The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by brianL and on ideas and themes that Christianity has borrowed or stolen from other religions/mythologies.

Especially have a look at the Hindu Krishna, the Zoroastrian Mythra and the Egyptian Horus.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You have no right to assume anything because in assuming you are making a vaue judgement.

We're not allowed to make incorrect judgements or assumptions any more?

Originally Posted by ntubski We're not allowed to make incorrect judgements or assumptions any more?

It goes ack to a post where Blue made a statement about him condeming people people, later he backtracked and claimed he was not condeming but the person duly stands condemmed before God (post 4151). The issue is that Blue takes it upon himself to do what is apparently the work of "god". He makes judgements and he condems. I'd like to see what verse in the Bible, more specifically the NT, he would use to suggest he has that right.

He must have skipped the bits where it says "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", and let those without fault chuck the first bricks (summat like that, anyway).

Ah the old Blue is back Just as much of a firm believer as ever I see Trolls like this will never admit to the possibility that the bible may be nothing more than a series of fictional stories thrown together by the lunatic fringe from centuries ago.

Originally Posted by tiredofbilkyyaforallican Ah the old Blue is back Just as much of a firm believer as ever I see Trolls like this will never admit to the possibility that the bible may be nothing more than a series of fictional stories thrown together by the lunatic fringe from centuries ago.

Nor should they have to if they actually believe it. I know this will most probably get an angry, or not so well thought out response like "proof or it didn't happen", but both side to this debate play the same game and that is where the real issue is.

"Gods" can't exist without "devils" so damn us all! Until we say we're sorry and in God we trust? Or, it's like someone born in to a racist family\* you ether get smart or cause war! If we don't go by science\”facts” then we go by what our parents\environment taught!(.)

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Nor should they have to if they actually believe it. I know this will most probably get an angry, or not so well thought out response like "proof or it didn't happen", but both side to this debate play the same game and that is where the real issue is.

Of course they should. Any human who beleives something with no evidence should at least keep in mind the possibility that they might be mistaken. To accept something as true without even the slightest supporting evidence is madness. Its only called "religion" because more than one person holds the same mad delusion.

Originally Posted by baldy3105 Any human who beleives something with no evidence should at least keep in mind the possibility that they might be mistaken.

Exactly. That's the rational thing to do. Faith (belief without proof, belief without question) is totally irrational.

Originally Posted by baldy3105 Of course they should.

Originally Posted by brianL Exactly. That's the rational thing to do. Faith (belief without proof, belief without question) is totally irrational.

Not at all. No one here knows how the universe started yet there are two main camps, religion and science. Religion goes on belief of a book, science goes on belief of theory. Both sides, in many arguments are just as irrational yet it is only the science side that says "proof or it didn't happen". As I keep saying when there is a middle ground this discussion will actually get somewhere, until then both sides will claim the higher moral ground yet neither side will be able to explain much at all.

Everybody should face the only real fact there is, we just don't know what happened and how it happened. Just because someone believes differently to you doesn't mean they are irrational or whatever it simply means you think you have all the answers when you don't.

I think most become what they are born into, environmentally. Even tho on this subject—polar—opposite for me? Maybe: education and time?

Originally Posted by brianL Originally Posted by baldy3105 Any human who beleives something with no evidence should at least keep in mind the possibility that they might be mistaken. Exactly. That's the rational thing to do. Faith (belief without proof, belief without question) is totally irrational.

I have a problem with the word "evidence". It is a word that you hear at a crime scene. The problem is that I hear it when there may not even be a crime.

I don't need evidence to believe something, but I do need it to make sense logically and to be based upon facts/truths. Some "evidence" is not logical, and so I do not believe it. Some is, and I do. Sometimes, science cannot provide "evidence" or "proof", which begets a need for philosophy and logical thinking. I think that some things can only be proven by logical thinking, which keeps them out of reach of both religion and science. These are the most important and fundamental things, and they are lost to most people. Maybe that's why the world is the way it is.

I still say that if the bulls**t written in the bible were half true, there would be indisputable proof of the existence of a god. You claim to be following blind faith that's fine ...FOR you but I would much rather have some tangible evidence that there is some mythical all knowing all seeing entity keeping track of every move you make! Religion is nothing more than stories based on superstition and misguided power tripping. I wonder what most of the "prophets" were smoking back then.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I have a problem with the word "evidence". It is a word that you hear at a crime scene. The problem is that I hear it when there may not even be a crime.

You have a problem with words that can be used to mean slightly different things in different contexts? Maybe natural language is not for you.

Originally Posted by ntubski You have a problem with words that can be used to mean slightly different things in different contexts? Maybe natural language is not for you.

Interesting theory you have there ;-)