TheBig3

You know, its nearly insufferable to deal with these arguments. I don't care for religion in the slightest and I love Hitchens and Dawkins, I've seen their interviews, and watched their speeches and I agree whole heartedly.

But then I get people, as I have here that make arguments against religion with the same amount of facts and logic as those they argue against. Such poorly thought out ideas such as "well if God is all powerful why doesn't he just blah blah blah."

And I think, the idea of God is foolish, but more foolish is the idea that something like God would be able to be understood by people in general. One wouldn't suspect that Beatles could possibly dictate our actions given our evolutionary advantage. Wasps, while nest builders wouldn't have the concept or architecture. So to suspect that because you've seen some half-assed intellectually bankrupt film and therefore you're smart enough to dictate what God would do should he exist is far more foolish than turning up in heaven with 70 virgins.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

ProggyMan

Way to miss the point.

Urban Hat€monger ?

So when do the controversial views start in this thread ?

This just looks like every other 'I hate religion lolz' thread ever posted here.

__________________

sleepy jack

I'm a scientologist.

__________________

ProggyMan

Time to break out the torches.

tahluhabelle

Perhaps Christianity is targeted because it IS the largest world religion with close to 2.5 million members.

But as a Christian myself (Catholic by denomination...don't bite me, heh) I question how many people are ACTIVE Christians. Just because someone is raised Christian and identifies with the beliefs of Christianity doesn't necessarily mean they live by the bible. For instance I haven't been to Church in AT LEAST 6 or 7 years.

For me my religion is not a literal interpretation of the tales of the bible, I don't live by every rule it dictates. I just see the religion as a set of examples of how to be a better person. Do I agree with everything? No. But it is the system of values that I agree with the most. If I could edit the religion and create my own I would...but it would probably be considered a cult and they'd think I was crazy. Do I know if Jesus existed? It's possible but who the hell knows. There was a time where I believed in nothing but events in my life have given me faith, as corny as it sounds.

So I guess you might consider me secular. It is impossible to blame the actions of a few powerful fanatics on 2.5 million members. To say religion does more harm than good is a strange assumption considering there are people who do a great deal of good in the name of religion. Like I said, there are a few powerful fanatics who tend take things way to far, but these exist in every religion.

Shall we also consider there are a great many evils committed which are anti-religion, for instance the Holocaust. This crime against humanity was perpetrated by an group which showed no loyalty to any particular religion.

Also, check this out. According to a website MB will not let me post the hyper link to (pm me if you want it!), Atheists are the 3rd largest "religious group" and if we are judging how much good any group has done shall we examine what non-religious people offer to the world as well. The larger the group, the more influence so Atheists -- start influencing! As a former Atheist and self-proclaimed secular humanist myself I know you all are intelligent and have great ideas of how to improve society it is just that sometimes these secular groups lack the unity in order to create great changes.

I guess the point of my long-winded nonsensical post was that the sooner we stop separating and judging people by their religious affiliations the sooner we can create a society that is better for everybody to live in. Nobody is more wrong or right or entitled to their opinion than anybody else.

And I think it is interesting that the movie you cited, claims astrology is the basis of Judaeo-Christian faith. Most religions are. I consider astrology valid because it considers the movements of the sun and the Earth. Now that's cool. Talk about intelligent design, lol.

The Unfan

I already addressed this but I'll do it again. The statement of God existing is a falsifiable one, therefore God is not an abstract. Either he exists or he doesn't, so someone is right and someone is wrong. No evidence points in his favor and depending on how we choose to define God some even points against him. If we define God as "Some being or thing that made things" than it is plausible he exists and it is a valid belief, if we define God as strictly the God of the bible than I'm fairly certain even the bible proves he is a farce.

Unless of course you're willing to believe in an all loving, melovalent, all knowing, yet somehow lacking knowledge of the future (see free will) being who is against murder yet has no qualms flooding the world killing many innocents. Not to mention his love is so grand his son had to die for you to be forgiven. Going a step further you also have to believe in a world transcending zombie jew who you must keep a relationship with via telepathy. So to even prove the biblical God plausible you first have to prove telepathy exists in the natural world.

Rainard Jalen

Then what if it turns out to have been the wrong religion and you end up in hell? Hmm?

TheBig3

I was under the impression that Islam was the worlds largest religion?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Inuzuka Skysword

If that is your logical argument then your conclusion can be that atheism is more probable to be the truth than religion. This doesn't not mean you have proved atheism 100% correct. It just means atheism is the more logical choice.

The reason people want people to prove he doesn't exist is because in order for religion to be 100% wrong I don't think just not being able to prove his existence is enough. While it is a logical argument to prove that you can't prove a god to be real, logic is flawed. What I mean by that is that even though you logically prove that you can't prove God to be real, and logic would say he isn't real, the fact that you can't disprove his existence says something. While you can give me burden of proof bull****, I am a seeker of facts and would like to understand this relationship more. So who is actually more logical, the person ignoring the relationship or the person seeking to understand the relationship?

I didn't understand your post very well. I don't know if that second comment was sarcasm or not.