muscleman
Unregistered
M
c4ts said:
I'm afraid those questions are circular reasoning.
"Is God real?" is fine. "What is God?" is fine. "Which God?" is unusual, because it doesn't seem to relate to "Is God real?" in a monotheistic sense. "Why should we worship him and how?" is the problem, because it implies "is God real?" was answered with "yes," it also requires that "what is god?" was partially answered with "a male that should be worshipped in some way or another." "The point?" refers to the point of worship, which assumes that there now is a way to worship the existing God, but that way may or may not have a point. Since, you've already answered your questions, why bother asking them? You have no knowedge to gain for yourself, just a re-affirmation of your belief at best, which is not likely at this forum unless you ignore or try to refute each response. Sadly, the rest of your post makes about as much sense to me as the end of a Chick tract, and seems to have equal footing in reality. But I could be wrong.
Emotions are common to all living things, not specifically part of human nature, as our desire to understand our surroundings and our tendency to band together. You say we do not settle down by natural means, and try to treat a desire to understand (a drive to look for "something else," presumably a means of explanation that is not immediately at hand) as some sort of emotion. But emotions appear to be common to all animals, whereas the desire to understand does not, although it may be the cause of emotions. Also, we do appear to settle down by natural means, if not in cities, at least in tribes or factions. Furthermore, it would seem that human nature to worship or treasure someone would have this effect on our species, if you say that it is also human nature to defend who or what what they worship or treasure.
Now you are confusing mythology with the truth. Truth is, we don't know what happened before this exact second, but we have so much evidence provided by things we call "memory," "archaeology," "written history," and "anthropology," all of which seem to be consistent with one another. They may not be exact, they may even be lies, but since they are coherent and provide something which we skeptics call
"evidence," they are somewhat more valid than myth or conjecture, which may also be lies. In order to claim the Athens of Ancient Greece existed, something like the Parthenon or Acropolis is used to support that claim in conjunction with the writings of the so-called "Ancient Greeks" that are still available (and that's not even the bare minimum according to some). If you wanted to assume that Adam and Eve were true, you'd need something like God's giant flaming sword that turns every which way to cast the man out of Eden, and maybe some cherubim at the gate. Nobody has found anything that conclusive regarding that story, but look at all the stuff we found in Greece.
Those customs seem unrelated the way you describe them. Different countries have different rituals. There's more than one religion. So what?
Nope. Love is not necessarily reciprocating. I learned that from experience. Sometimes you find you love someone else more, or that you never really loved your girlfriend anyway, or that feeling you had that you said was gonna last forever didn't after all the awkward high school sex, or you realize you two really just hate each other, so the relationship is terminated in a way that is not depressing. But since it's just a statement of experience, it's no more valid than what you said.
So you are basically saying that theism causes immorality. You've also assumed that similar syllables in different languages have exactly the same meaning. There's an english word "see,"
and a Spanish word "ci." The similarity has no more meaning than "Bezebul" or whatever you want to call it because you want to accuse the Hindus of worshipping "Belzebub." And who the hell worships statues these days anyway? Isolated North African and Micronesian tribes? Also, these things are trivial compared to what Christians have done in the name of their god for ages. Why aren't they mentioned?
You've already answered your initial questions for yourself. Also, the concept of God is exactly that: a concept. If there are multiple gods in existence, the "one true god" of monotheism is a lie, because all those gods you mentioned cannot be gods, yet you first postulated their existence as gods, and it is unreasonable to negate your own postulate.
"Love" does not include imposing your beliefs on others. Imposing your beliefs on others has another name: "biggotry." If your religion is constructed so that love equals biggotry, then it is unlikely that your God is anywere near "true." I remind you that no amount of belief can change fact, and that your god is (in your own style of capitalization) NOT FACT (I remind you that I am not using sophist logic, that "not fact" does not necessarily mean "false.") For, if your god were fact, then belief or disbelief would make no difference to him, since a) his laws would be natural and universal b) there is no need to demand obedience for laws which you involuntarily "obey" (you can discuss that with Franko). By your example, it appears that "God" is really just a way to pretend to know how things work so you can stop questioning and get on with your warm and fuzzy life. No knowledge of God is real knowledge. No amount of belief amounts to any knowledge whatsoever. Man desires knowledge, and knowledge really exists. Man turns to God, man does not recieve knowledge, he gets sophistry from people like you. He just feels happy in his oblivion toward the world and his attitude toward God anyway, man never realizes what he's missed out on before he dies. He has only questioned as far as how to do his job and what to think when he's not doing his job. And by the way, based on the world at hand, intuition or feeling has no effect whatsoever on a 50/50 situation such as Pascal's little wager, and the existence of things such as human imagination stack the odds against the fool who knows what God is, for if there is some sort of God, it may have nothing to do with what you "know". And accusing other gods of being false isn't going to help you at all if one of them turns out to be real and not yours, and since other gods outnumber yours, the probability favors any god but yours. (For example, assuming there is a god, and there are 10 possible gods, you have a 9 in 10 chance of being wrong, and if you insult all other possible gods by calling them false, you have a 9 in 10 chance of being poorly recieved by that god. But I suppose probability doesn't matter to the believer until it's too late.)
And, just to warn you, if you make a bunch of random claims on this board and don't provide evidence while assuming you right, or even make the attempt to use logic to support those claims, you may recieve the honorable title of![]()
First of all, lets not get into detail with "atheists" are smarter than christians. That primitive lie isnt going anywhere here (especially when yur talking to me). 99% of universities are founded by christians (princeton,harvard,ucdavis,etc.). So dont even go there, and even your Einstein guy is a pantheism (who believes God is the nature and order of things.) And dont even try to quote some of his to say he's an atheist from the jesuit priests view.... HOW MANY UNIVERSITIES FOUNDED BY AN ATHEIST? 1? 2? LOL... HOW MANY ATHEIST PRESIDENTS AND SENATORS? 1? 2? LOL, oh is it the vote? Of course, people can recognize the real ignorant one..
Now going back to the emotions, I am completely aware that the only difference between the human species and the animals is that we have higher intelligence, thats it. But from there, our brain can detect colors, identify smell, produce more chemicals (which can effect in STRONGER emotons.). I am aware that when I leave, my dog feels emotional and will cry. I am aware that when I corrected my dog for doing wrong, it learns and gains the emotions of fear (For all I know they could have a conscience, who knows, I believe they do.)
So what makes us different from animals is the higher intelligence, from there we can learn from the "God given WORD". "My words are spirit and life"- Jesus. "The mind is the seat of wisdom". And I certainly dont think a chimpanzee is capable of that level of intelligence. I cant picture a bishop Chimpanzee. But of course if they evolve into that higher intelligence (like us) millions of yrs from now, hey they can be baptized too and bcome christian..

In case if your ignorant about the word "soul" (and u must be;it seemed like it). everything that lives have a soul that gives them life, from rocks, to plants, to animals, to humans (so what do u call the "energy" that gives rock its life? bio-chemical sub-atomic monosodium glutamate particle? Is that the scientific name for a "soul"?). but only the human species have a soul in which made a covenant with God, being above all the animals species and the rest of the animal kingdom; A FACT.
note: Your very strange, u act like you red my post, but dont see what I typed, I dont think u read it, and if u didnt red it dont act like u did ok?.. U said above who the heck worships statuies nowadays? Maybe you, and millions of others, the rappers, etc. Willing to sacrifice their life for a car with nice grills, wwilling to lose their marriage for it, willing to kill for it, willing to loose their respect for human kind to obtain it (materialism) it comes in many form child........
----------------------------------------------
And one more thing, about the flaming sword that swings back and forth in the story of Adam and Eve, and the Dragon in Revelation, etc. its all symbolic and parables....
You certainly are very primitive in this topic, and because I realized there are many people like you here (gosh ignorant 40 yrs old, can u believe that?) then Im gonna start another post to DEBUNK your pathetic so-called bible contradiction MYTH......