Said Tony Blair, as if a religious person can think about what what he believes is right without religion being part of the idea of what is right. That Blair blur happened in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, who asked:
"Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt — is it good for the world?...In the end, the audience got to vote on who won the debate, and Hitchens got 68% — 68% of those who would go to a debate — in Toronto — about whether or not religion is a force for the good.
"To terrify children with the image of hell ... to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?...
(Via Crack Emcee — "Kick Ass: You Believers Are Little Kim Jong-Ils.")
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt
Hitchens has it wrong.
Religion is mankind's interpretation of God. And Men are imperfect creatures.
won not wont I think
In those atrocities done in the name of religion and those done in the name of _______ (insert your favorite term such as "Dictatorship of the Proletariat") there seems to be one common element:
Us
I suspect that 68% would have said Hitchens won before the debate even began.
How many victims of Mugabe could Hitchens have prevented or at least joined forces to help prevent?
typo corrected
Little Kim Jong Ils? Isn't that redundant?
Religion is mankind's interpretation of God.
What a load:
There is no "God". Why you guys (who, otherwise, can be brilliant) want to insist on such nonsense confuses the bejeezus out of me - can you not grasp the concept of there being no "God"? I can. It's not even a difficult concept, compared to some ideas we discuss here, but I can't think of a time when that one - there not being a "God" to "spiritually" build a "religion" around - was adequately entertained. But I know you can.
Can you at least try?
Just once?
For me?
Please?
Since the beginning of time, when humans from every corner of the world, without any interaction between other peoples, they developed a God to worship. Why is that?
From the early Egyptians building the pyramids, to the Aboriginal peoples of what is now called Australia, to the Amer-Indian Winnebago tribe of what is now called Wisconsin, they all looked for and worshipped a higher being. Why?
There is no "God". Why you guys (who, otherwise, can be brilliant) want to insist on such nonsense confuses the bejeezus out of me
Well Crack, I guess we all have our obsessions.
can you not grasp the concept of there being no "God"?
Sure. I just think it's false to say there is no God, and I have reasons for so thinking.
AllenS,
Maybe because, just like today, they were unable to grasp the obvious?
Look at this speech to the E.U.. They are sinking into oblivion and what is their answer? To double-down. Now how do you explain that? There have been tons of people who have told them this wasn't going to work, but, still, there's no way to talk to them. Even now, with the demon at the door, they still have no clue how to grasp the obvious, and act accordingly, because they're stuck on their grand idea.
It's a real pickle.
Crack,
I'm about 90-percent skeptical that God exists at all and about 99-percent skeptical that a caring, all-powerful God exists and that he is active in human affairs. But I am reluctant to call myself an atheist and if asked would probably say I believe in God. I also take my family to church on Sundays, give money to the church and read Bible stories to my son.
I tend to avoid theological discussions with true believers because I am afraid I will expose them to the cosmic Lovecraftian horror that usually hovers at the edges but which comes into sharp focus each time I read about matricide in the newspaper or see some deformed future specimen of the Mutter Museum.
To me, the alternative to believing in God is to believe in a chaotic universe that isn't hostile to man, just indifferent.
Which is scarier, the Earth being swallowed by a giant solar flare or mankind being enslaved by a giant squid monster? Both are equally awful to me since they render all science, art, philosophy and procreation just so much masturbation in the monkey house.
But I imagine non-believers experience a corollary horror at the thought of believers reducing the whole of human achievement to the level of monkeys masturbating.
I guess that's why the Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov vision of the future is so appealing to secular humanists. Man becomes master of the universe.
The Crack Emcee said...
Maybe because, just like today, they were unable to grasp the obvious?
Seriously? What was so obvious back then, that the earliest peoples did not see?
Crack,
You give me a link to your own fucking website? And I'm supposed to take that as proving what, exactly? WTF are you trying to say? You need to get over yourself. Now tell me, what was so obvious that the earliest peoples did not see? You? Your blog?
Religion is mankind's interpretation of God. And Men are imperfect creatures.
This.
Have to agree with chickelit about the ideological makeup of the audience.
As to the question at hand, last I looked, nobody gets a note in his hand from God saying, "I'm on your side". We all assume it (and we all know the result of assume...), but Constantine seems to be the last guy to have actually gotten a Heavenly cablegram.
Hitchens wants to cherry-pick the elements of religion that he thinks are bad and leave it at that, without noting what may have been reformed over the millennia or what may have been a fringe view. This kind of intellectual dishonesty will cost him points when he goes up before St Peter.
And Ann's point, "as if a religious person can think about what what he believes is right without religion being part of the idea of what is right.", is well-taken. The whole point of religion is to inform decision-making with a moral framework, the old "There are things one simply doesn't do...".
So Blair shot himself on that one.
The Crack Emcee said...
Religion is mankind's interpretation of God.
There is no "God".
Don't worry, Crack. He believes in you, regardless.
I'll bet guys like Hitchens and Crack think of themselves as brilliant for having grasped the concept that "there is no God." Do they ever take it one step further and acknowledge that if there is no God then some men somewhere will inevitably jump in to fill that vacuum and declare themselves God? With the inevitable terrible consequences? No. They don't.
"To terrify children with the image of hell ..."
The Christian churches that I'm familiar with have downplayed the doctrine of hell to the point that it's virtually ignored.
I don't understand a Big Bang without a Big Bang-er.
I don't see how religion is different from atheist ideology, like marxism, for example. After all both are pretty abstract ideas applied to humankind. And so far, in per year count, atheists commited attrocities far greater than any religion on the face of the earth.
This kind of debates are mighty tastless, as they are just another form of "hollier than thou" exhibitionism, of which Hitchens is a professional hack, as ammusing as he might be from time to time. I also blame Blair for agreeing to such debates.
For these dabates to make any sense, they should be conducted between two politicians with different worldview, or two professional "thinkers", but rationale of putting somebody who actually had to make hard decissions against a prolific talker who never felt a need to even remain sober, is beyond me.
The last time I heard Hell mentioned in Church it was last Christmas when the priest was telling a joke. I don't remember it ever being brought up in CCD.
Crack: It's not even a difficult concept, compared to some ideas we discuss here, but I can't think of a time when that one - there not being a "God" to "spiritually" build a "religion" around - was adequately entertained.
But I know you can. Can you at least try? Just once? For me?
Crack, assuming there is no God:
1) humans will still need an outlet for their spiritual energy. You have direct experience with the negative consequences of this.
2) humans will still diefy something, whether its a charismatic leader or AGW. You know your history, so you know what happens when we get a God-King.
If God didn't exist, humans would still create Him, so Who would you prefer they follow:
A) Muhammad
B) Christ
C) Obama
[you'll note that "none of the above" is not a choice]
"I don't see how religion is different from atheist ideology, like marxism, for example. After all both are pretty abstract ideas applied to humankind. And so far, in per year count, atheists commited attrocities far greater than any religion on the face of the earth."
Shhhhh.... You're not allowed to mention this.
Next thing you know you're going to be claiming that economic and political concerns have been the primary motivator in the majority of conflicts.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose Free Will
- Rush, Permanent Waves.
"Is it good for the world to worship a[n entity] that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt"
See, one itty-bitty change and it applies to human reason as well.
It's shooting fish in a barrel to criticize systems based on revelation. I mean, you believe or you don't. And if you don't they're nonsense.
Ah, but to replace revelation with morality based on human reason alone, that's the rub, isn't it?
Ever notice that there are 2 billion Christians, and nobody outside of philosophy depts ever says "I'm a Rawlsian" or "I'm a moral Kantian"?
There is no science of morality, and the pretense of folks like Hitchens that the little birdy of natural reason whispers in their ear doesn't make it otherwise.
AllenS,
Crack,
You give me a link to your own fucking website? And I'm supposed to take that as proving what, exactly? WTF are you trying to say? You need to get over yourself. Now tell me, what was so obvious that the earliest peoples did not see? You? Your blog?
You're one of my favorite commentors, don't go all screwy on me:
I sent you to see that speech so you can see a whole room full of people who can't admit there's nothing there - even as it's being rubbed in their faces by a fellow politician and the facts. I don't know why people are like this, but they are. They get a "big idea" in their heads and they hang on to it beyond all reason - even to the point of hurting and killing others. That was my point. There's never been a "God". There's nothing to discuss.
ET1492,
I've seen too many people killed, not to mention animals attacking each other - roadkill - to think the universe is anything but, at best, "indifferent". But, considering what I've seen, I can't really go that far - there's nobody to care but us.
edutcher,
As to the question at hand, last I looked, nobody gets a note in his hand from God saying, "I'm on your side". We all assume it (and we all know the result of assume...)
Thank you.
ricpic,
I'll bet guys like Hitchens and Crack think of themselves as brilliant for having grasped the concept that "there is no God."
Then you'd be wrong. There's no pat on the back for it. It's just a fact, like saying there's air.
YoungHegelian,
You believe or you don't. And if you don't they're nonsense.
No, they're that, plus:
Unnecessary argument starters.
A fraud that sucks money from the gullible.
Killers.
Child abusers.
One more cause of divorce.
The basis of pointless wars.
Cues for fanaticism.
Cues for terrorism.
And on and on and on.
Now look at all that and tell me - as edutcher said...nobody gets a note in his hand from God saying, "I'm on your side". We all assume it (and we all know the result of assume...)" - any of that is worth it.
I say it is not.
@Crack,
And you assume human reason will be better, why?
Aren't there examples of flawed human reason and will involved in all the religious bunkum you site, and yet you assume that get rid of revelation and the flawed will and reason will be fixed.
An assumption for which there is no evidence.
The following people didn't believe in God:
Stalin
Hitler
Lenin
Mao
Look what they did to believers and non-believers alike.
Oh - and AllenS:
If you were a dummy, looking up at the full breadth of the sky at night, I'm pretty sure the something bigger than yourself argument wouldn't be too hard to stumble upon somehow.
YoungHegelian,
Aren't there examples of flawed human reason and will involved in all the religious bunkum you site, and yet you assume that get rid of revelation and the flawed will and reason will be fixed.
Now you're assuming - I never said anything would be "fixed". I see it more like there'd be one less thing we'd be making mistakes over. Clear?
Crack,
I don't go to church, man. I've often looked up at the night sky and wondered all kinds of things. One thing that I won't say, is that there is no God. Because, I don't know.
AllenS,
Look what they did to believers and non-believers alike.
That's why they didn't believe:
They figured out, after all the dirt they did, there was nothing standing in their way.
Again - I'm not saying atheism makes us angels, but it stops nonsensical conversations like this one. Less nonsensical conversations, hopefully less things for us to fight about.
And, let me get back to my earlier point, why did every single early clan, tribe, and gathering of similar people, find this necessity to create a God?
@Crack,
Still you assume.
You assume that a future without revelation will produce a better future than one with. But yet you won't face up to the question of replace revelation WITH WHAT?
Simple emprical fact: Natural reason has no purchase on the hearts of men. Not in the past. Not now. Maybe not ever.
What do you have to offer that's better? Do you realise what a daunting philosophical task it would be come up something better?
AllenS,
One thing that I won't say, is that there is no God. Because, I don't know.
And I can't think of one thing that would keep someone as smart as you from knowing it. You're no fool. God ain't spoke to you. He ain't intervening in your life. You've never seen a miracle. Or an angel. You're smart enough to understand some of the basis for life, and find awe in that, so you have no need to overlay it with magical thinking. Why would you not hang it up and say "He ain't here"?
Just as I feel no pride in admitting it, you don't earn points for being humble.
YoungHegelian,
You won't face up to the question of replace revelation WITH WHAT?
I haven't replaced it with anything, and don't suggest anyone else does either. Just don't engage in it.
Live your lives.
Ann said:
"...as if a religious person can think about what what he believes is right without religion being part of the idea of what is right"
As if Hitchens' can think about what he believes is right without his Marxist materialist past/atheism being part of the idea of what is right.
@Crack,
"Live your lives".
According to what moral principles? Do righteous lives just happen?
Enough of this. I'm done.
Crack, please sign up for a course in moral philosophy at a university near you. You'll find it very useful.
You've never seen a miracle.
Yes, I have. The fact that I'm alive is a miracle. And I don't mean just because I was born.
While we go about living our lives, we must always strive to follow a code, or a creed, a set of rules, Commandments, a Constitution, a set of laws, whatever. Those rules are what have helped creat great civilizations, and while not perfect, has allowed a lot of people, especially countries that have embraced Christianity, to allow what we have now. Read the writings of our early founders. They were on to something.
Men can choose not to believe in God, but to believe they can know for sure that one doesn't exist is pretty silly. Who knows that much about everything except perhaps a God?
If you want to know if there is a God, why not ask God?
Don't you think God would tell you? What purpose would it serve to not tell you?
But a lot of people never bother to ask, and a lot don't want to know the answer because it will demand something of them.
The first amendment guarantees the right to practice religion, any religion whatsoever.
Many people think it means that you have to be an atheist in order to be in government, and thus raises atheism to the status of state church.
It means exactly the opposite: it means there can't be any one group that controls the state. Madison wrote the first amendment after first writing against monopolization of state government in Virginia by the Episcopalians (who wanted a monopoly, and in fact held a monopoly at the time).
I suspect neither of these Brits knew that in this debate?
Crack: It's not even a difficult concept, compared to some ideas we discuss here, but I can't think of a time when that one - there not being a "God" to "spiritually" build a "religion" around - was adequately entertained.
But I know you can. Can you at least try? Just once? For me?
Crack, assuming there is no God:
1) humans will still need an outlet for their spiritual energy. You have direct experience with the negative consequences of this.
2) humans will still diefy something, whether its a charismatic leader or AGW. You know your history, so you know what happens when we get a God-King.
If God didn't exist, humans would still create Him, so Who would you prefer they follow:
A) Muhammad
B) Christ
C) Obama
[you'll note that "none of the above" is not a choice]
11/27/10 3:22 PM
No response, eh Crack?
The whole concept of this Hitchens- Blair debate blows my mind.
One of the greatest questions of the age, and who do we get?
A half-drunk, bi-sexual Englishman,a former Trotskite, whose probably smoke and drunk himself to death despite numerous warnings.
And in the other corner, a hack British Politician who plunged his country in a needless war, sowed the seeds for the current UK financial disaster and is also a former Trotskyite.
Why don't we get an American equivalent? I suggest Bill Maher and Bill Clinton.
YoungHegelian,
"Live your lives".
According to what moral principles? Do righteous lives just happen?
They must, because I never needed a bible or God to tell right from wrong.
AllenS,
Regarding miracles: you know what I mean. If, for the sake of this dialogue, you're going to stretch the definition all the way to sperm meeting egg then you're not being serious at all.
Read the writings of our early founders. They were on to something.
Yea, what they thought about God - still doesn't do shit about actually producing him.
SteveR,
Who knows that much about everything except perhaps a God?
You don't have to know everything to know there ain't no God. That's about as insane a suggestion as I've ever heard. I don't have to know everything about aerodynamics to know planes can fly. The idea is silly.
Fen,
1) humans will still need an outlet for their spiritual energy.
Except me. I'd appreciate if, like these race conversations you guys insist on, you wouldn't leave the example of my person out of it. I have never - never - needed an an outlet for "spiritual energy". So your example falls apart.
AllenS --
"And, let me get back to my earlier point, why did every single early clan, tribe, and gathering of similar people, find this necessity to create a God?"
They didn't understand the functioning of the world around them.
Explain the fact that they created so many disparate gods.
You don't have to know everything to know there ain't no God. That's about as insane a suggestion as I've ever heard.
Then how do you know there ain't no God? I know you don't believe there is and that's fine.
Fen: 1) humans will still need an outlet for their spiritual energy.
Crack: Except me. I'd appreciate if, like these race conversations you guys insist on, you wouldn't leave the example of my person out of it. I have never - never - needed an an outlet for "spiritual energy". So your example falls apart.
No. It does not. My entire point was that, even if you *know* that God does not exist, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
Because humans [by a proportion that makes those like you irrelevant] will simply create something to worship.
I left you out of the example because your numbers are not significant.
Your best hope is that these people, since they will deify something anyway, choose Christ instead of AGW/Muhammad/Obama etc.
Crack, for someone who tells everyone else to just "live your lives" you spend a hell of a lot of time obsessing over every one of the religion threads (11 posts so far on this one alone).
You're such a poser. You hang out here telling us how you're such a bad-ass MF with attitude, seen it all etc., and yet you get the DT's whenever someone brings up the subject of a God you claim not to believe in. If you genuinely don't care about this stuff, prove it by, you know, not caring about it the next time it comes up in discussion.
Throughout the debate, Tony Blair goes out of his way to point out that he is not defending belief in supernatural agency, without ever acknowledging that there is no rational basis for belief in supernatural agency. It's no wonder that he seems somewhat less than focused.
Morgan Meis: It doesn't lessen one’s respect for how important the dilemmas of faith have been in human history hitherto to admit that going forward it might be otherwise.
I don't know which would be more cruel to children:
"Grammy's body will turn into dirt and you will never see her again and she will never live again,"
or
"Grammy's body is empty now, because she is in heaven with Jesus, the love of her life. You can look forward to seeing her again! And Jesus will raise her body to life, too."
"Because humans [by a proportion that makes those like you irrelevant] will simply create something to worship."
For a while there was a fad of sorts in science fiction for the author to propose a future society that was deliberately atheist. Anne McCaffrey in her Pern books, in the one that goes back to the settlement of Pern, does exactly that. The colonists signed on to a colony that was not going to have any of that god stuff and even left all Historical reference and religious books behind - at least I got that impression - so that the colony was scrubbed clean.
And what I always thought when I ran into that example or any others was that real humans would create something, some animism, some spiritualism, some superstition. The children growing would "discover" sympathetic magic and myth.
I figured that it was one thing for an author to create the future that they wanted to create, that's the fun part of world or universe building in science fiction and fantasy, but it's another thing to create that future with humans in it who don't act like humans.
Of course a whole lot of science fiction has no mention or context of religion or belief at all. But there is a difference between simply not having it in there and making a point of conspicuously not having it there.
Sort of the way one of our cats ignores the dog in a way that makes certain that no one could possibly miss the fact that the dog is being ignored.
Of course, Hitchens makes a mistake, or perhaps doesn't make a mistake at all, by defining the diety in a way that is obviously "not good".
Does God (according to the New and Old Testaments) take sides in wars and human affairs? Yes. But do we know what side He took? No. Is it good to appeal to fear and guilt? Well, that depends on what one is supposed to be afraid of and feel guilty for, doesn't it? Is it good for the world for people to have no qualms or guilty consciences? Does it do any good to terrify children with images of hell? To that one I'd say that the fire and brimstone sorts are few and far between - even among evangelicals who actually believe in eternal punishment - but children are terrorized every day about the world dying. A terrible burden to lay on a powerless child. And it has never taken religion to consider women, or any other "other" inferior.
Crack...Declaring that there is no God is the ultimate act of independence that can be done by humans.As such it is a normal way to think until God does reveal Himself to you. Just avoid substituting your own opinions to become your gods, and you will hear from the living God. He often speaks to us through his living Word that we call the scriptures.There are no supermen. Jesus is a normal man Who really enjoys fellowship with normal sinful men.
Jane --
How about:
"Everything that is alive dies Sweetie. We don't live forever and that's OK because we keep her in our hearts. Just remember her and how much you love her or the rest of your life."
I still miss you grandma.
"...and that's OK because we keep her in our hearts"
That's a nice way to put it.
It is sort of spiritual, though. It suggests that the departed person isn't actually gone but remains.
SteveR,
Then how do you know there ain't no God? I know you don't believe there is and that's fine.
Damn, you guys can be infuriating. Listen carefully:
I. Don't. "Believe". Things. Can you get that? I sometimes think, talking to lawyers and all, I can be at a disadvantage in explaining myself, but can you guys understand what it's like not to be capable of belief? I don't really know how well I can explain it - I can't take speculation to heart, maybe? Nothing I'm saying to you is based on my believing or not believing anything. I'm more like a guy in the Holocaust whose given job was to feed the bodies to the ovens. There ain't no God. I don't care what you think. Or how much you go to church. Or what the bible says. When the shit goes down - I mean really goes down - God ain't there. Never has been. Never will be. The devout get treated like dirt, just as murderers prosper - and there's nothing you can say to change that. That's reality. That's my life.
The difference between me and everyone else, apparently, is that I've never been able to shield my eyes, or my heart, from that reality. Maybe it's the foster care, where I got beat, girls got raped, and men got killed, but your "beliefs" earned my scrutiny and they were proved to be bogus. Even worse than bogus:
They're beautiful little black Hallmark cards of bloodstained madness that each of you smugly sends as malicious gifts to torture anyone without the benefit of whatever security allows you to spit such nonsense.
I give you my word, I'm saying this with no intention of insulting any of you:
For adults, you talk like delusional children.
Your lives must be great to be allowed to imagine such things, and to not be concerned about the very real pain you continually inflict on others with it.
Fen,
Your best hope is that these people, since they will deify something anyway, choose Christ instead of AGW/Muhammad/Obama etc.
Naw, there's no benefit to that. Christians kill, too. Madness is madness and one religion is an extension of the other:
As long as you worship something, you and somebody else's gang will be fighting and plotting my demise for not taking sides.
Craig,
If you genuinely don't care about this stuff, prove it by, you know, not caring about it the next time it comes up in discussion.
O.K., smart guy, point to me where I said "I don't care" - about anything. I've been on this blog for quite a while now and I've said, repeatedly, the words I despise the most are "I don't care", so - since you know so much - find those words with my name on them. I dare you. You lie. I'm a poser? Fool, I'm the only real thing in your entire existence. That's the problem with this entire conversation:
I'm talking to people who can't discern, in the least, what reality is or where it begins or if it even exists.
No wonder the Maharishi could make a fool of everyone:
You were fools to begin with.
CE: Sorry man, you make no case against God, for me or yourself. You have come up with a good rationale but not that good. You imply that the belief of people such as myself is childish delusion yet your argument is like that of a child, not an adult.
Yeah bad things have happened, are happening and will happen. You think that says anything about the existence of God?
Tg,
Just avoid substituting your own opinions to become your gods, and you will hear from the living God.
You, of all people, know I'd never do that. I can still remember when my ex told me she was a god - dude, it blew my mind. I mean, I can't describe to you the sense of shame I felt for her. And then I burst out laughing. My many encounters with madness have always drawn out weird reactions. It all haunts my sleep. Look at the times I post. You'll see, you all keep me awake. I just tried to go to sleep, because I was tired. I got about 45 minutes before the rest of you crept in, taunting me with your "beliefs". I wake up and hope the emotions go away quickly. It'll never end. It could, but you won't let it. It brings you too much comfort to keep it going. That's why I'm drawn to death, and violence, and all that stuff. You've got no answer for that. I am convinced that if I had thrown my ex out a window (we lived at the top of an apartment building) i'd be sleeping like a baby now. It's that conflict - the insistence that, collectively, you are going to push this shit down my throat for the rest of my days - and prosper from doing it - that damns me. I didn't ask for any of this. I was just born, into cigarette smoke and adults drinking scotch - neat. You can't wipe reality away with pretty stories of invisible beings who will one day talk to me and make it all better. It ain't gonna happen. I'm in a totally different place begging you to send money. That's all I got, man.
Tg, you and I understand each other. Have from the start, that's why I leave you out of my rants on this. I know someone honest when I meet them and your belief is no hindrance to the love I feel for you. You're not trying to make a point or advance an agenda - you represent compassion to me. The kind of compassion I used to be known for. So you've got to understand that, since "beliefs" took my wife away, that door is closed behind me. I await death as escape from it. But I also live in fear because I know, someone who ain't like you and me is going to be there, torturing till the end with the typical bullshit "belief" the rest of these lamers are selling. people with no more feeling for my humanity than a hungry lion. They don't care about anything but themselves and their hopes THEY get to heaven. Whether it exists or not.
I know, I'm rambling, making no sense, but I want to go to sleep and can't. I also want to talk to somebody - anybody - to make even a piece of it go away. I can't talk to God because God ain't here. Tg, you're just the best I can do.
I'ma go cry now.
Crack,
The more you talk about religion, and you're hatred of it, and the disgust you have for people who don't take your side, the sorrier I feel for you. I wish you'd just live your life, and let others live theirs. It's nothing more than that.
AllenS: Since the beginning of time, when humans from every corner of the world, without any interaction between other peoples, they developed a God to worship. Why is that?
I can see how someone who believes the world sprung into existence with humans spread all over it might believe in God. That the concept of a God came to all those people must seem like evidence.
But most people, even most Christians, believe humans spread from a single source and interacted with each other along the way. So your proof of God seems unconvincing to us.
So your proof of God seems unconvincing to us
Read what I've written on this post, Jason. Tell me where I said that God exists? Point out where I said here's the proof.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Hurry up, Jason, I don't want to wait all day.
Where's Jason? Anybody seen Jason?
Does anybody have the telephone number to the Missing Children's Network?
AllenS,
I wish you'd just live your life, and let others live theirs.
I didn't know asking you to "at least try" to conceptualize no God was doing otherwise. You never did try, BTW, which I think makes my point:
Though you'll admit you're "not sure", you're never going to give an inch.
It's positions like that which make attempts at getting an education seem pointless, and reminds me of the wisdom of certain ghetto criminals I've known. "What's the point?" they ask, "you KNOW how they are!"
And, right now, they're right:
You make me feel like a fool for just talking to you.
I didn't know asking you to "at least try" to conceptualize no God was doing otherwise. You never did try, BTW, which I think makes my point
No, your problem is this: anyone who doesn't agree with you, has a problem. I'm going to tell you right now, you have the problem. Make sure you understand this, you're not that smart. You haven't proven anything, except that you're a poor judge of women. That ain't my fault. Other commenters seem to agree to disagree when discussing religion, not you. To you it's your way or you start calling other people stupid.
you're never going to give an inch.
How about you?
WV: welder
AllenS,
No, your problem is this: anyone who doesn't agree with you, has a problem.
Dude, you didn't even try. That doesn't make me the unwilling hardass but you. Here's Allen "trying":
Since the beginning of time, when humans from every corner of the world, without any interaction between other peoples, they developed a God to worship. Why is that?
Sorry, buds, but you've got the problem. If only with listening and follow-through.
And, again, you make my point, perfectly, why I want out from the whole stupid mess in your mind.
Why is that?
That's what I said. Read it again, I only asked a question.
You said: Dude, you didn't even try.
Try what?
Where's that little cherry ass Jason?
You haven't proven anything, except that you're a poor judge of women.
Nah, dude, I'm a poor judge of planets.
Kim Jong Il doesn't believe in God.
"...and that's OK because we keep her in our hearts"
How does that happen? How is that euphemism made real? After looking at turkey gizzards this week, a heart seems like an odd and rather ugly place to keep Grandma.
Negative intimacy is one of the ways children and adults who have experienced abuse tend to relate. Anger serves as the guard, while insults, name calling, negativity, intensity and specious arguments provoke connection and release emotion.
When those who believe humans are nothing more than flesh bodies, act as if they care intensely about what other meat creatures think and do with their short lives, I wonder about motive.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा