96
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 10:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I dunno man, if you can pick up a conversation after five years like it was yesterday, that’s pretty good.
0 Replies
 
LD Saunders
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 03:27 pm
@reasoning logic,
You are assuming that all religions make claims that can be proven false, which is not true. Not all religions even have theistic beliefs.

As far as your later comment that if a God can make DNA, then why can't it do something less complicated like make us believe in it, there are a number of problems with this position: 1. You assume one God as opposed to many. 2. You assume this alleged God would want to make its presence known. 3. You assume that it would be easier for this alleged God to prove to us it exists than to make DNA. If we gave this alleged God a characteristic, like being "all powerful," then how could it ever prove to me that it is all-powerful? It couldn't. Even if this alleged God did every thing I asked of it for the last 20 years, for all anyone knows, the very next task I ask this God to perform, it won't be able to do. So, it would actually, depending on how one defines this alleged God, be far easier to make DNA than to prove it exists.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 01:18 am
@LD Saunders,
Quote:

Re: reasoning logic (Post 5289976)
You are assuming that all religions make claims that can be proven false, which is not true. Not all religions even have theistic beliefs.

If you read through this long thread you will see that those 'assumptions' have already been deconstructed without any specific reference to a deity. Indeed, beyond the futile 'evidence for God' debate, even that 'I' you are currently calling yourself only has ephemeral existential status according some philosophers.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2018 09:23 am
@Setanta,
I suspect that your standard of living is well above Christopher Columbus' or queen Isabella's and so far above 90% of the people in this world that you must be more greedy than Christopher Columbus. But I suspect you don't risk life or limb to gain your creature comfort's like he did. So does that make you lazier or or greedier than Christopher Columbus?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2018 04:58 pm
@LD Saunders,
Gods are all manmade imaginary things like comic book characters. It's about money and control of the mind. I've visited some of the most beautiful religious' temples in the world costing large amounts of assets and energy even in predominantly poor third world countries. My question is always "why?" Money and control = control and money.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 07:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Instead of asking why you would build the temple why don't you ask the people to build? I am sure that their answer is a lot different than your answer of, "control and money."
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 06:33 am
@brianjakub,
Most of the old Christian buildings in England were financed by bequests of the rich who thought this would secure their place in 'heaven'. No doubt such celestial type aspirations are common to all all involved in religious constructions. The big joke is the favourable tax status of such businesses.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 10:38 am
@fresco,
Sounds like an intelligent decision to me. Wouldn't you agree as long as they can provide an understandable reason for that belief.
0 Replies
 
NO-NAME
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2018 03:27 am
@reasoning logic,
A slave believes what he is told but a free man creates his own beliefs
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2018 06:32 am
@NO-NAME,
How can a free man create beliefs about an evolving system of information as vast as the universe when he is such a small insignificant part of it? Shouldnt there be something bigger than him that organized the system he is such a small part of which gave him the ability to belive?
0 Replies
 
Jewels Vern
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2019 02:35 pm
Religion is made up by men telling each other what to do. Christianity is not a religion, it is a family relationship, specifically son of God. The only thing a Christian has to do is go to heaven.

There is a religion which is called Christianity, but it is in fact the current version of a pagan church called Babylon Mystery Religion. You can get several books with that title by different authors, investigating the history.

We have some philosophies called religion, just because we don't have any other term for them. For instance, some "eastern religions" are merely meditation, and some are not even that.

In the end, you can not say for sure that a religion is wrong if you haven't studied it. And you can't study it if you don't believe it. If you don't believe something it is nonsense by definition.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2019 03:46 pm
@Jewels Vern,
Quote:
In the end, you can not say for sure that a religion is wrong if you haven't studied it. And you can't study it if you don't believe it. If you don't believe something it is nonsense by definition.
Religion is wrong on many fronts and facts. The Christian religion which is the most favored in our country is based on Greek mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology The fact that there are over 1,000 religions in the world should prove they are all men's creation not dissimilar to Dagwood and Popeye. It's impossible to provide evidence for any god. There is scientific evidence and presumptions on how our planet and life forms came to be. There are more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism. Even the evolution of Homo sapiens has evidence. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2019 07:55 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Religion is wrong on many fronts and facts. The Christian religion which is the most favored in our country is based on Greek mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

I wish you would read your own sources once in awhile. It says:

Quote:
virtually all New Testament scholars and historians of the ancient Near East agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure


Fact: Christianity was based on that historical figure. You can believe what you want about him but good grief man, Greek mythology?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2019 07:48 pm
@Leadfoot,
Bible scholars is an oxymoron. Study how the Bible was assembled from many many books and many many authors. The final product is full of errors and contradictions. Beyond that, it’s impossible to provide any evidence for your god. Why did your god appear only 2000 years ago when humans roamed this planet for 200,000 years? Also, study the evolution of Homo sapiens that are based on evidence. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1296. Finally, according to your bible, earth is 7,000 years old, but scientists have determined that planet earth is 4.5 billion years old. It’s entirely your choice to believe in your fictitious god, but don’t try to sell your religious belief on others. Men have created over a thousand gods. That’s the clue that they are all fiction.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 07:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Bible scholars is an oxymoron.

Consider your bigotry noted.

You conveniently ignored this part of the quote from YOUR source. Now I suppose you are going to postulate that we can't trust secular historians either?

Quote:
Quote:
virtually all New Testament scholars and historians of the ancient Near East agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 09:41 am
@Leadfoot,
Your quotation is unattributed and is therefore as meaningful as any unattributed quotation. In short it could be from some academic institution or some blowhard down the pub.

Even if it is from a reputable organisation the wording acknowledges that there are historians who doubt that Jesus existed as a historical figure.

You don't seem to understand what bigotry is, it's all about discriminating against people because of factors they cannot control. CI has not discriminated against you at all, he's merely questioned the existence of a semi mythical figure.

Personally I think there was a historical figure(s), but there's no real hard evidence that he existed, and if he did exist he was very different from the character that exists in scripture, or even an amalgam.

Luke was very good at shoe ironing Biblical prophecies into his gospel regardless of whether or not there was any truth to it. The nativity and census being prime examples.

Quote:
There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, nine years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 12:36 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Personally I think there was a historical figure(s), but there's no real hard evidence that he existed, and if he did exist he was very different from the character that exists in scripture, or even an amalgam.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 12:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There were lots of messianic figures around at the time, Jesus could easily be a composite.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 12:48 pm
@izzythepush,
That's probably true, because the character Jesus was created long after his supposed existence by many authors.
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 02:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I read--Alan Watts, I believe--that the early Christians formulating the religion after Christ's death were at a loss as to how he fit into the religion. Their answer was to--in Watt's words--"kick him upstairs", that is, to make him and the religion supernatural. It may have saved the religion, but it destroyed the spirit of Christ's message.

Alan Watts was a mystic, and this was his interpretation of the spirit of Christianity.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 05:41:47