Jump to content

Religious Discussions Thread!

Recommended Posts

Faith is like anything. In moderation it's healthy. It's when you let it consume your entire life it becomes bad.

 

I know people who were ultra religious and have become atheists and vice versa, because as you get to know the religion more in depth the more answers or contradictions you find. You can't go back to having "moderate" amount faith as you already have your life set by religion, or think it's completely wrong - at least with the people who've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other.

 

And I don't even think you can define moderation, mainly because it's extremely situation dependent. If you've grown up in a fairly religious society without much variance in the amount of faith, you're pretty much destined to lead the same life. If you've grown up in a fairly religious society with a lot of variance, with some people who are ultra-religious and some who are atheists, your interpretation of being moderately religious might've been completely different, as both extremes may take different percentages of the population so the median might not reflect the average case.

 

That being said, judging faith by hours per day (or how much of your life it consumes) is almost an impossible way of analysis. Taking the Druze for example, their religion is mostly a secret - but their schedule each day is known. 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of prayer. Is that saying that all of the religious Duruz have exactly the same amount of faith and it affects their life equally? Does it even mean that it's too much, as there are some religions who practicing meditating days-on-end (Yoga religions) and month long fasts (Islam - Ramadan). What about religions who are actively shutting out all outside influence, such as the Amish? Does it mean they are purely religious because of it and they're the edge case, and moderation means only 50%?

 

I think it's healthy to develop your own moral code, or at least the base for one. If it fits a religion, well, good for you! Then you can see if it affects your life in a positive way and develops you as a person. If it doesn't, it doesn't mean you should start your own religion or be an atheist or agnostic. You can search for answers on your own and develop your philosophy on your own and by exposing your world views to others and be exposed to their world views. By dismissing everything else as "I don't believe it" and ending it there we're hurting our own personal progress, and maybe the progress of others.

In any case, that moral code is a part of you, and I don't think it can be defined by moderation nor by flexibility. It can only be judged by how many times you've went directly against it to satisfy some other ends, and even then it's hard to analyze how moral is one person - moral relativism, ethical calculus, and moral absolutism are just a bunch of ways to approach the subject, and are all theoretical and don't provide a perfect solution.

 

//START RANT

I also think that nowadays science can be viewed as a religion as a lot of people automatically perceive it as true without any investigation nor doubt. And while you can say that science isn't a religion because it's grounded in logic, most people don't dig into it so far to justify their unquestionable faith in it, and have therefore received science as their new God without understanding all of the little details and have many different interpretations of the facts they've been given. By trading one God for a new one and hiding under the terms "atheists" they deny any proper debate, as they divert the discussion from "why trusting science is better than trusting God" to "why is your religion wrong, as I don't have one", while they can't explain how three of the most basic constants - Mu 0, Epsilon 0 and the speed of light relate to each other - even as we don't know why did they receive those exact values. One of the explanations being that we are only one stable universe in one of the many possible worlds - an axiomatic statement that can't be proven true or false, and is awfully close to "because God willed them so".

What separates scientists - which can be from any religion or from none, from the followers of that new religion is the ability to doubt the basics and the will to investigate further, and I think it's important we make that distinction. Religion isn't more harmful than following every new "research" that states that eating meat causes cancer and that vaccines cause autism, and by placing unquestionable faith in something other than science you're at least doubting science enough for you to be able to fully understand certain aspects of it and make some actual contributions to progress.

//END RANT

Share this post


Link to post

//START RANT

I also think that nowadays science can be viewed as a religion as a lot of people automatically perceive it as true without any investigation nor doubt. And while you can say that science isn't a religion because it's grounded in logic, most people don't dig into it so far to justify their unquestionable faith in it, and have therefore received science as their new God without understanding all of the little details and have many different interpretations of the facts they've been given. By trading one God for a new one and hiding under the terms "atheists" they deny any proper debate, as they divert the discussion from "why trusting science is better than trusting God" to "why is your religion wrong, as I don't have one", while they can't explain how three of the most basic constants - Mu 0, Epsilon 0 and the speed of light relate to each other - even as we don't know why did they receive those exact values. One of the explanations being that we are only one stable universe in one of the many possible worlds - an axiomatic statement that can't be proven true or false, and is awfully close to "because God willed them so".

What separates scientists - which can be from any religion or from none, from the followers of that new religion is the ability to doubt the basics and the will to investigate further, and I think it's important we make that distinction. Religion isn't more harmful than following every new "research" that states that eating meat causes cancer and that vaccines cause autism, and by placing unquestionable faith in something other than science you're at least doubting science enough for you to be able to fully understand certain aspects of it and make some actual contributions to progress.

//END RANT

 

Spot on my friend! Whether through received knowledge or empiricism I can personally say I've come across extraordinary insights from many mindsets, religious, scientific or whatever shade between those two poles that are somehow so opposed to one another, yet are individually alien to human experience without it's counter to shadow it. I've also stumbled upon the staggering ignorance either extreme end of the spectrum has for their conterminous interests. Religious and more generally spiritual fundamentals are bemoaned by atheists for being a category of non-objective knowledge, but the atheists themselves (and I say this as a borderline-atheist agnostic) are often guilty of undermining their own absolutism by disregarding subjective experience.

 

"Man has, as it were, become a kind of prosthetic god. When he puts on all his auxiliary organs he is truly magnificent; but those organs have not grown on to him and they still give him much trouble at times." - Sigmund Freud

Share this post


Link to post

Science is not a religion. To have faith in science is not the same as to have faith in an unknowable God. When someone says "I have faith in science" - that meant they believe in the scientific methods and the procedures that science employs to separate random noise from discoveries.

 

You don't have to personally verify every scientific finding and conclusion and re-stage every experiment - although you can do it if you want. If you have any doubts, you can subscribe to "Nature" and review the papers and methodology personally. But you know that because that vetting and peer review process works, you generally don't need to double-check and you can trust the published science as verified.

 

Now, by definition - religion and science should not overlap. The former deals with the unknowable and the latter with the known and knowable. If your religion and science somehow contradict one another. e.g. if you are a Young Earth Creationist - your are doing it wrong. The reason for the contradiction is not theological or scientific - it is ideological.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Science is not a religion.

Unfortunately that is not true for a large portion of people in this world right now. I'll explain further...

 

To have faith in science is not the same as to have faith in an unknowable God.

And yet people treat theories as fact, which is the exact same thing, and say they "believe in science, not religion".

 

When someone says "I have faith in science" - that meant they believe in the scientific methods and the procedures that science employs to separate random noise from discoveries.

Or it could mean they believe all the unproven theories as absolute fact, and all others should believe as they do or be ridiculed.

 

Now, by definition - religion and science should not overlap.

What definition are you using? I see nothing wrong with overlap, as there are a huge number of scientists throughout history that used science as a primary way to see what wonders God had made, all so they could praise him for it.

 

The former deals with the unknowable and the latter with the known and knowable.

Not exclusively for either. You need to find a much less secular glossing over of religions to source your information from.

 

If your religion and science somehow contradict one another. e.g. if you are a Young Earth Creationist - your are doing it wrong.

I have yet to see any contradiction with that theory... Since the theory assumes that God is an omnipotent and omniscient entity, it is entirely possible that God could do exactly what the theory states, including configuring the physical structure of the perceivable world to appear to our current limited understanding as something different from what it actually is. Science doesn't know everything, and treating it like it does is turning it into a religion.

 

TL;DR: You misunderstand what science and religion are, how they relate to each other, and how the general populace understand them.

 

[EDIT] Before someone mentions it... The most common argument for treating theories as fact is "it's as close as we have right now", and that is a non-scientific attitude. That theory is worth pursuing for further evidence, but it should not be treated as fact. (even gravity is an unknown, and we have many theories that fit the facts, but they are all just theories)

Share this post


Link to post
Or it could mean they believe all the unproven theories as absolute fact, and all others should believe as they do or be ridiculed.

No, that's not science... and theory and fact are two completely different things.

 

Fact is something about the reality that is known to be true, as in - repeatable, measurable, consistent. Theory is a model which describes our understanding of reality.

 

Theory is based on facts and it can predict other facts which can be looked for and discovered or not - to prove or falsify the theory.

 

But you can't equate theory and facts, they are simply different entities.

 

Things fall to Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration - that's a fact. They do it because of a distortion in space-time geometry caused by the mass of the Earth, known as "gravity" - that's a theory.

 

...here are a huge number of scientists throughout history that used science as a primary way to see what wonders God had made, all so they could praise him for it.

Yes - but my point is that their beliefs and their science were not overlapping. What they believed in didn't interfere with what they measured, to put it simply.

 

There is no Chrisitian science, which gives different results than Muslim science, which are independent of Buddhist science - there is just one science.

 

Since the theory assumes that God is an omnipotent and omniscient entity, it is entirely possible that God could do exactly what the theory states, including configuring the physical structure of the perceivable world to appear to our current limited understanding as something different from what it actually is.

Oh, that is not a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It is currently totally unfalsifiable - that is there is no objective criteria that can be measured to prove or disprove it.

 

To say that "everything is created by and at the whim of an undetectable omnipresent, omnipotent entity which has absolute discretion to change anything, so that if something looks contrary to our beliefs - it's just an illusion created by that same entity and the only truth is contained in the Bible/Quran/Tripitaka/Whatever" - well, that is not science.

 

Science doesn't know everything, and treating it like it does is turning it into a religion.

Science doesn't know everything but it does not claim to know everything. In fact the purpose of science is to ever learn more and be able to explain more about the world we are living in. The moment you claim that someone or something knows everything - the science stops there.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

And yet, the vast majority of people I have met that are "anti-religious" treat 'science' in the exact way described. That turns it into a religion for them, regardless of what it actually is/claims to be. Just like the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be doing what the Catholic Church taught, but it really did the exact opposite.

 

What something claims to be, or what you perceive it to be, are totally irrelevant to a large portion of the world's populace.

Share this post


Link to post

For me, I have always seen Science and Religion both usable to examine and explain the world around us, wherein Science can help explain "How" and Religion helps explain "Why".

For example, the question "Why is the teapot boiling?" can have two answers.

- Science answers that "The teapot is boiling because the heat from the stove increases the temperature of the water and the equilibrium vapor pressure of the water becomes greater than or equal to the external environmental pressure outside the teapot."

- Religion answers that "The teapot is boiling because someone wanted a cup of hot water."

 

It is this use of Science and Religion together that seems to be a good balance for analyzing our environment, where Science can help answer questions to things within our knowledge and understanding, whilst Religion helps answer questions on things beyond our understanding and knowledge.

Science and Religion go together surprisingly well in this way, as we had to have had Religion first for Science to emerge from it (back in around the 1500's) as another method of examination.

 

Granted there are extraneous variables with this way of interpreting Science and Religion, as it depends on the Religion that is used, and the question being asked, and whether the Scientific method is used in a different way, and a ton of other variables that go above and beyond my abilities of articulation.

 

Like the question of how measuring a position of an electron changes it's momentum and vice versa. Like Dr Freeman said, the only answer is to get drunk and set things on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
And yet, the vast majority of people I have met that are "anti-religious" treat 'science' in the exact way described. That turns it into a religion for them, regardless of what it actually is/claims to be. Just like the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be doing what the Catholic Church taught, but it really did the exact opposite.

 

What something claims to be, or what you perceive it to be, are totally irrelevant to a large portion of the world's populace.

 

Sure there are people out there who listen to everything they hear without question, but that's the complete opposite of what science is about in the first place. Science isn't a system of beliefs, it's a method by which we understand the world around us. Religion claims things that science can and does actively disprove, it isn't grounded in reality. There's a lot of things science probably can't disprove (like the existence of gods, or spirits), but there's a pretty huge difference between belief in a god and belief that Noah lived to be 950 years old, or that the world was created 6000 years ago, or that Moses parted the Red Sea in 2, or that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in raining hellfire for all the gay buttfucking going on there.

 

As for my beliefs, I believe in karma and reincarnation. Nothing I think science can or probably will disprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Religion claims things that science can and does actively disprove, it isn't grounded in reality.

Please provide examples of things disproven, and proof that it isn't grounded in reality.

Share this post


Link to post

I think you are only viewing Religion at a face value, and not looking deep enough into the significant implications and foundations of Western Civilization that is based on Religion.

 

Since I can not articulate myself as properly as I would like to on this subject, I would suggest you listen to the talks conducted by the esteemed Dr Jordon B Peterson on his Maps and Meaning: The Architecture of Belief lectures.

 

This is the first one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI

Share this post


Link to post
Religion claims things that science can and does actively disprove, it isn't grounded in reality.

Please provide examples of things disproven, and proof that it isn't grounded in reality.

I've already given you four

Share this post


Link to post
And yet, the vast majority of people I have met that are "anti-religious" treat 'science' in the exact way described. That turns it into a religion for them, regardless of what it actually is/claims to be. Just like the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be doing what the Catholic Church taught, but it really did the exact opposite.

 

What something claims to be, or what you perceive it to be, are totally irrelevant to a large portion of the world's populace.

 

Sure there are people out there who listen to everything they hear without question, but that's the complete opposite of what science is about in the first place. Science isn't a system of beliefs, it's a method by which we understand the world around us. Religion claims things that science can and does actively disprove, it isn't grounded in reality. There's a lot of things science probably can't disprove (like the existence of gods, or spirits), but there's a pretty huge difference between belief in a god and belief that Noah lived to be 950 years old, or that the world was created 6000 years ago, or that Moses parted the Red Sea in 2, or that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in raining hellfire for all the gay buttfucking going on there.

 

As for my beliefs, I believe in karma and reincarnation. Nothing I think science can or probably will disprove.

Those examples are all more based on the cultural aspect of Christianity and Judaism, though, and not the underlying theology. In fact, the 6000 years old thing and Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed due to homosexuality aren't even in the Bible (the reason for their destruction is left unclear, and at no point is the age of the world clarified. That was extrapolated by some guy just a couple hundred years ago, and took hold among fundamentalist populations). The fact is, the early Jewish populations liked to talk themselves up a lot in their narratives, but that doesn't preclude the underlying belief structure and how it pertains to the meta-evaluation of existence.

 

As for miracles and fantastical claims, there isn't technically anything science can do to disprove them, outside of point out how they are impossible under the ordinary rules of the universe. But that's the thing, though. If you assume that there is an all-powerful God and all, what's stopping Him from altering the rules of the universe in specific cases, as necessary? Think of it like using cheat codes in a videogame. Like a certain Dr. Freeman said, "Until you can rearrange atomic particles the way you want them, I don't think anyone could ever claim to have true power."

Share this post


Link to post
I've already given you four

No you didn't... You gave examples that you think aren't possible because you think that years were measured identically back then, or that people couldn't have been changed to have shorter lifespans, or that God isn't. Again, proof, not random summaries of stories you think are examples.

 

Also, the 6000 years thing is merely from when we left the Garden, not the age of the Earth itself. (theoretically, Adam and Eve could've lived in the garden for millions of years, as death didn't exist in the garden) Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being excessive in their sin, and totally unrepentant, not for gay shit. (you're apparently getting your information from somewhere that doesn't appear to know what they're talking about)

 

outside of point out how they are impossible under the ordinary rules of the universe.

And that "point" still doesn't prove anything, as that would require that we know everything about the rules of our universe, which any scientist worth their label will tell you we are just barely scratching the surface of. (just look at the weirdness we're coming across with quantum mechanics right now) Human's science doesn't know everything yet, (and probably never will) and problems arise when others act like it does.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd just like to point out that my summary of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The events regardless are clearly fantastical and you shouldn't expect me or anyone to take them at face value. I'm sure most people don't, but at the very best it's an allegory for a message I don't agree with. And I don't think that if a god exists, they have the authority to tell me that I should, or the authority to define what is objectively morally correct.

 

And what exactly do you think a year is? A year is and always was, by definition, one full solar revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd just like to point out that my summary of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The events regardless are clearly fantastical and you shouldn't expect me or anyone to take them at face value.

I don't see how it's so 'fantastical' that it's totally unbelievable that an entity which is both omnipotent and omniscient, one that has decided to punish people that are doing something wrong, would not or could not do exactly as described in the bible. Just because you don't want to believe doesn't mean that the contents of the bible are entirely fake.

 

I'm sure most people don't, but at the very best it's an allegory for a message I don't agree with. And I don't think that if a god exists, they have the authority to tell me that I should, or the authority to define what is objectively morally correct.

So you're saying that if you did believe in an omniscient omnipotent being that loves you unconditionally, and told you what was and wasn't good for you, you'd do what wasn't good for you just because? You intentionally want to screw yourself over despite knowing better?

 

All that said, believing in God doesn't instantly make you a good person, or keep you from sinning, or make life in any way easier. It becomes harder, especially when people like yourself ridicule the beliefs, despite not really knowing the reality of the beliefs.

 

And what exactly do you think a year is? A year is and always was, by definition, one full solar revolution.

No it hasn't. The Julian year was actually shorter than our current year, and that was a common year length for over 1500 'years'. Then there's the Calendar of Romulus, which had 10 months, all either 30 or 31 days in length. (304 days total, based loosely on Lunar cycles)

 

You really need to look things up before claiming to know it all.

Share this post


Link to post

The closest I can find to the length being shorter long ago is a difference of about 10 days(the length before 45 BC), if you ignored the month that was abolished, which resulted in a leap year(of selective use, apparently) that was LONGER than the current year. Not much of a significant discrepancy tbh. As for the the 304 day year, that still brings noah to about 791 years old by the modern year measurement, still a stretch if ever there was one.

 

It becomes harder, especially when people like yourself ridicule the beliefs, despite not really knowing the reality of the beliefs.

Ignoring that critical analysis is not ridicule, if the hardest thing going for you in your life is people not liking your beliefs because they don't understand them, then you really aren't all that bad off. Try being gay, or bi, or trans. Those 3 things are a literal death sentence in parts of the world. You want to talk about ridicule for believing, try ridicule for existing. Hell, try being a combination of those things AND religious. Those people don't have a lot of others they can go to.

 

As for my beliefs, I'm ill at ease placing my faith in events documented by people from a time when education was reserved for the rich, privileged, and ruling classes. Let alone that the stories had generations of spoken retellings to completely change before the first bible was even written. I'm not gonna stop anyone from holding beliefs, but I'm fine going my own way in life.

Share this post


Link to post
No it hasn't. The Julian year was actually shorter than our current year, and that was a common year length for over 1500 'years'. Then there's the Calendar of Romulus, which had 10 months, all either 30 or 31 days in length. (304 days total, based loosely on Lunar cycles)

 

You really need to look things up before claiming to know it all.

You, someone who got most of this information wrong, are telling me, someone who studied Latin and Roman history in high school, to do my research. Okay, I'll bite.

The Roman calendar excluded winters, being a barren season where nothing grows or really even happens for that matter. Its replacement was the Julian calendar, adding Ianuarius and Februarius (January and February), and naming previous 5th and 6th months after Caesar and his nephew (Iulius and Augustus, July and August).

 

Even IF you wanted to argue that somehow we incorrectly measured 60 less days per year and had no winter gap in between, that difference isn't enough to turn 950 years in to something even REMOTELY livable by any animal, let alone a human being.

 

I felt like addressing this point first because, holy hell, it really highlights how stupid and arrogant you actually are.

 

I don't see how it's so 'fantastical' that it's totally unbelievable that an entity which is both omnipotent and omniscient, one that has decided to punish people that are doing something wrong, would not or could not do exactly as described in the bible. Just because you don't want to believe doesn't mean that the contents of the bible are entirely fake.

You just proved my point. Of course you can't prove that an omnipotent, omniscient being does or doesn't exist, but you say it like it's something that's totally believable to begin with. And regardless, that doesn't address the issue of a lot of biblical stories being fictitious in nature and allegorical at best. Again, don't expect me to believe that miracles started and stopped happening in that small sliver of time between civilization's roots and the rise and fall of the Roman empire, especially when there's no proof such things as Noah's ark, or the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah even existed.

 

So you're saying that if you did believe in an omniscient omnipotent being that loves you unconditionally, and told you what was and wasn't good for you, you'd do what wasn't good for you just because? You intentionally want to screw yourself over despite knowing better?

 

All that said, believing in God doesn't instantly make you a good person, or keep you from sinning, or make life in any way easier. It becomes harder, especially when people like yourself ridicule the beliefs, despite not really knowing the reality of the beliefs.

If there is an all-knowing creator out there, I like to think that they're smart enough to understand that they don't love me unconditionally if they're willing to send me to Hell for any reason whatsoever. If there is a god or goddess out there, I don't expect anything of them and they shouldn't expect anything of me. I'd just like to reiterate that I believe in Karma and I like to think that system is a little more sound than getting sent to 7th circle of hell for partaking in lots of sodomy.

 

And for the love of god, stop playing the victim card because you're having your beliefs questioned. They ARE questionable. It's probably hard for you considering all the mental gymnastics you need to pull to argue your system of beliefs isn't inconsistent at best. Do you not think I run in to people who question my spiritual beliefs? Spirituality is a topic I constantly meditate on, and I still can't say with a straight face that Christianity or Islam are solid, consistent systems of belief.

Share this post


Link to post
I felt like addressing this point first because, holy hell, it really highlights how stupid and arrogant you actually are.

Says the one throwing insults at anyone not believing as you do...

 

you say it like it's something that's totally believable to begin with.

Considering the sheer number of people that believe it, it obviously is that believable.

 

And regardless, that doesn't address the issue of a lot of biblical stories being fictitious in nature and allegorical at best.

So if it's not a cut and dry, anecdotally deficient account of history, (there is a good long amount of that in there if you really looked) it doesn't meet with your expectations of believability?

 

Again, don't expect me to believe that miracles started and stopped happening in that small sliver of time between civilization's roots and the rise and fall of the Roman empire, especially when there's no proof such things as Noah's ark, or the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah even existed.

So because we don't know right now, this instant, it can't possibly be true ever? There is plenty of supporting evidence from non-biblical accounts regarding them, but I'm sure you'll just throw those out as "unbelievable nonsense" like you do everything else. (I found plenty of sources for them in a cursory Google search, but I'm not going to clutter the place further with links you'll ignore)

 

If there is an all-knowing creator out there, I like to think that they're smart enough to understand that they don't love me unconditionally if they're willing to send me to Hell for any reason whatsoever.

You, like so many others, fail to understand that God doesn't send you to hell. You send yourself there.

 

If there is a god or goddess out there, I don't expect anything of them and they shouldn't expect anything of me.

Why shouldn't they expect anything of us, especially if (as so many of them state) they were the ones that created our species? Seems like expecting us to do something on our creator's behalf would be a fairly normal thing. Not that the Christian God expects anything of you anyways, He just tells you what is and isn't good for you, and lets you ruin your life if you really want to.

 

I'd just like to reiterate that I believe in Karma and I like to think that system is a little more sound than getting sent to 7th circle of hell for partaking in lots of sodomy.

So you throw insults at anyone who doesn't believe what you want, and think that will help you in the karma department?

 

And for the love of god, stop playing the victim card because you're having your beliefs questioned.

You aren't questioning them, you're throwing insults at anyone that believes that way. There's a big difference there.

 

They ARE questionable.

Of course they are, but you have yet to QUESTION them.

 

It's probably hard for you considering all the mental gymnastics you need to pull to argue your system of beliefs isn't inconsistent at best.

And there you go throwing insults again.

 

Do you not think I run in to people who question my spiritual beliefs?

No doubt. Happens all the time. Difference is that you're not questioning, you're complaining that others believe something that you don't want them to.

 

Spirituality is a topic I constantly meditate on

I think you need to do more research into the actual beliefs instead of meditating and expecting all the information to transport itself into your brain.

 

and I still can't say with a straight face that Christianity or Islam are solid, consistent systems of belief.

And I can't say much at all about your belief system, what little I know of it. At least I can admit that I don't know what you truly believe. I know what you type about others though, and that is a big indicator of your true beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post

So did you spend 5 days pulling my post apart line by line just to find things to nitpick about? Are you gonna post anything substantial or not? Go on, address any point in my previous post and tell me why I'm wrong. Better yet, address Rarity's post since you seem to have completely ignored hers. There were lots of good points there to dig in to.

 

And just to make some things very clear, there's a fine line between an insult and a criticism of character. "Stupid" is a criticism of character since you've clearly displayed willful ignorance and lack of common sense. "Arrogant" is a criticism of character since you made a haughty assumption that I know less than you about a matter that I've studied extensively for a year. "Stubborn" is a criticism of character because you're refusing to concede when you have nothing of substance to respond with. Hell, stubborn is you not just coming to an agreement with me that Christianity just isn't for me. I was raised by a protestant mom and catholic grandparents. Growing up in that environment, I know Christianity isn't for me, and that's the only point I was trying to make here. It takes a great deal less faith for me to believe that there was a creator that we know very little about, or that the universe itself is sentient, or that everything has a spirit or spiritual energy. I'm not belittling you for your beliefs, if anything I'm belittling you for how you handle the topic.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.