure, nobody could love you, you are just some random guy, you are desperate, you are gullible, you are superstitious, you are not educated, you thought you were in love before look how that turned out.
only you can verify, validate, and discern if you are "in love." because you feel it, you experience it.
everyone else has to take your word for it that you are in love. it is anecdotal. it is your "claim." others use their discernment regarding you and rely on their experience knowledge and information about you and what they feel regarding whether to believe you when you "claim" you are in love.
this is not about "does love exist" we know it does because we feel it and experience it on a regular basis, consistently and reliably, although we can not prove it to others. same for spirit. we know spirit exists in the same way. we feel it and experience it on a regular basis, consistently and reliably, in our own daily life.
that is what is missing in the opening post. jumping to the place of "if there is no proof which convinces everybody else then it does not exist." it is not about providing evidence for others. it is about discerning for yourself the validity of what you experience in your daily life.
when your friend wraps their arms around you and says "i love you" do you demand proof? Do you go to the most recent journal published and contact a group of researchers and visit a lab to verify what your friend is saying, and provide evidence for you whether your friend is a fraud?
there are people who reject love and will never be convinced that love exists, they claim it is a fraud perpetuated upon the weak, used for manipulation and control. no amount of "proof" "evidence" "claims" can make that skeptic love or feel love. no one can prove to them that love exists. logic of the opening post seems to be saying therefore it does not exist.
same with spirit.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-17-2019 at 07:42 AM..
I guess you can't see the difference between an entity that supposedly 'does' things and a feeling
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.
