Religion. Real or fake?

DeletedUser

Guest
@pyker:

Well when the Gospel was compiled I certainly agree books which may have deserved a place in it (Gospel of Mary, for example) were omitted. But this is not to say they had contradictory religious views, the reasons were more political. Imagine the social upheaval which could have ensued if Jesus were believed to have a wife.

However; Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are creditable sources as they above all had confirmed authorship, one thing which was lacking in the Gnostic Gospels. The fact that these four Gospels are all consistent with each other and are non-collaborative works (none of the others resembled each other with such degree) makes them, to a believer, incredibly hard to dispute.

As for the species thing:

Yeah, I know these creatures exist...they also sort of appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record, something no one can really explain definitively within the limits of science. A growing number of archeologists are also now theorizing many previously thought carnivorous theropoda were scavengers (particularly T-rex and raptors) which would suggest these known-predatory birds would have been even more unlikely to evolve from them.

As for the predecessor of whales and dolphins it is first important to note the fossils they have which they theorize to be the 'missing link' are herbivorous. Whales and dolphins are carnivores. Animals cannot simply "switch" their diet, it has to do with habituation and imprinting, simply put, it could not happen. Personally, I believe goal-oriented evolution (intelligent design), as many of the things that would need to happen for evolution to work, simply cannot happen without some "help."

Next I have to ask you where you think life comes from. You actually seem rather educated in the matter, and as I am pretty far removed from my introductory level biology classes I am genuinely bored by completely inconclusive talks of theropoda and dolphins as none if it was observed nor chronicled. However, I promise you I know a ton about molecular biology (which is kind of a misnomer as most people consider it a branch of chemistry) so I just would like to know how you think the macromolecules needed for life came into existence?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
kdspuhler said:
Well God is called The Father and also Jesus had an earthly mother. Dad+Mom= baby so I feel God is male.

So a male, just like you and I... Made the planet we know as earth in 7 days?

Not to mention it(earth) had to exist for 'him' to be living, else 'he' would not be a human (or a male, as you said). It(he) would be somthing out of this world... Literally.

Either you beleive in aliens, or he doesn't exist... Making 'him'... It, non-existant. And in turn, making religion false and based upon a nobody. A nothing.

So... Yeah, I guess it could happen if you closed your eyes long enough. :icon_confused:

I'm Catholic, and baptised. I've just grown to have my own thoughts and... Yeah, I think you can tell what I think. :icon_razz:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser75819

Guest
If humans didn't exist, the idea of god wouldn't exist :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thats just because "God" is the product of a male dominated religion.

EDIT: Hiya Thirsty. :lol:

I like how The Davinci Code exaggerates that fact ^^.

The atomic bomb, chemical weapons, ranged weapons, handguns, Imperialism (fed by Social Darwinism), Chernobyl, Vietnam and Koreans wars (Fed by mutual fear between NATO and USSR), explosives, thalidomide, abortion....

Let me confront you with a good movie quote on this one.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

If we follow your logic, then everyone that actually uses those weapons can put the blame on science. Furthermore, I really have to giggle about the "Vietnam and Korea wars". Are you saying it's a science induced war? That would only be possible if you would consider an ideology to be the creation of science as well, which would mean that any human thought is science.

Also, another deduction from your logic, would be that people that kill people for religious reasons can put the blame on god(s), not themselves.

Simply put, you can not blame the consequences on the tools. You can only blame the users of the tools.
 

DeletedUser75819

Guest
Good point about the tool

Do you think a hammer is a useful tool? It is if you are a normal user. But if you are some fcukin psychopathic murderer, you kill someone with it. See? it is the user of the tool.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@Xplicid-

Judging by the "we can't build a kilometre of road" statement you opened with, followed by a completely reductionist analysis of God's existence, I think you fail to see what the implications of a higher power would be. The idea is that it partially transcends conventional human understanding. There was even an atheist who said you were ignorant to the idea before.

Simply put, you can not blame the consequences on the tools. You can only blame the users of the tools.

Agreed wholeheartedly most of my list was satirical of how people instantly blame political warfare on legitimate religions. Even the Crusades had their fair-share of politics and out right lying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
kdspuhler said:
Judging by the "we can't build a kilometre of road" statement you opened with, followed by a completely reductionist analysis of God's existence, I think you fail to see what the implications of a higher power would be.

Those last two words.

If a higher power "would be" .. What? Would be what? Real?

"I think you fail to see what the implications of a higher power would be"... if a higher power existed/was real. You stopped typing too early.

That right there says you yourself do not beleive in a higher power. :icon_neutral:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
No it doesn't. I do believe in God, I'm just saying I think you kinda fail to see what people think God is.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No it doesn't. I do believe in God, I'm just saying I think you kinda fail to see what people think God is.

Enlighten me as to what you yourself think God *is*?

A few posts back he was human(a male). I'm confused now. :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Enlighten me as to what you yourself think God *is*?

A few posts back he was human(a male). I'm confused now. :icon_wink:


I wasn't implying male as in a physical male. However I feel God made science, and it's kinda scientific that man+woman=kid and the fact the Church refers to him as the Father (actually God, in and of itself, is the Christian term for the Trinity...Father, Son, Holy Spirit, so most of what people say is misnomers) leads me to believe he has male qualities. Do I think he is human, no. But he is refered to as the Father, "He, and Him throughout Scripture" and manifested as a man.

I guess I should say I see God as more amorphous and having presented himself as a male to the incredibly male dominated society of yesteryear.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I guess I should say I see God as more amorphous and having presented himself as a male to the incredibly male dominated society of yesteryear.

Definitely. It's is somewhat pointless to discuss this issue with people who consider god to be some old dude, with long white hair and a strong resentment of shaving (or some other personified thingie). When I suppose there is a god in some sort of reasoning, then the meaning of god is, to me, as you say, an amorphous something, something humans simply can not comprehend. It also leads me to believe that, if there is a god, that it is impossible to form a religion based on truths around it, due to the fact that we can not obtain any data on it, unless, of course, it would reveal it to us in a comprehensible form. A form without spelling errors, contradictions and different interpretations. That kinda rules out every single religion know to man.

The yesteryear thing, well, I'd wish. Unfortunately, that is very far from true still. Men and women are not completely equal, or there would only be one name for all of us (like Mon or Weman) and we'd be able to reproduce by ourselves (now that'd be boring). But then again, we are completely equal and complementary in our similarities and differences.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Definitely. It's is somewhat pointless to discuss this issue with people who consider god to be some old dude, with long white hair and a strong resentment of shaving (or some other personified thingie). When I suppose there is a god in some sort of reasoning, then the meaning of god is, to me, as you say, an amorphous something, something humans simply can not comprehend. It also leads me to believe that, if there is a god, that it is impossible to form a religion based on truths around it, due to the fact that we can not obtain any data on it, unless, of course, it would reveal it to us in a comprehensible form. A form without spelling errors, contradictions and different interpretations. That kinda rules out every single religion know to man.

The yesteryear thing, well, I'd wish. Unfortunately, that is very far from true still. Men and women are not completely equal, or there would only be one name for all of us (like Mon or Weman) and we'd be able to reproduce by ourselves (now that'd be boring). But then again, we are completely equal and complementary in our similarities and differences.

I certainly agree sexual equality does not exist, but the Biblical Era was certainly more male dominated. Nowadays I feel the events could have happened with a female manifestation of God and The Abrahamic faiths would have risen as they did back then. (Well I should say it could happen with modern societal gender opinions in a biblical era society. It's a frequently presented fact even in secular studies of religion that Christianity was founded in a time as conducive to the spread of a new religion as a time can be)

I also agree much knowledge of God cannot be comprehended by humans, the main reason Xplicid's arguments have little creditability in my opinion. I think a lot of it has to simply be accepted on faith; I personally cannot fathom having infinant love for Hitler, or forgiving anyone who killed a child or something- but that's why I consider God's nature something far above the human plane of perception.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Just to make it absolutely clear, I do believe men and women are equal. There are simply technical differences. The last thing I want to be called is a sexist (and I'm sure that's what you meant too kdspuhler), cause I'm really not. In fact, if we take the classical "god created us in his image", then I would even go as far as to say that god is a woman, for women are the ones that literally create life, while men are only the carriers of half of the required genes. Like a capsule lying around, ready to be used at will.

And no, god is not multi sexual, as he does not need to reproduce, as he is the "perfect" being and timeless.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Just to make it absolutely clear, I do believe men and women are equal. There are simply technical differences. The last thing I want to be called is a sexist (and I'm sure that's what you meant too kdspuhler), cause I'm really not. In fact, if we take the classical "god created us in his image", then I would even go as far as to say that god is a woman, for women are the ones that literally create life, while men are only the carriers of half of the required genes. Like a capsule lying around, ready to be used at will.

And no, god is not multi sexual, as he does not need to reproduce, as he is the "perfect" being and timeless.

god dies with us
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And no, god is not multi sexual, as he does not need to reproduce, as he is the "perfect" being and timeless.

But if man was made in his image, then he does have a penis. That alone brings up many more questions for me than it does answers.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But if man was made in his image, then he does have a penis. That alone brings up many more questions for me than it does answers.

I don't believe that means God made us an absolute copy of himself. Its more about the way we think and act than the exact appearance. Think about this woman was made from the rib of man so if God made man in his image and woman was made of man doesn't that make women in his image too? And if i follow your logic then God has a vagina as well as a penis making him a tranny. And I don't believe thats the case.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't believe that means God made us an absolute copy of himself. Its more about the way we think and act than the exact appearance. Think about this woman was made from the rib of man so if God made man in his image and woman was made of man doesn't that make women in his image too? And if i follow your logic then God has a vagina as well as a penis making him a tranny. And I don't believe thats the case.

My mom (wel, my dad too) made me. So speak for yourself. :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But if man was made in his image, then he does have a penis. That alone brings up many more questions for me than it does answers.

As a long time Catholic School boy, they said "image and likeness" did not mean he looks like us...but that he created us as he wanted us to be.


Isn't it ironic how the atheist criticizes religious fundamentalism and then literally analyzes quotes to disprove religion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I guess if it lets you all sleep at night, go ahead and beleive in religion. :)

I'll take your villages while you're sleeping. :icon_twisted::lol:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I guess if it lets you all sleep at night, go ahead and beleive in religion. :)

I'll take your villages while you're sleeping. :icon_twisted::lol:

i have insomnia...good luck catching me while asleep
 
Top