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.
You mean this question: "I wonder who tends to be more of a bigot in the end?" First of all, I thought it was rhetorical. But if you want my answer -- people like you who make all
lmao. Exactly like them.
You turn your back on the scientific method in favor of a personal agenda.
Way to go phet.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-12-2021 at 10:22 AM..
Reason: You cut out a quote tag for some unknown reason.
The Victim Club = The Miserable Haters Coming to a Internet Forum titled Religion and Spirituality to Bust On Theist Strangers and Whine & Complain That Most People Perceive a God.
Try harder and stop your own baiting, as in the 613 thread.
Thanks for the reference to that thread as well...
Where I hope the more intelligent, fair and reasonable comments will prevail. Another point of order we're all called upon to judge, though very differently some will do as compared to others.
Some "new blood" sure would be nice, since we all know what comments to expect from the "usual suspects" in this forum. Yours no less predictable than anyone's.
One of the things that believers do (or don't do) is ignore obvious, HUGE disconnects between what they profess on one hand, and what they profess on the other. Dots they old to be true, but which not only can't be connected, but are in direct contravention to each other.
Well-known radio host Dennis Prager is a believer in the perfect, all knowing god of the bible. A god to wise and powerful as to have created the Universe and all that is in it, including ALL the laws of nature, all the way down to the forces that hold the various particles of atoms together.
Yet, in the next breath, he describes mankind, the crowning achievement of this "creator", as being deeply flawed!
Whoa Nelly, how can that be. Onmi-whatever creator that is infinitely-wise and powerful, and the best he can come up with is a deeply flawed mankind! Really!
The contradiction is immense to the point of infinity.
I do agree that mankind is deeply flawed, so it must be the other side of the contradiction that is fatally-flawed, i.e. that there is an omni-this and omni-that creator., It simply can't be both ways if one is in the least bit intellectually-honest (not a characteristic, however, properly associated with believers or believing).
You have hit the bulls-eye. Just because some people choose to decide the qualities of God in only 3 main omnis is bringing the wrong interpretations. If one was to describe God as Omne, in other words all or everything, I think you would find that in fact the '3 main' omnis are not realistic. To explain, the only way God can be God and not the devil is be foremost the 'most compassionate' not omni-compassionate, because if he were omni-compassionate would mean he would have to without any choice forgive all sins, which does not even fit with the Christian concept of First Sin committed by Adam and Eve. Also does not fit with any other major religion at best.
God created the Creation. He gave everybody freedom to choose how to behave, 'aided by' the tools of conscience and not command. If we were to imagine what this would look like when there were small 'societies' mostly or entirely independent of any other, you would find that for them only basic things mattered like consumables and possibly protection from various other exteriors. To achieve this one has to do some form of work until they perish, which is true even today apart from the fact that because many people nowadays survive long enough to become senile the definition of work for them would only involve trying their best to be good-hearted. This is a big part of the concept of Dharma or Karma, which is not really understood by most.
At some point, as everything is always the same in the 'rules or system' incorporated in everything (only the context might be different), some persons chose to not bother with what others, or even their conscience, was telling them to be moral. This is the real cause of the eventual concepts of devil, sin and anything else negative. Nobody can say that God created everything so perfect but failed mankind on the assumption that he in some form or another, directly or indirectly, was the real reason for the imperfect situation everybody is facing. Please see that good is godly, whether someone believes in God or not, and bad well is devilish, determined by what is from the heart and not the brain. It is best to take any concept as only a guide at best and use one's conscience, which includes the heart, as the deciding factor.
Thanks for the reference to that thread as well...
Where I hope the more intelligent, fair and reasonable comments will prevail. Another point of order we're all called upon to judge, though very differently some will do as compared to others.
Some "new blood" sure would be nice, since we all know what comments to expect from the "usual suspects" in this forum. Yours no less predictable than anyone's.
I provided a substantive response to your predictable confusion in that thread that you have yet to respond to.
I provided a substantive response to your predictable confusion in that thread that you have yet to respond to.
Patience your eminence. Please...
I only spend so much time with this sort of thing and then I sign off. Often before I see what comments follow mine, and even when I return I try to be discerning about what comments to reply to. Which means I ignore most of them as a rule.
Sorry to keep you waiting. As if you bother to really consider anything I explain to you anyway...
I only spend so much time with this sort of thing and then I sign off. Often before I see what comments follow mine, and even when I return I try to be discerning about what comments to reply to. Which means I ignore most of them as a rule.
Sorry to keep you waiting. As if you bother to really consider anything I explain to you anyway...
I consider everything you post, LearnMe and I understand and agree with your approach crediting as fact only what can be established scientifically. We differ only on our preferred default regarding God and your seeming unwillingness to accord any credit whatsoever to rigorous derivations between established fact and what is unknown. This reliance ONLY on established fact is unnecessarily myopic in support of your preferred default, IMO.
I consider everything you post, LearnMe and I understand and agree with your approach crediting as fact only what can be established scientifically. We differ only on our preferred default regarding God and your seeming unwillingness to accord any credit whatsoever to rigorous derivations between established fact and what is unknown. This reliance ONLY on established fact is unnecessarily myopic in support of your preferred default, IMO.
I would not describe my opinions and/or conclusions as the result of any sort of "default." You love to use that word and constantly describe my thoughts (and others) in terms you carefully choose to misrepresent the process that has me and others conclude differently than you do.
You may agree that you "default" toward a belief in God, and perhaps that is more the truth. I just don't think the way you do, and I'm not seeing much good reason to attempt any reconciliation along these lines when we both know our manner of evaluation, consideration and conclusion are very different even at the most fundamental level.
If you really do consider everything I post, consider this.
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.