why do u most pple still believe in GOD?
-
the three most influential monotheistic religions exist today because alot of violence and atrocities were commited in the past - not only politics. They have alot of blood in their hands. it is ironic becoz many ideas in their scriptures were in fact taken directly or copied in some form or another, from what you guys called 'pagan' gods. i'd stop here since it can be very sensitive to some people.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Taking on a religion just to be on the "safe side" is not a good reason at all. I quote something from Pirates of the Carribean: "If a decision is made for the wrong reasons, then it is a bad decision."
Of course, that argument is valid. Take a moment, however, to think about how the three most influential monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Jewism still exist till today, whereas the gods of what we call "mythology" have faded into antiquity.
Now, you may argue that it's because of politics and state policies that keep those three in place, but let's consider for a moment religion untainted by politics and social manipulation. For them to still exist, there has to be some other reason that keeps them alive and so powerful even till today, right?
And another thing, I notice plenty of atheists (note: I didn't say ALL) like to use words like "limited vision", "uneducated", "guesswork" and "stunted logic". Now, really, it's not up to anyone to pigeon-hole anyone else with derogative terms like this.
If u insist that becoz of the violence and atrocities commited by the powerful in the past resulting in the situation we have today is a sign of God's will or a prove of his greatness, then i have to say it is indeed a fact that the 3 great monotheistic religions form the majority in the world today. However, the methods that its followers used to get into this position isn't all that glorifying. Also, most importantly, just because a certain group which agrees to a certain idea is more powerful or is the majority does not prove anything. In the past, the majority of people used to think that the planet Earth is flat, do you think likewise now?
But lets not forget we have Dharmic religions and others still existing in the world today. Luckily they were not wiped out. Does their existence today prove anything to you? Or have we forgotten the "other" religions altogether?
As for Greek Myths, it was smart of them to chose the word "myth" to escape being destroyed, becoz i must say i really enjoy reading greek myths today.
Regarding my comment about Pascal having a very limited mindset, i do not see how my choice of words is wrong (if you are contesting that)? We have to consider why Pascal came out with the "wager", and his lack of consideration that other religions can claim the same. -
You specify "in fact taken directly or copied in some form or another". Evidence? Of course, killing others to convert them to your side is atrocious. But then again, the Bible has been misinterpreted by human minds over and over the centuries, and perhaps so, has led to much blood being spilled in the name of religion.Originally posted by sgquitter:the three most influential monotheistic religions exist today because alot of violence and atrocities were commited in the past - not only politics. They have alot of blood in their hands. it is ironic becoz many ideas in their scriptures were in fact taken directly or copied in some form or another, from what you guys called 'pagan' gods. i'd stop here since it can be very sensitive to some people.
Like I said just now, it is atrocious and regrettable.
If u insist that becoz of the violence and atrocities commited by the powerful in the past resulting in the situation we have today is a sign of God's will or a prove of his greatness, then i have to say it is indeed a fact that the 3 great monotheistic religions form the majority in the world today. However, the methods that its followers used to get into this position isn't all that glorifying. Also, most importantly, just because a certain group which agrees to a certain idea is more powerful or is the majority does not prove anything. In the past, the majority of people used to think that the planet Earth is flat, do you think likewise now?
Of course, I know they exist. i was just raising the three monothestic religions as an example. One reason why they've not been converted: The regions which used Buddhism as the state religion were relatively free from the reaches of the three monothestic religions. Even if there were missionaries, most of them were persecuted and exiled.
But lets not forget we have Dharmic religions and others still existing in the world today. Luckily they were not wiped out. Does their existence today prove anything to you? Or have we forgotten the "other" religions altogether?
Greek "myths" died along with the Greek Empire when the Romans took over. They just romanized it to a great extent to fit their own purposes.
As for Greek Myths, it was smart of them to chose the word "myth" to escape being destroyed, becoz i must say i really enjoy reading greek myths today.
Not contesting your choice of words, it's just an interesting observation I've made regarding the way atheists argue.
Regarding my comment about Pascal having a very limited mindset, i do not see how my choice of words is wrong (if you are contesting that)? We have to consider why Pascal came out with the "wager", and his lack of consideration that other religions can claim the same. -
deleted
-
My God is also no-God
-
There will always be rebuttals to arguments and further arguments to rebuttals. No argument is foolproof, pro-atheism ones included. The same applies to Pascal's wager; but despite its flaws, it is an interesting thought which atheists would do well to think about.Originally posted by sgquitter:... its interesting how believers don't post or read about what non-believers say.
Originally posted by january:
Wow, for someone who does not believe in God, you certainly seem to know a lot about how God thinks and acts, the type of people he likes and the virtues needed to go to heaven.
to counter it lets instead use my january wager.
"do you think if god exist, he would let human so easily go to heaven by just believeing in him. believing is easy and convinent to the uncritical mind. Choosing not to believe in god because there is no good reasons and evidence and staying not to believe reflects courage.
If god exist, he would certainly choose those that do not believe in god due to lack of evidence to be with him because god needs courage and wise people to be with him.
Do you think choosing to believe in god means that you have a 99 percent chance of going to heaven.
bewteen believing and not believing. the chance is actually 50 percent of each of going to heaven [b]if god exist .
-
what i think is
god is just a little being thought up by humans to act as a gear to keep them going
i don't believe in them though, but as for ghosts, i believe
the supernatural beings of energy generated from the excess energy of dead humans, is real. -
nah i dun believe in ghost.Originally posted by gigabyte14:what i think is
god is just a little being thought up by humans to act as a gear to keep them going
i don't believe in them though, but as for ghosts, i believe
the supernatural beings of energy generated from the excess energy of dead humans, is real.
wah ur claim of excess enegry of dead humans are extraordinary.
the world of ghost stories has roughly been the same throughout centuries. there is no real progress and understanding towards it.
ghost is not real, but the industry that selling evil ghost stuff and blessing stuff are real though. -
How true...Originally posted by january:nah i dun believe in ghost.
wah ur claim of excess enegry of dead humans are extraordinary.
the world of ghost stories has roughly been the same throughout centuries. there is no real progress and understanding towards it.
ghost is not real, but the industry that selling evil ghost stuff and blessing stuff are real though. -
ghost stories by people who sweared by god that they really seen it and touched it is has always be the same and it does not lead to any more knowledge beyond their encounter at that time.
New stories will has the same format.
These evidences thus become proof of ghost existence.
Some of the claims will also say that after they visited a priest or bought a protective stuff, the ghost no longer harass them.
The ghost industry is definitely present in modern time (i cannot believe it) and there are still people using the industry, like hungry ghost festival.
Or dead kins visiting them in the dreams. Or dead kins fly back as butterflies.
So far this is the pattern of ghost culture in world. For scientist and atheist, these evidences are considered weak. We need to have more evidences and scientific testing and more knowledge to really say that ghost indeed is present.
the ghost culture is going in circles with no new development and no new knowledge.
evidences of ghost ---> ghost industry ---> people talking ghost stories ---> new ghost evidences ---> more weapons against ghost , more goodies for ghost relatives --> continue the same cycle -
but if u dun believe there's god but believe there's ghost, wat are u?
-
i dun believe in ghostOriginally posted by HolySniper:but if u dun believe there's god but believe there's ghost, wat are u? -
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
It is hard to have patience with people who say 'There is no death' or 'Death doesn't matter.' There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn`t matter." -
"Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it's ill talking of such questions."
"Because they are too terrible, Sir?"
"No. Because all answers deceive. If ye put the question from within Time and are asking about possibilities, the answer is certain. The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into Eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it will be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see — small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope — something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn't is itself Freedom. They are a lens. The picture is a symbol: but it's truer than any philosophical theorem (or, perhaps, than any mystic's vision) that claims to go behind it. For every attempt to see the shape of eternity except through the lens of Time destroys your knowledge of Freedom."