Imagine God
- Thread starter moementum7
- Start date
No! You don't get it... I'm not trying to baffle you (plural). You (singular) are baffled. There's a difference.Q25 said:I dont think you get it,
YOU are the one trying to baffle us!
Again, I reccomend you just stick to "I don't get it" and stop baffling yourself.
MarcAC,
However, the conclusion should not be that there is a god that makes people happier and live longer, there is no evidence of that implied cause and effect, but we do know that positive thinking and reducing stress have significant benefits on health and longevity, this has been proven quite nicely and I can quote some references if you like.
The overwhelming soporific effect of religious belief dulls the intellect to appreciating reality. Unfortunately all our evidence indicates that reality is harsh and unpleasant and that your body will decay, very likely painfully, and at the end of that you will simply cease to exist. The reality is that there is no afterlife; no souls, no eternal paradise, and you don’t get to see your loved ones ever again. Living with the truth can be stressful and worrying to many – so no wonder so many choose the fantasy of religious belief and live happily with their delusions.
Kat
I strongly suspect this is true, but what studies?
However, the conclusion should not be that there is a god that makes people happier and live longer, there is no evidence of that implied cause and effect, but we do know that positive thinking and reducing stress have significant benefits on health and longevity, this has been proven quite nicely and I can quote some references if you like.
The overwhelming soporific effect of religious belief dulls the intellect to appreciating reality. Unfortunately all our evidence indicates that reality is harsh and unpleasant and that your body will decay, very likely painfully, and at the end of that you will simply cease to exist. The reality is that there is no afterlife; no souls, no eternal paradise, and you don’t get to see your loved ones ever again. Living with the truth can be stressful and worrying to many – so no wonder so many choose the fantasy of religious belief and live happily with their delusions.
Kat
attacking the messenger is a common tactic of Xians.it will not help your argument at all!MarcAC said:No! You don't get it... I'm not trying to baffle you (plural). You (singular) are baffled. There's a difference.
Again, I reccomend you just stick to "I don't get it" and stop baffling yourself.
try again!
you might also first read the thread titled" Christian's debating tactics"
to avoid same mistakes
What????Q25 said:
Now I'm attacking you??? You are the one who indicated you were somehow baffled by my post. I just made it clear to you that you only spoke for yourself. I mean come on, calling something fantasy, sci-fi or b.s. is not much of an argumentative tactic. You should be able to show how it is b.s. or else you're just b.s.ing yourself. Right?
No time to waste... I'll have a reason after you try, again, to illustrate the part of my post that was baffling and made no sense.
Otherwise,
Lata bro/sis.
I have seen a few educational programmes on TV pertinent to the topic, and I've read afew articles, but I don't remember clearly my previous sources... so I did a google search... I'm sure you can do that too but I saved you some sifting time.Katazia said:
No need. The point of my post was to address the concern of why would God need us to worship Him. So as you no doubt see, maybe it is for our benefit, not necessarily His.
Now can you be so kind as to indicate more clearly how religious belief does this? You can state some references if you would like.
Well, that's the loveliness of religious belief. I have something to look forward to.
I don't consider it a "harsh reality". It's just life.
The only way I can see you coming to these conclusions is if you died and rose from the dead. But I doubt that happened. You can live with your deluded fantasy of a reality; I'll live with mine.
Lata Kat.
MarcAC,
If the reverse were true and the majority of the planet believed that death meant the final end then it seems likely that a concerted effort would have been made to cure the problem of involuntary death. I.e. science would be centuries ahead of where it is now.
My point is that believing a fantasy is true re-directs attention away from reality and that is dangerous.
OTOH your delusion requires the existence of a supernatural realm for which there is zero evidence and nothing that can even show it is even possible. Why believe a pure fairy tale and put all your hope into a false promise?
Kat
Look at it this way. People are currently doomed to die; there has been a 100% failure rate so far to avoid that. Religions promise a way around that and the majority of the planet population either believe the promises or hope for them. The net effect is that there is no momentum to fixing the problem – religions have induced a complacency about death with the false and bizarre promise that life will be better when you are dead.
If the reverse were true and the majority of the planet believed that death meant the final end then it seems likely that a concerted effort would have been made to cure the problem of involuntary death. I.e. science would be centuries ahead of where it is now.
My point is that believing a fantasy is true re-directs attention away from reality and that is dangerous.
Or more likely you will cease to exist when perhaps you could have done something to survive.
The big difference is that we have tons of evidence for the natural universe and through direct observation we know that when people die they decay and never return. There is no delusion there – it is very simply directly observed fact, witnessed billions of times.
OTOH your delusion requires the existence of a supernatural realm for which there is zero evidence and nothing that can even show it is even possible. Why believe a pure fairy tale and put all your hope into a false promise?
Kat
No religion makes such a promise of a way around physical death - I'm hoping I got your intended meaning but some might interpret it wrongly - religions offer an alternative to spiritual death. Science [Biology, Neuroscience, Computer Science] promises or offers a way around physical death as you seemingly realise.Katazia said:
Most religions promise life after death conditionally - not that life will be better after death - if that were the case there would be mass suicides. You can't soley blame religion for that complacency, especially of late. I know of no religious convictions which have stopped any sort of scientific endeavour of late. Religion isn't the arbiter of influence anymore, the new arbiter is ethics. Therefore, there is an alacrity in endeavours to 'cure' death due to ignorance of the whole process. They simply don't know enough and have only gained useful knowledge over the past century or so. You are trying to isolate an integral part of human nature, religion, and deem it unnecesarry. Humans are religious by nature. It has been with us since we were living in caves and it, in part, more than likely inspired the development of language itself.
I see your point though, that religious belief may be a source of our resigned scientific attitude towards death. But lack of knowledge is also a major source and I'm sure that it has become the main inhibitor in the process. I also recently saw a figure which quoted 40% of scientists as believing in some personal god - that 40% would wield a mighty religious arm, it seems, if religion played such a major role in scientific endeavours. A quote from Galileo himself, a father of astronomy; "I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with [reason] and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
As I said above, not necessarily; lack of knowledge has inhibited scientific progress, not religious belief alone.
My point is that you have not proven and cannot prove what is fantasy in the religious world as opposed to a reality. And where reality is concerned, that's a whole other issue. I see what your reality seems to look like; a nihilist's. What is seen can be totally different from what can be observed. You see the whole sky moving around the earth, but it's not really moving around the earth is it? Or maybe it is... can you tell? It all depends on your perspective - everything's relative. The Sun orbits the Earth as much as the Earth orbits the Sun. My point? Instead of speaking of reality and fantasy, speak of your reality and my reality. Lack of evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence and what you see as evidence all depends on your outlook (perspective). You seem to think that having a religious belief means you will deny that the Sun is in the sky. No. A religious belief just puts forward the notion that there is more to the sky than just the sun, blue and clouds. Religious belief gives everything purpose, including the life you live. Man could I go on... but I'll stop.
Value is not necessarily procured from a long life, just a fruitful one. You seem to have forgotten that. Similarly you can spend your whole life trying to live longer, and at the end realise you've wasted it all. The point is to be satisfied at the end of your road.
Of course you can see that, but within all that, which I observe too, there is no detraction whatsoever from the notion that there is an afterlife. Your delusion is the notion that there is no afterlife: not that there is an observable universe out there. I don't see any religion denying that either - as I stated above. If that were 'evidence' enough then there would be no religions. Ever heard of near death experiences? There is no fully accepted explanation.
Not necessarily a 'supernatural realm' as you put it. Just something beyond what we can observe at the moment. As I said above, evidence is subjective even in it's objectiveness. So my evidence is not necessarily your evidence. You might choose to reject or accept 'evidence' which is presented to you, which is why you state zero evidence, and why I do not think there is zero evidence with regards to a creator and something beyond what we can see or fully understand presently. Most scientific evidences available when looked at in entirety point towards a creator, in my humble opinion - you either say it was created, or say it was always there - all theories of cosmogony point to one event and to side-step a creator they then invent some other "entities" as they were, of which there is at most, as much evidence as there is evidence of relgious 'fantasies'. Ever heard of String Theory (scientific)? It funtions on an at least 6 (I think) dimensional universe. Now we can observe what can be considered 4 of those dimensions (space and time). If God were to exist he would exist in a dimension which would be above ours, which would explain many of the things like "free-will" and predestination which some find hard to accept. Ever wonder why for all the lack of 'evidence' humans still have their religious convictions? Have you ever been through a biology, biochemistry, or any such book and looked at how complex living things are, mainly humans? Have you ever read on the theories which attempt to explain human evolution? The evolution of sentience? The evolution of conscience? Have you ever considered the mathematical probability of all things turning out the way they did? One scientist likened it to the compnents of a watch falling to the ground in an assempled state. It seems more simple to assume it was put together by a watchmaker, which doens't preclude us trying to find out how he did it.
Last edited:
no,MarcAC said:
.. if you dont see religious beliefs and the bibles explanation of creation as a total fantasy invented by men to explain the world and how it works,
you are just deluding your senses big time.its called brainwashing and works very well on some people,
these sites may help explain
www.atheists.org click on atheism/souls/spirits/mind
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.html
and heres one about bibles contradictions
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Q25 said:
I guess you never heard of GWB super religious Xian prez trying to stop the stem cell researchMarcAC said:
unfortunately the ethics of your bible are very disgusting
read the bible quotes at
www.thewaronfaith.com
irelevant.. anyone can quote anything especialy those Xian proselytizers..
say what?
have you ever felt the wind?seen the clouds ?
I guess we have to rewrite the astronomy books now
yeah, it lies!
atheists have never ever forgoten anything like that,
in fact free thinkers/atheists lead in making the world a better place since we know that this life is all we have so WE have to improve the world instead of waiting for some allmighty to do it for us..
..btw how fruitful would our lives be if we all remained stuck in beliefs that we live on flat earth,beneath a solid firmament,like bible says,
..and pray to gods to heal the sick instead of look for ways to advance our medical science..
so I guess those terrorist bombers killing thousands of innocent people b/c their reward was instant paradise in heaven havent taught you anything about religion ?
sure there is,do a search on this forum
or www.infidels.org/index.shtml
let me guess,wasnt that one of those so called creation"scientists"?
yeah the universe is our creator and since matter/energy which everything is made of cannot be created or destroyed only changed,it must have always existed in some form shape
(the universe is eternal)saying theres an invisible dude in the sky who created man in his image is,
well to put politely... nuts
www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html
You should be more careful you know? I stated that the relgious conviction has never stopped the scientific endeavour.Q25 said:
What is seen means you see the sun and the sky revolving around the earth. If you observe (watch carefully?) the motion of the the same you will realise that there are anomolies that you can't explain, which is what led to the current model of our solar system. Ok. now?
Yeah so what's your point?
If you've ever read one without baffling yourself I doubt you'd type that. Do a Google search on Newton's Laws of gravity.I guess we have to rewrite the astronomy books now
Okey Dokey. But you in this sense was singular (Katazia). I know English is far from a perfect language, but is it that baffling?
Religious folk think believe that this life is all we have in this form. Christians share the conviction that you need to live your life to the fullest (improve your world etc. etc.). Do what you have to do, but show love in doing it.
Can you quote the part of the Bible which states this please, or are you still baffling/b.s.ing yourself?
Positive thinking and its positive effects on health is a known medical phenomenon, regardless of what effects that positive aura. It is the job of doctors to look for ways to improve medical science. I'm sure if any of them pray to God to heal anyone it is after they've exhausted all their options with regards to medical ethics, and knowledge. Do you suggest we all become doctors? I sincerely hope not.
Heh... You are indeed a miracle worker (miracles of interpretation). Now what in particular does this have to do with an observable physical universe existing not detracting from the fact that there might be more to it than meets the eye?
Here's a seemingly more unbiased version.... If you can post a direct link to your version. But I don't have time to search for it.
Actually, Stephen Hawking, ever read on him? Do a search.
canxbluest
Registered Member
Yes i do believe that is true. Believing in a God gives one the overwhelming comfort followed by peace that he/she. Having a powerfull force behind you, to look up to etc. Provides you with a sense of security and relief. It relieves tension and stress.
However, one can stablish this with alternative means. By Creating a loving family and support system among friends and loved ones.
Also though i do not ocmpletely rules out the existance of GOD. GOD as it appeals by religion is not what i believe god is. While im still searching and studying..I do tend to think GOD as part of us. In That we are a part of GOD as he is a part of us. In Short GOD is all and such we are him. GOD is simply in my tending to believe...a embodiment of everything.
However, one can stablish this with alternative means. By Creating a loving family and support system among friends and loved ones.
Also though i do not ocmpletely rules out the existance of GOD. GOD as it appeals by religion is not what i believe god is. While im still searching and studying..I do tend to think GOD as part of us. In That we are a part of GOD as he is a part of us. In Short GOD is all and such we are him. GOD is simply in my tending to believe...a embodiment of everything.
poposhisho said:
How do you kow you "will never know?"
Maybe you should change it to "we will never want to know".
Jan Ardena.
Frisbinator said:
I am an atheist, I dont try to comprehend a super natural being as I am not a lamb, I am in awe of the planet I live on and the beauty that exist there.
however if there is a god then does he not give and take life therefore he's out to make man an unwiting fool for he is the devil. "if he exists" I dont think so .
MarAC,
One second you are alive and next you aint. It’s kinda simple. What all the major religions promise is that death isn’t the end.
Kat
Die as in “the end”, ya know “non-existence”. Or as Webster says – Die 2 a : to pass out of existence.
One second you are alive and next you aint. It’s kinda simple. What all the major religions promise is that death isn’t the end.
But that’s just religious dogma, a set of rules you must follow to achieve paradise when you die, and not committing suicide just happens to be a convenient Christian rule. Islam isn’t quite so clear on that rule and hence we have suicide bombers.
Think how more we could have achieved had there been no doubt. And Bush stopping stem cell research because of his religion is very recent.
There is indeed value in what you have said.
I tend to agree to some extent.
I chose the word ‘fantasy’ quite deliberately since the claim can be supported. What can’t be proved is whether gods or similar do not exist. Until you can prove your claim of a supernatural thingy or whatever, then all you have is an unsupported speculation, or fantasy. And it will remain a fantasy until or if someone ever shows proof otherwise. This is not a matter of proving a negative. Do you see the difference?
I think you forgot to engage your brain before you opened your mouth.
No I think that is nonsense. Things can exist whether I believe they are real or not. Reality is not dependent on my perceptions. Our aim should be to objectively determine what is true or false. And we need a reliable mutually agreed mechanism for that. The primary candidate is logic and reason; unfortunately religionists refuse to accept that standard, but do not propose any better alternative.
Your brain switched off again – “lack” means the same as “no” in this context.
And that brings us back to logic and reason again as a non-agreed methodology.
Nope, I don’t think that at all.
But I can do that without any religious beliefs. I can still wonder what scientists will eventually discover when we begin to explore beyond our planet.
And I agree, yet the assignments are not based on any objective observations but just on the imaginations of those who created the religions. No truth is involved.
But life must come first otherwise there is nothing that can be fruitful.
Oh no, there are an infinite number of things I want to try, but I can barely start on that list if I know I only have a few years to live. The obvious conclusion is to solve the living problem first and then focus on the enjoyment.
If you die then your life is a waste anyway from a personal perspective.
Why, what good will it be to you if you then die?
Agreed, but it is just a notion without any reasonable basis and essentially valueless.
Why is that a delusion? A delusion is to believe that something is real when it isn’t. For you to legitimately claim that I am deluded requires you to prove there is an afterlife – and I am certain you cannot do that. Hence your claim is without any valid foundation.
Images recalled while the brain is undergoing major trauma can never be considered of any value. Drugs can induce the same hallucinations. NDEs are not a good argument for an afterlife.
OK but if we cannot detect the claimed phenomenon then it is indistinguishable from a fantasy, right?
That’s because I use logical reasoning and you do not – our two perspectives are not of equal value – you simply cannot justify yours.
The difference lies in the acceptance criteria and the methodology. Religious evidence never points to a god, only to something that we cannot yet easily explain – the religionist argument then proceeds to say that because we cannot explain it then a god must be involved. Even you I suspect can see the fallacy behind that.
LOL, you must be joking, right? Describe such scientific evidence that points to a god as opposed to any other imaginative speculation.
But these are all speculations. When a cause is unknown then it is simply unknown. Something unknown no more points to a god than any other imaginative idea.
Yet string theory attempts to explain everything and within that theory gods are certainly quite unnecessary and would indeed mess up the theory.
Thousands of years of ignorance, superstitions, poor education and indoctrination, but all that is very slowly changing.
Absolutely and I have even studied microchip design with its billions of interconnecting elements, and that allows me to see much more clearly how the complexity of humans evolved. Microchips didn’t suddenly appear, they evolved from extremely simple electrical impulses discovered only within the last few centuries. The immense complexity that we have now is the result of an evolutionary process from over just a few hundred years and mainly within the last 3 decades and where man’s intelligence was just a component. Human complexity took billions of years to evolve because there was no intelligent component involved. Had there been an intelligence then we might not had had such a crappy result.
LOL, yes I have read all that, and I strongly recommend you read “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins which will help you resolve all those false concepts and fallacies you are holding onto so desperately to maintain your creator fantasy..
Kat
Last edited:
Yes that's what they promise. However most or I dare say all religions have the concept of a soul, spirit, or some eternal or divine human component. So for religious people, death is not so simple. For Christianity, the choices you make in this life will determine your condition in the afterlife.Katazia said:
'Dogma' which can be relevantly applied to our lives as you can see. The Christian Bible teaches you to accept nothing without question. That's the whole point of free will and choice. Thus there should be no dogma when you consider a Christian: but nobody's perfect.
Oh. What religion is that? Anyway, stem cell research continues. That man's power is quite illusory.
You mean by the existence of the physical world which we can observe with current science? That's the support? I look to that as support for the argument from design. Due to the complexities of our universe which seems quite fine tuned to our existence then it can be assumed that if the universe had some pupose, some use, some breadth of significance we are a part of it. If an objective purpose can be observed then it is reasonable to assume that there is some cognisant driving force behind all this and who better to fill that gap then God? Of course you can always argue for chance. Who's right?
Quite lovely isn't it? Maybe you'll get into the faith argument (with the right person) sometime in the future. Thus you can see that just like time dilation and length contraction or even the heliocentric solar system were all once fantasies with some form of support from observation the word fantasy is quite premature - that was my basic gist.
I think I see what you're trying to achieve. So, if I saw a piano falling from above your head from a distance, I would have to somehow prove it is there before you move... Or... I saw a gunman/woman
from my house across the street waiting at your door and called you, I'd have to prove s/he's out there before you called the police... and, of course... I'll have to prove to the blind wo/man that the Sun is one of billions of one group of stars of billions of groups of stars before s/he will be able to accept the existence of stars, and the sun as one as anything but pure fantasy. Am I getting you? Faith has some very useful applications no?
Actually seeing and observing (in this discussion) have quite a significant difference which might appear as a nuance initially. You should make more use of your Webster's.
Yes, reality is based on your perceptions. What else is it based on then? Or are you saying that what you perceive is not reality?
All religionists accept the standard of logic and reasoning - all humans. But, after all, it is not a perfect tool. You can only determine what is true or false within your perceptual limits, through logic and reasoning which is based on your perceptions. Of course you can always argue that logic and reasoning are objective and are thus from a source independent of our perceptions. A source which has some predisposition to logic and reason. An intelligent source?
You are correct. Let me be more clear in the context of the above paragraph. What you perceive as evidence may not be credible evidence for another individual. This time Q25 woould've been correct - I did baffle with B.S.
Exactly; you hae good logic and bad logic. The problem is figuring which is which based on our individual perceptions. Of course you can always assume that there is some source of logic above our limitations (objective?)... Or you can just continue in the state of "my logic is better than yours."
In the analogy the Sun and sky would be indicative of science in its current state.
You can only reasonably make such a claim if any religious claim contradicted what is currently accepted as scientific 'knowledge or whatever knowledge you want to consider as true Otherwise you can support your claim with evidence (or lack there of) which can be accepted or rejected. So you were a bit premature here too.
Heh, well if you mean that we cannot live fruitful lives without being alive, I agree. However, if you mean that we should be absolutely focused on staying alive forever or live long lives for them to be ever fruitful, I disagree completely. I can't really see what else you could be saying because any other interpretation doesn't counter my statement.
Naugh it's not that simple. Firstly, you see it as a problem. Heck even I see it as a problem to an extent but the point is to avoid being soley focused on becoming immortal in the immediate physical sense. In other words you won't consider your life to be a total waste before, [or alas! After?] you die.
By the fact that you graced us sciforumians with this lovely post; you hold some religious hope(?) that man will master knowledge of death and maybe after he does that completely master the art of sustaining his life before your approximate 120 years are up? Me too.
You never know (hint hint). But from a purely non-religious perspective the whole point is survival of the species right? Man, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Bohr, Plank, Fermi, Heisenburg, Einstein - what a waste.
Well, if you see evidence or proof of a creator with the power to create, and direct the evolution of our universe, one which you will assume, due to some of your characteristics and your apparent ability to communicate with Him/Her/It, is a being capable of relationship, then hey you have plenty reason to believe in an afterlife, and it's essential value becomes limitless (especially for life-gluttons).
The same goes for you with regards to proof. And just as your evidence is not evidence for me and my evidence is not evidence for, I am certain you cannot do likewise. Btw, a delusion can be the belief that something is real or the belief that something is not real if the reality is contrary to the belief. Thus, as I stated before you stick with your deluded fantasy of a reality and I'll stick with mine. In the end we either both die and disintegrate (hell whatever) or we realise that there is a lot more to the sky than the Sun and Clouds and a few white dots on a sphere. Either way, I'll make my life here count (however long it turns out to be).
Well truly, I don't think they are either (I more accept the electrical impulse theory with no strings attached - but I keep my options open - it could be God just pulling the strings), but I'm sure there are still valuable insights that can be gained from studying the nature of these images.
I agree, tell that to a quantum physicist or String Theorist will you? But the fact you cannot disprove it still means labelling it as strictly fantasy is somewhat premature. There are arguments to support these conjectures, whether you are willing to accept them as valid or not.
Sure I use logical reasoning. I just accept its limits and I don't let it limit my thoughts and hopes too much - after all logic is based on knowledge which changes constantly. You learn something new and logic is redefined - not even that - just look at it in a slightly different light. In fact you might realise logic still applies but its just because you didn't know 'that' before why it seemed so illogical at first. So it's not that you use logic and I don't, but we just look at things in a slightly different light.
Let's not categorise in that regard. Just say your evidence and my evidence. The only reason why 'religious' evidence 'never points to a god' is because of your refusal to accept the possibility. 'Religious' evidence can point to the existence of a god but if you refuse to accept the arguments that's just your position. Others might share your conviction but obviously there are a lot of people out there who don't. You see, once the evidence doesn't allow a definite conclusion to be made, hypotheses will attempt to produce some logical conclusion and I'm sure that any 'religious' evidence which is presented has the existence of an all-powerful being as one possible hypothetical conclusion. Until you can prove otherwise, possibilities remain possibilities and hypotheses remain valid.
Notice I stated "in my humble opinion" to convey the fact that your opinion might differ. I stated a few. I see evidence for evolution (Universal and Human) and us being here as we are. I see the fact that if you are to claim that anything objective exists (that which is independent of your perceptual limits) points to some source of that objective reality other than yourself. Many others - morality - free will - and nothing beats personal experience.
That is where hypotheses come in. That is how science advances because eventually someone seems to hit the nail on the head and we see that everything (hypothesis) agrees with what is observed. Where religionists accept the evidence as true regardless of any other imaginative idea (which is science usually just delays the question of why did that happen) other factors, including faith come into play.
Actually, it would seem that saying "God did it" would suite them (String Theorists) quite well. Of course I think their 'Theory of Everything" would lead them to God. Of course it might be another "quest for eternal physical life".
Indoctrination will forever be with us, even if you fail to recognise it in your daily endeavours.
Come on, give us more credit... without man those things would have never come to fruition in such an ordered state. Like all the components of a watch falling spontaneously into place. Of course you can see it that way if you want.
No, you mean there was no intelligence which only utilised less than 10% of its brain power which directed the evolution of human intellgience. And what do you compare this "crappy" result to? You must have a standard or is this another deluded fantasy? The crappy result used 10% of it's power to create and direct the evolution of these computers (which you hold in such high esteem) to where they are now. Heh, that crappy result is also producing the arguments you attempt to formulate here.
Hmm long post... as necessary
MarcAC said:
Except Christianity itself...
Thinking of Buddhism, perhaps?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha
I have yet to find any verse in the Bible that favors this approach. All I get is a profound and dire warning to believe everything in its pages or burn forever in Hell. Then again, I'm reading for the wider picture. You will no doubt provide some obscure verse buried below the layers of fire and brimstone that hints otherwise.
The Bible is nothing if not derogatory in its assessment of the human intellect. It tells me to exercise my common sense in daily life, but in matters of spirituality, I am to abandon it completely and believe in talking donkeys under threat of hellfire.
Besides, what is faith, if not to "accept without question"?
By the way, before characterizing Bush's power as "illusory," perhaps you should consult an Iraqi. I have a hunch he may disagree.
Josh
Last edited:
Prove to me Christianity is the truth.