The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e No one has to take much to any blame from their actions if they pick one of the many religions but again why are there so many religions, we can answer it can you‽

we can answer it, can you?
is that a statement or a question?

I ask you where do you get this idea of so many religions? I like to read your list to see what you're tossing in to the pile you call Religion.

and read that list you and others like you love to talk about, all of the wars that were started in the name of God, whereas many wars were started by people that have no real belief in God. I'd say them wars out weigh the ones that were actually started in the name of God.

and again, just because someone uses someone elses name to justify what they are doing does not mean that name they used, the person attached to that name actually told them to.

it's called scapegoating. you are putting your HATE into the wrong person. Instead of being intelligent about it and actually blaming the person actually doing the killing and not the one they are blaming it on.


the is no real Rational thought process in you claims. It is all vague statements to justify you not believing in something.

Originally Posted by hazel My : https://hrussman.neocities.org/ramblings/theories.html https://hrussman.neocities.org/ramblings/faith.html

Hello again hazel

I rather like his explanation of Theory since it is consistent with the range we all agree on is within the definition. Theory is not one simple thing, but describes a range, much like "weather" does not describe a single day in a single place and time, just a range of likelihood.

I don';t have much oif a problem with his description of Faith except I am unaware of ANY objective evidence. That there exists a book that is supposed to be evidence because it was revealed (to some, word for word) by the very thing it seeks to prove, is obviously not logical and does not fit any rules of evidence but wishful thinking IMHO.

It surprises me a great deal that theists so often assume all atheists seek to disprove a Supreme Being's existence when the concept is so seductive and satisfying. It would be wonderful if there truly is a Supreme Being who has some Master Plan for Ultimate Justice for Immortal Souls and a set of simple rules that verify the obviously right way to live. I wish it were so. Life would be so much easier and Death would be like Graduation Day! I just see zero evidence any of that is true, which actuially does make some sense since any being capable of creating such a vast and magnificent thing as SpaceTime is absolutely and utterly beyond human comprehension far more vast a gulf than a microbe able to contemplate the motivations and actions of humans.

Some seem to say and yet do not do.

When you're right you're right and I'm drinking Sprite.

...

Nietzsche is famous for saying that God is dead, but news of The Almighty's demise may have been greatly exaggerated. Here are some of the most fascinating and provocative philosophical arguments for the existence of God. To be clear, these are philosophical arguments. They're neither rooted in religious scripture nor any kind of scientific observation or fact. Many of these arguments, some of which date back thousands of years, serve as interesting intellectual exercises, teasing apart what we think we know about the universe and our place within it from what we think we're capable of knowing. Other arguments, like the last two listed, are attempts to reconcile questions that currently plague scientists and philosophers. Now, none of these arguments make a definitive case for the existence of God, and many of them are (fairly) easily debunked or problematized (as I'll try to show). But at the very least, they offer considerable food for thought. Finally, by "God" or "god," we're not talking about any specific religious deity. As this list shows, the term can encompass everything from a perfect, omnipotent being to something that can be considered even a bit banal. 1) The very notion of an all-perfect being means God has to exist This is the classic ontological, or a priori, argument. It was first articulated in 1070 by St. Anselm, who argued that because we have a conception of an all-perfect being — which he defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" — it has to exist. In his essay Proslogion, St. Anselm conceived of God as a being who possesses all conceivable perfection. But if this being "existed" merely as an idea in our minds, then it would be less perfect than if it actually existed. So it wouldn't be as great as a being who actually existed, something that would thus contradict our definition of God — a being who's supposed to be all-perfect. Thus, God must exist. Okay, admittedly, this sounds a bit weird by modern standards. Actually, it even sounded weird back then; Gaunilo of Marmoutiers ripped apart Anselm's idea by asking people to conceive of an island "more excellent" than any other island, revealing the flaws in this type of argumentation. Today, we know that this type of a priori argument (i.e., pure deduction) is grossly limited, often tautological, and utterly fails to take empirical evidence into account. But surprisingly, it was a position defended by none other than Rene Descartes. His take on the matter is a bit more illustrative; Descartes, in his Fifth Meditation, wrote that the conception of a perfect being who lacks existence is like imagining a triangle whose interior angles don't sum to 180 degrees (he was big on the notion of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception). So, because we have the idea of a supremely perfect being, we have to conclude that a supremely perfect being exists; to Descarte, God's existence was just as obvious, logical, and self-evident as the most basic mathematical truths. 2) Something must have caused the Universe to exist Philosophers call this one the First-Cause Argument, or the Cosmological Argument, and early advocates of this line of reasoning included Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It's predicated on the assumption that every event must have a cause, and that cause in turn must have a cause, and on and on and on. Assuming there's no end to this regression of causes, this succession of events would be infinite. But an infinite series of causes and events doesn't make sense (a causal loop cannot exist, nor a causal chain of infinite length). There's got to be something — some kind of first cause — that is itself uncaused. This would require some kind of "unconditioned" or "supreme" being — which the philosophers call God. I'm sure you've already come up with your own objections to the First-Cause Argument, including the issue of a first-causer having to have its own cause. Also, infinity does in fact appear to be a fundamental quality of the universe. All this said, however, cosmologists are still struggling to understand the true nature of time and what "caused" the Big Bang to happen in the first place. 3) There has to be something rather than nothing Called the Cosmological Argument from Contingency, this is a slightly different take on the First-Cause Argument. The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz put it best when he wrote, Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason... is found in a substance which... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself. Because it's impossible for only contingent beings to exist, he argued, a necessary being must exist — a being we call God. Writing in Monadology, he wrote that "no fact can be real or existing and no statement true without a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise." More recently, the philosopher Richard Swinburne looked at the issue more inductively, writing, There is quite a chance that if there is a God he will make something of the finitude and complexity of a universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe…can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. 4) Something had to have designed the Universe The Design Argument, or teleological argument, suggests we live in a Universe that surely had to be designed. The cosmos, goes the argument, exhibits orderliness and (apparent) purpose — for example, everything within the universe adheres to the laws of physics, and many things within it are correlated with one another in a way that appears purposeful. As William Paley argued, just as the existence of a watch indicates the presence of an intelligent mind, the existence of the universe and various phenomena within it indicates the presence of an even greater intelligence, namely God.

I was wondering why someone would give up being a "Christian", so I done a search and found some interesting stories (I haven't yet read all of the first link). But the second link is interesting, especially what I've quoted below (note what I've bolded in the second quote below - I agree).

https://www.quora.com/Why-and-when-d...ng-a-Christian
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@dan/...p-christianity

Sunday morning sermons became unbearable as pastor after pastor gave messages that were incompatible with the 2nd greatest commandment. I took these pastors aside to talk with them about it. It went nowhere.

Am I going to hell? Well, many christians believe Once Saved, Always Saved so I guess I am covered by my prior belief when I gave my heart to Christ. Some would say I was never saved, but I couldn’t tell the difference for years. I certainly have nothing against God and obviously am more than happy to yield to anything he requests of me. I just don’t trust anyone but God to deliver the message.

Regarding the second commandment, it does seem that most religions are idolatrous and those which are not to start with, do eventually water things down, practice some revisionism and succumb to idolatry eventually. Simply because a practically empty and bland church with basic seating and a simple cross is not as awe inspiring and captivating as all the ornamentation, statues, idols and finery of your typical Catholic or Orthodox churches or cathedrals.

Medieval Christendom had to capture the hearts and minds of pagans after all and it did so in various ways, such as substituting it's holy days in place of the old pagan ones (such as yuletide or the festival of sol invictus - on the 25th of December). If it had not done so, it certainly would not have spread so far and wide.

the two Christians.
Christians, and
Protest-ants - protesting Christianity, while still saying they are Christians. Then there is the Schisms.

Catholics do not worship Idols, the statues of others, being saints that made it into Heaven are there as a reminder of them that made it. Venerate.

Man has many statues in their countries, then by your bad understanding of Idol worship, anyone that has a picture or statue of someone they know are to then to be added to the idol worshiper generalized pile.

Therefore any country that has statues is a idol worshiping country, by these standards that are put forth on Catholics, mostly by Protest-ants.

Again spoken out of ignorance as if it is a fact when in fact it is not.

Which looks to be a pattern, over generalizing everything then just tossing whatever you do not agree with onto that pile.

I think KRS-1 had a good idea, I'm sick of the cross, let's bring back "god" so they can kill him again putting a GOLD AK up on the altar!

Originally Posted by BW-userx yet you stay in here peddling your wears going on and on about how Science is the god you believe in, you and them like you, and any other kind of God is just a fiery tail that people use to justify killing someone else.

Let's have a break and leave fiery tails alone, ok? I think they are cool (or hot, whatever).

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Let's have a break and leave fiery tails alone, ok? I think they are cool.

go believe in frog then because this is a Religious thread not a denounce God thread, therefore it is you that are in the wrong place. and its just too bad for you and all them like you that you do not have a place of your own to toss false beliefs back and forth at each other.

All I have ever seen in here by Non believers in God, is to try and tear down ,and scoff at something you do not even believe to be true, like you're afraid of something. So you come in here and play the bully.

last time I checked not believing in God is Not a Spiritual or religious thing. so why are you in here again? it certainly is not to share on what you know about God which is absolutely nothing.

so you make up excuses for what you do not know or understand to not know or understand it therefore you hide in the shadows and spit out insults. etc...

atheist:
they say they do not believe in God, that it is all just a fairy tail. some say it was a made up story to try and control people.

that when one dies nothing is all that is waiting for them, they live, die and rot in a hole.

therefore what does it matter what a anyone believes in, if that is all that is waiting for man after his death?

It matters not what anyone believes in.

Therefore a belief system. just one of the somethings that everyone that is born has a with a need to have is then rendered useless. the need for truth is too useless, because death is all that is left in the end. So, again it no longer matters what the truth is.

Where mankind came from, if it be by a God, or not. Which according them that say there is no God. They still worry about where they came from. who cares?!?!?! if death is all that is to be had in the end. the begining of live has no meaning. nothing has any meaning any longer because everything one does just comes to an end in the end anyways, and everything that he or she did no longer really matters, it is all vanity.

So why do atheist come in to where the Religious resided to scoff and try to make fun of something just because they do not believe the same as them?

why is it that they try so hard to make others believe what they believe. To try and make others think like them.

what are they afraid of?

They have nothing to look forward to, but death.

It must be a hard belief for them to sallow. Yet, misery does love company.

Praise the lord and pass the admonitions! LOL

you're too heavy to pick up.

Originally Posted by BW-userx All I have ever seen in here by Non believers in God, is to try and tear down ,and scoff at something you do not even believe to be true, like you're afraid of something. So you come in here and play the bully.

No, sir, please go back here and read again my first short reply to you, including my quote and the source I have linked. Then please go here, and read again what you have replied to me. I haven't been talking about any gods to you. You have been to me, avoiding my questions. As others here, before you wished me a one-way trip to hell, I was trying to help you fix some serious, persisting misconceptions of yours, about things that are not directly related to any god or religion whatsoever, but are related to knowledge, and to the most reliable method to achieve it.

You should be able to believe in your god without having to turn science into a strawman, for instance, or to beat semantics to death just because you don't like the tools people are using everyday to make Homo sapiens sapiens worthy of its name, at least a little bit. That's simply not the way things work. If you have to do that, then your faith is probably weak. Then who's the fearful one? You might say the same about me of course: that I come here and try to take your faith away from you. This is not exact, as I literally don't know what you are talking about. However, I can accept your faith as long as you accept that this is the XXI century, with all its implications. Can you do that?