Mildly, but they're kids so...
I hope they don't grow up to be obedient to anyone. Respecting people and often their wishes or the danger they pose, well that's fine.
Religions are morally wrong.
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Mildly, but they're kids so...
I hope they don't grow up to be obedient to anyone. Respecting people and often their wishes or the danger they pose, well that's fine.
No, it just supposes that people claim to know "god" or something about god - as if they should trust their senses to reveal the timeless to a timebound being. Just doesn't seem like good judgement, but I don't condemn the belief in god really, just religion making or people making claims about it.
Meh. I'm just irreverent is all.
I'm not, but IMO - they shouldn't be either. That they would makes me question their integrity. When one asserts a universal beyond doubt, that's a mighty tall ego as far as I'm concerned. To state the universal is to take the vantage point of 'god', which is literally quite disgusting to me if taken seriously, even if the message has a net positive effect. Of course my disgust is rather irrelevant, pardon. I tend to take the opinion that nothing is or could possibly be out of place (ignoring human expectation) when I'm not being emotional.
Meh, not particularly no. I see value in religion mind you - I'm just playing with the idea that religion is actually morally wrong.
Last edited:
no I didn't advocate that.
I advocated that 'reality' is some way (one way) and that if per chance even one 'has it right' all the others must 'have it wrong' in varying degrees.
I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe since Mormons don't believe in Hell.
In a world where God is not, has never been nor ever will be present it is logical to expect a religion or two or thousands. Its not morally wrong to guess. Any actual religion is harmless until the immoral decide to work to rule.
?
As far as I know (and I have a couple of years of Mormon experience), they do believe in eternal hell.
With this, you still seem to think that it is impossible for a person to know something universal or something about the universal.
I agree that many people who claim knowledge of the Absolute, of the Universal, have something egoistic at stake in doing so. However, already for the sake of accuracy and critical thought, I think the possibility must be admitted that someone might actually know the Absolute or something about it. Unless of course we are to apriori postulate that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it. But how are we to defend such a postulation? On the grounds of what can we competently claim that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it?
please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )
given that even mundane diplomacy operates on identical principles, it's not clear why a bonafide representative can not represent the needs, interests and concerns of their superior - if you don't believe me, just try blowing up american embassies while simultaneously trying to be friendly with the US president
It always amazes me how atheists can lodge arguments that are even absurd in mundane life.
I agree, especially when you don't have the foundation to evaluate such arguments.
They will when Adstar introduces them to the Lake of Fire
First, it is necessary to define the Absolute and see whether such an entity exists. The absolute what exactly ?
No, I claim it impossible for them to know they know.
I know I exist but if really... REALLY pressed on the issue... *shrug*. What's the difference? I think I know I exist, that's the best there is.
Rather, it seems impossible to me.
Last edited:
Isn't it patently obvious that given the thousands of years of debate and study with zero to show for it, there are no gods? Just people trying desperately to understand why they will terminate? Hoping that it just ain't so?
It's harsh, but when you get down to it, LG or any other theist has no more certainty of anything beyond an indifferent cosmos than I do. Everyone is as clueless as a newborn baby when it comes to this. The fact is that there is no reason other than hope to believe in anything other than simple oblivion.
It's harsh, but when you get down to it, LG or any other theist has no more certainty of anything beyond an indifferent cosmos than I do. Everyone is as clueless as a newborn baby when it comes to this. The fact is that there is no reason other than hope to believe in anything other than simple oblivion.
Couldn't agree more. God's existence is either a yes, no or maybe. That's it. We can't go any further without any real proof. Everything else is speculation.
well, given that there is no foundation for direct perception of atheist claims, neither do you
Given your statement above, I would say that it is patently obvious that you have not seriously investigated theistic claims ... what to speak of applying theistic methodologies etc
there is a sanskrit aphorism "atmavan jagat"
basically it translates as "as I think, everyone else in the universe thinks"
It is used to illustrate the folly of persons who think that there can be no greater reservoir of knowledge than what they possess
glad you acknowledge that there is a distinction between "all the others are lying" and "having it wrong to varying degrees"
but now to move on a step further
would you say that the maths one learns as an eight year old is "wrong to a varying degree" compared to the maths one learns as a twenty-one year old?
or would you say that the maths you learnt as an eight year old was merely a stepping stone, since 1+1=2 is the same in either scenario?
