| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
AmbianceMan 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
 Posted: December 03 2009 at 01:52 |
 stonebeard wrote:
At this point, I actually think it's valid to respond to Creationist jabbing about "Show me intermediates!" and such and such questioning with a simple "Go to a museum," or "read a book about it."
Frankly, evolution is really easy to explain in very general terms, but you seriously have to have the equivalent of a minor in biology or anthropology to sufficiently explain it with examples and thoroughly. Not many people can do that. Creationists have the easy road. They don't use evidence. They don't have to cite sources (except Genesis) and they don't have to prove anything. They're the critical ones. I don't need to try to prove evolution to weak minds: after biology and anthropology classes, it's sunk into me and makes way too much sense not to be true. Creationists tend to pigeonhole themselves into ignorance and somehow become incapable of appreciating the universe as something a billion times more luminous and awe-inspiring than as if it were poof-ed into existence over a few days.
I'm not so much angry at Creationists, so long as they have no influence ouside of their church (absolutely NO presence in the science classroom, whatsoever, outside of private schools/universities).
I do pity them a whole lot, though. |
You do realize that very, very many people with very high educations are creationists also, right? There are former evolutionary scientists out there who claim creationism, so saying that the "more educated" people are evolutionists is hogwash. And you also basically said that people with higher educations figure it out for you, and you accept it. I could use the same argument for creationism.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 01:18 |
Negoba wrote:
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? |
Because natural selection caused us to evolve that way, over literally billions of years.
Negoba wrote:
and why aren't we more God-like? |
Because we are not designed by a God or God-like being. If there was a God and if he created us in his own image, why do we look like apes, why is our DNA almost identical (like 99%, depending on the method used for comparison) to that of some other apes (and also identical to various degrees to the DNA of other, entirely different looking animals), and why do our bodies work like those of apes and other animals?
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 03 2009 at 01:19
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 20:26 |
Kestrel wrote:
Huh? What faith do we put in science?
You have faith that this way of thinking will give you the answers to questions regarding the Universe. And it does, but not all of them. It is not designed to do so.
And any scientist would gladly tell you that our understanding of the Universe is quite limited - that's why there are still scientists!
Most real scientists will admit this for their particular field. Most of the atheists who put their faith in science are not scientists (interesting converse to a previous argument). Far too few admit to the limits of the scientific method in general.
I've seen this said so many times and I have yet to actually be shown these "other truths." Can you tell me some?
As long as you remain limited to a scientific / objectivist perspective, you will not be able to perceive these truths. But I'll try anyway. Religions work best in helping an individual, subject self find their place in the Universe. Much meditation regards fine tuning your perception, your ability to discern self from other. It's about direct experience of the here and now, trying to shed the filters of our expectations and teaching. In that way the goal is like science, except for the individual subject rather than the group objective point of view. And these are ancient traditions, some non-theist, which predate "New Age" by millenia.
And yes, some "New Atheists" do want to get rid of religion. Not sure what is wrong with that.
They do not understand what they're trying to get rid of. They deny the good and exaggerate the evil that is done in the name of religion, most often by persons who themselves had very little understanding of the religions whose banners they flew.
These "why" questions are mostly nonsensical if you want anything beyond evolution.
Of course they are. but I do want something beyond evolution. I work in a field completely dependent on science but where science leaves major gaps and will always. It forces me to think a little bigger.
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 19:47 |
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ whatever you said about miracles is not really relevant to the point I was making. And as for "kill all homosexuals": The bible says that. Of course I picked a statement which I know few Christians are taking literally today. But that's also exactly why it's such a good example of cherry picking. |
Gee Mike...I also eat pork and wear clothes of two different kinds of fabric. That isn't cherry-picking. It's understanding that Old Testament law was done away with in favor of a new covenant (a very common understanding)...regardless I (as a Gentile) was never bound by the Mosaic law in the first place...because God never made that covenant with Gentiles, but with Hebrews.
|
Duuno if this was responded to because damn this thread has words and stuff.
The problem is why you would make a Covenant, with moral commands, that won't be absolutely true, or good.
I can't buy the argument that ancient peoples needed a "stepping stone" morality. If God really wanted to, he could have endowed them with reason, spoken in more than parable, vague metaphors, smoke and mirrors, and given real true good reasoning. And we'd be so far ahead now morally if he did.
But this stepping stone morality doesn't make sense to me coming from a Creator that is supposed to be eternal, amongst other things. |
And you are telling God what He should be? That's rich!
Anyway, it is incorrect to assume that God made a covenant with the Hebrews to instill moral character in them (that is really an incidental aspect of the covenant). If you want to know why, figure out why God commanded even their diets (or to do no work on the Sabbath day). It's so much deeper than than morals...and it's rather profound. 
But of course, everyone has an assumption of what God must be, and if God doesn't fit that mold, He can't exist.
Also, I made this in the SR:
Epignosis wrote:
Here are the precepts of religious / science threads on Prog Archives:
1: Everyone is right.
2: Everyone has a false conception about what everyone else is right about.
Corollary 2.1: Everyone will vehemently argue against the false conception that everyone else is right about.
Corollary 2.2: Everyone who clarifies what he is right about will be accused of being inconsistent.
3: Everyone who has not had the good sense to quit posting will inevitably be called a troll.
4: Everyone will assure everyone else that he is an expert on a particular related or non-related subject.
Corollary 4.1: Everyone will call bullsh*t on everyone else's claiming expertise.
Secondary Corollary 4.1.1: Someone will demonstrate that someone is not
an expert in a given field because the latter made a typo or used a
slightly incorrect word that in no way affects the argument at hand.
5. Slartibartfast will make a completely irreverent and corny joke.
6. Everyone will post waves of videos / links to books/ excerpts / Wikipedia articles supporting their arguments.
Corollary 6.1: Everyone ignores everyone else's videos / links to books
/ excerpts/ Wikipedia articles in accordance with the tl;dr theory.
7.
Some well-meaning yet misguided peacekeeper will step in and remind
everyone that this is a prog rock site where we all come to get away
from the horrors of real life, and that it's all about the music man.
Corollary 7.1: Everyone will go into prog polls for a time to argue
about how amazing / terrible Rush / Dream Theater / Porcupine Tree are.
Secondary Corollary 7.1.1: Neil Peart is not the uberdrummer.
8.
A newbie will join weeks later and post his own insignificant opinion,
thereby summoning the foul thread from the depths of the forum, in turn
summoning the combatants back to its wretched existence.
Corollary 8.1: If no one has responded within 20 minutes, the newbie will "bump" the thread.
9. Everyone will rehash everything he has said.
10: Everyone is an idiot.
And finally:
11: Tony R. will get bored and post a picture of the Terminator just before locking the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 19:05 |
Negoba wrote:
I'm not actually defending fundamentalism. I'm attacking those who I perceive have just transferred their faith to what they call science. In fact, their understanding of the Universe is quite limited. |
Huh? What faith do we put in science? And any scientist would gladly tell you that our understanding of the Universe is quite limited - that's why there are still scientists!
| And in fact, the world's religions have other truths to teach in the places science does not go. The New Atheists seem to have an agenda to do away with religion completely. That bothers me. |
I've seen this said so many times and I have yet to actually be shown these "other truths." Can you tell me some? And yes, some "New Atheists" do want to get rid of religion. Not sure what is wrong with that.
Negoba wrote:
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? and why aren't we more God-like? |
These "why" questions are mostly nonsensical if you want anything beyond evolution.
Edited by Kestrel - December 02 2009 at 19:07
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 18:11 |
|
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? and why aren't we more God-like?
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 18:08 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ whatever you said about miracles is not really relevant to the point I was making. And as for "kill all homosexuals": The bible says that. Of course I picked a statement which I know few Christians are taking literally today. But that's also exactly why it's such a good example of cherry picking. |
Gee Mike...I also eat pork and wear clothes of two different kinds of fabric. That isn't cherry-picking. It's understanding that Old Testament law was done away with in favor of a new covenant (a very common understanding)...regardless I (as a Gentile) was never bound by the Mosaic law in the first place...because God never made that covenant with Gentiles, but with Hebrews.
|
Duuno if this was responded to because damn this thread has words and stuff.
The problem is why you would make a Covenant, with moral commands, that won't be absolutely true, or good.
I can't buy the argument that ancient peoples needed a "stepping stone" morality. If God really wanted to, he could have endowed them with reason, spoken in more than parable, vague metaphors, smoke and mirrors, and given real true good reasoning. And we'd be so far ahead now morally if he did.
But this stepping stone morality doesn't make sense to me coming from a Creator that is supposed to be eternal, amongst other things.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:54 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.
Vedanta is based on two simple propositions:
- Human nature is divine.
- The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine.
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness. Historically and currently, it is assumed that this state can be experienced by anyone, but it cannot be adequately conveyed in language. |
. . . but we're not talking about something that can be experienced by anyone, we're talking about a small group of churches who claim to have this ability that nobody else can prove.
Maybe I'm being too specific, and have missed your point entirely.
I mean, I like the idea of reality being a matter of percaption, and I've even written about stuff like that in my lyrics. That one lyric I showed you a whille back telling of how a man slowly begins to realize that he is in fact not a man but existence itself, therefore he sees and hears everything all the time.
On a basic level, reality being a matter of perception is quite true. I know I've experienced that many times in my own life, but when it raises to the point where it becomes more and more obscure, that's just a whole play area for charlotteans and racket-runners to roam around in. Can you blame me for wanting more proof?
|
I'm not actually defending fundamentalism. I'm attacking those who I perceive have just transferred their faith to what they call science. In fact, their understanding of the Universe is quite limited. And in fact, the world's religions have other truths to teach in the places science does not go. The New Atheists seem to have an agenda to do away with religion completely. That bothers me.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:48 |
At this point, I actually think it's valid to respond to Creationist jabbing about "Show me intermediates!" and such and such questioning with a simple "Go to a museum," or "read a book about it."
Frankly, evolution is really easy to explain in very general terms, but you seriously have to have the equivalent of a minor in biology or anthropology to sufficiently explain it with examples and thoroughly. Not many people can do that. Creationists have the easy road. They don't use evidence. They don't have to cite sources (except Genesis) and they don't have to prove anything. They're the critical ones. I don't need to try to prove evolution to weak minds: after biology and anthropology classes, it's sunk into me and makes way too much sense not to be true. Creationists tend to pigeonhole themselves into ignorance and somehow become incapable of appreciating the universe as something a billion times more luminous and awe-inspiring than as if it were poof-ed into existence over a few days.
I'm not so much angry at Creationists, so long as they have no influence ouside of their church (absolutely NO presence in the science classroom, whatsoever, outside of private schools/universities).
I do pity them a whole lot, though.
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:29 |
Negoba wrote:
Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.
Vedanta is based on two simple propositions:
- Human nature is divine.
- The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine.
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness. Historically and currently, it is assumed that this state can be experienced by anyone, but it cannot be adequately conveyed in language. |
. . . but we're not talking about something that can be experienced by anyone, we're talking about a small group of churches who claim to have this ability that nobody else can prove. Maybe I'm being too specific, and have missed your point entirely. I mean, I like the idea of reality being a matter of percaption, and I've even written about stuff like that in my lyrics. That one lyric I showed you a whille back telling of how a man slowly begins to realize that he is in fact not a man but existence itself, therefore he sees and hears everything all the time. On a basic level, reality being a matter of perception is quite true. I know I've experienced that many times in my own life, but when it raises to the point where it becomes more and more obscure, that's just a whole play area for charlotteans and racket-runners to roam around in. Can you blame me for wanting more proof?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:24 |
jampa17 wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...???
Not really. Joseph Smith Jr. successfully convinced people that he was reading a whole new book off of tablets that nobody else ever saw. L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion as recently as the 1950s that told people they were possessed by dead alien spirits. And of course all this new-age mumbo jumbo out there makes all kinds of false claims concerning spirituality and transcendence. People will believe absolutely anything if they are gullible enough. How recent it is has nothing to do with it.
well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...
Yet people still believe in it, hence my very point!
|
|
The main question is... the fact that people believe still maybe is not because theyr'e too stupid to believe it but maybe because is right... what do you know about it...??? I insist that if I gonna invent a lie, at least I will cover my tracks a little bit more... so the manipulation thing is stupid for me... it's too evident... whoever which believes on this -and don't be part of this maquiavelic plot- should step aside and show us the true... but i don't happen, because too many people believe it, beyond your statements or your physical point of view... but I'm going to the gym now... talk to you soon... |
Well, based on what I could actually understand out of that poorly-written post, you are still missing my point. If somebody wants to believe in something, they will disregard the aspects of their belief that point to it possibly being false. Here's an everyday life example: you fall in love with someone. Now, this person is trouble; they talk sh*t behind your back, manipulate your friends, etc. Everybody around you sees this person for who they really are, but you yourself are so in love with this person, that you can't see the flaws. It's the same thing with religion. You love the idea of the Christian God so much that you can't understand why others don't believe in it. That doesn't mean all of those contradictions and issues don't exist, or aren't important enough to matter; it just means that they don't matter much to YOU, because you are in love with the idea, so you believe in it anyway.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:17 |
Citizen Erased wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Citizen Erased wrote:
Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control.
But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced.
Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it.
|
You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible.
See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants.
I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided.
|
I doubt I'll be able to convince you. I can't remember much of the meeting up to that point but I barely knew a word of the songs (this was in Canada) and I didn't know anybody. I just asked God to 'move in me' and boom.
As for why can't all churches see the same results? They don't ask for it/don't believe it quite simply. I've spoken to a priest from down south before and his logic was similar to yours, except he believed that God didn't "manifest himself in such ways". Basically, he'd blocked the idea from his mind and so wasn't letting God in, is my theory.
This is a bit of a tangent anyway.
|
So you're saying that if somebody doesn't believe in something, it simply dosn't exist for them? Well that sounds nice, and all, but it just isn't true. I don't believe in rainstorms. Does that mean when I go outside, I'll never be able to see or feel rain? If the ability for God to enter somebody is real, then He should be able to do it with anybody. Now you'll argue that he only chooses to enter the hearts of His believers. Okay, fine . . . I was a believer for 19 years, yet I never once experienced being 'taken over' by anything, much less the Holy Spirit. It wasn't because I didn't believe it was possible, or that I simply chose to block it out. I believed, and God could have done that at any time. But He didn't. Because it just isn't possible. Even most Christians know this. Even if you go by the Bible itself, it confirms this. The pentecost was a one-time incident, and it never happened again. God does that kind of stuff all the time in the Bible when he allows certain events to take place only once for a certain reason, then he brings everything back to normal again, and those abilities are no longer possible. But people in churches like yours choose to ignore that completely. Also, the whole 'unkown tongues' thing is also misunderstood. The word 'unkown' is italicized. Meaning that it has been ADDED to the already existing scripture. It's to make the english readable. It does not exist in the actual manuscripts. These 'tongues' were understood by everybody else there, not just the supposedly possessed. Here ya go: http://www.biblestudysite.com/tongues.htmBut of course, that won't convice you, either, because guess what? You don't really want to know the truth. You would rather remain in the dark and unaware of the actual answers because it comforts you to believe in such things. That's fine, but if you're that kind of person, you have no business jumping on here and accusing us non-believers of being the stubborn ones.
Edited by p0mt3 - December 02 2009 at 17:19
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:11 |
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...???
Not really. Joseph Smith Jr. successfully convinced people that he was reading a whole new book off of tablets that nobody else ever saw. L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion as recently as the 1950s that told people they were possessed by dead alien spirits. And of course all this new-age mumbo jumbo out there makes all kinds of false claims concerning spirituality and transcendence. People will believe absolutely anything if they are gullible enough. How recent it is has nothing to do with it.
well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...
Yet people still believe in it, hence my very point!
|
|
The main question is... the fact that people believe still maybe is not because theyr'e too stupid to believe it but maybe because is right... what do you know about it...??? I insist that if I gonna invent a lie, at least I will cover my tracks a little bit more... so the manipulation thing is stupid for me... it's too evident... whoever which believes on this -and don't be part of this maquiavelic plot- should step aside and show us the true... but i don't happen, because too many people believe it, beyond your statements or your physical point of view... but I'm going to the gym now... talk to you soon...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:10 |
Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.
Vedanta is based on two simple propositions:
- Human nature is divine.
- The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine.
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness. Historically and currently, it is assumed that this state can be experienced by anyone, but it cannot be adequately conveyed in language.
Edited by Negoba - December 02 2009 at 17:11
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:07 |
Negoba wrote:
"And of course all this new-age mumbo jumbo out there makes all kinds of false claims concerning spirituality and transcendence." - pOmt3
That's a pretty strong statement. What is it about spirituality and / or transcendence that makes you uncomfortable? Buddhists talk about these things in a very non-theistic and practical way that is mainly about changing your own perception, you own subjective reality. Again, it's a different realm of experience. |
Anything that can't be proven by science I tend to be skeptical about. Plus I've never seen anything myself that has convinced me such radical differences of perception is possible without the aid of drugs. You know, now I'm REALLY confused at where you're coming from, Jay. First you defend the pentecostals, then you say that philosophy should be taken as more than just interesting theorizing. Wha--?
|
|
Citizen Erased
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 25 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 192
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:05 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Citizen Erased wrote:
Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control.
But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced.
Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it.
|
You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible.
See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants.
I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided.
|
I doubt I'll be able to convince you. I can't remember much of the meeting up to that point but I barely knew a word of the songs (this was in Canada) and I didn't know anybody. I just asked God to 'move in me' and boom. As for why can't all churches see the same results? They don't ask for it/don't believe it quite simply. I've spoken to a priest from down south before and his logic was similar to yours, except he believed that God didn't "manifest himself in such ways". Basically, he'd blocked the idea from his mind and so wasn't letting God in, is my theory. This is a bit of a tangent anyway.
|
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:04 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
and since Mike has been the most vocal poster on this topic, I can clearly understand why he would think you were referring to him. Not just him, but anybody who believes in evolution.
|
Thanks - I wouldn't say that I "believe" in evolution though, since there is no faith required to reach the conclusion that it occurred.
|
This is exactly the logical error I've been trying to fight with all day. It IS faith, faith in a cosmology that may well be the closest approximation humans have ever come up with. But it is still just that.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:03 |
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...??? that the son of God was poor and the sacrificed for our sins is the correct manipulation plot...??? That God give us ten commendments wrote in stone and that have awful comands like no killing, stealing, fornication and all that...??? well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...
|
Seems to work fine - even today. Just watch any TV Evangelist and listen to his arguments.
|
Com'n dude... you can do better than that... you think all the Christians are little unknowdge fools that believe the TV evangelistic shows...??? that's not the way ton convince truly educated christians... do you have any argument more...??? |
You'll love my argument, then. I actually cite situations where entire religions are based on proven bullsh*t.
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:02 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...??? that the son of God was poor and the sacrificed for our sins is the correct manipulation plot...??? That God give us ten commendments wrote in stone and that have awful comands like no killing, stealing, fornication and all that...??? well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...
|
Seems to work fine - even today. Just watch any TV Evangelist and listen to his arguments. |
Ah, I get it now - Because I believe in God, I'm automatically a member of a radical splinter group/cult of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:01 |
Citizen Erased wrote:
Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control.
But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced.
Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it.
|
You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible. See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants. I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
