33
   

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:24 am
I don't know how thunder came to be a believer, but I was quite comfortable in my disbelief and did not accept the truth wihout considerable resistance.

The difference for me was my willingness to be taught even if it meant making some uncomfortable changes.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:25 am
is pleonastic a redundant word?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
Just a word I used because I like the sound.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
thunder; I hardly think Frank has come about his disbelief without considerable meditation. What puzzles me are his pleonastic attacks on religion. I suspect he has a certain envy for those of us who have a legitimate hope.


What I don't get is that for some reason, he thinks my conclusions have only come from some guy in a robe, or my parents.

A case for a creator is a book that you seriously need to read.

Quote:
If the "existence of God is more than likely", could you put a figure on that?

90%?

65%?


No, but the possibility of there being a God is the best explanation for our miraculous existence.


Gimme a goddam break, will ya.

One...our existence is "miraculous" only if you arbitrarily designate it as such.

And to assert that "...the possibility of there being a God is the best explanation" for it is pure self-serving, gratuitous nonsense.

I exist. That appears certain to me.

Why do I exist?

I have no idea?

Is it necessary for their to be a God for me to exist?

I don't really know....but it sure as hell does not appear to be necessary.

Is it conceivable that I exist....everyone else exists....and all this stuff exists....and that a God does not exist?


Sure it is conceivable. Sure it is possible.

Is it likely....or is the reverse more likely?

Beats the shyt out of me. I know my theists friends seem to think one way and my atheistic friends seem to think the other way....but I see no reasonable arguments to convince me to guess in either direction.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
If I call it belief, I will get attacked, if I call it faith, I will be called blind, if I concede, it will be ill-reasoned...I think that I'm in a no-win situation surrounded by these people who refuse to try and see my point of view.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:33 am
Most of us have already been "through" your point of view. We somehow grew out of the religious rhetoric and decided logic and science may have more weight in how we decide truths.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:36 am
If you rely on science for all you know, you will come short on your journey for knowledge. Sure science will find naturalistic truths, but will it find the ultimate truth? I think not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:38 am
There is no such thing as "ultimate truth." That's a religious concept.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:39 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
If you rely on science for all you know, you will come short on your journey for knowledge. Sure science will find naturalistic truths, but will it find the ultimate truth? I think not.


I agree.

But what makes you suppose that blind adherence to a set of beliefs will?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:41 am
I never said science was the ultimate truth. "....decided logic and science may have more weight in how we decide truths."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:45 am
According to the bible, the earth is five to six thousand years old.

According to science, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

On the matter of the age of the earth, I trust science to be more accurate, because science is able to provide physical evidence in many different forms.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:50 am
According to some science it is billions of years old, and according to other science, it is thousands. There are many problems with a billions of years theory.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:53 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
According to some science it is billions of years old, and according to other science, it is thousands.
Quote:


Are you saying that there are scientists who claim the world is only a few thousand years old????

Are they in or out of mental institutions?

C'mon, Thunder.



Quote:
There are many problems with a billions of years theory.



Name two?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:55 am
frank, We all know thunder will provide the names of scientists who are also christians - without much credibility in the scientific world.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:56 am
thunder, Try most scientists.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:57 am
correction of dupl post. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:57 am
i think one of the mainstays of religion is all those questions that science cant explain or at least, could not explain at the time of that religion's inception.

if darwin was born some 6000 years ago and observed what he later did, then we would not have had all these gobbledegok evolution theories and religious takes on the date of the earth and man's creation.


and the religions which did expain with arcane myths what the science of those days couldn't - wouldn't probably have had as many followers - surely not those that took to it by being impressed with the esoteric and scientifically impossible (today's science) explainations.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:01 am
True ci

TR I'm not picking on you. I dont think anyone else is either, although I can understand why you might think they are.

Most people respect other people's deeply held religious beliefs and dont challenge them, if for no other reason so as not to cause unnecessary offence.

But unfortunately I think it is time to end this gentlemanly stand off. The fact is that religion has always inspired and still inspires today acts of the most heinous kind. The tsunami last year was not an act of God, but the attacks of 911 were certainly motivated by a fanatical desire to do the will of Allah.

Was 911 an act of God?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:58 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Most people respect other people's deeply held religious beliefs and dont challenge them, if for no other reason so as not to cause unnecessary offence.

But unfortunately I think it is time to end this gentlemanly stand off. The fact is that religion has always inspired and still inspires today acts of the most heinous kind. The tsunami last year was not an act of God, but the attacks of 911 were certainly motivated by a fanatical desire to do the will of Allah.

Was 911 an act of God?


Absolutely right Steve, and just to emphasize the point, please look at this post.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:35 pm
Thanks Mesquite

I've had various run-ins with Muslim1. I'm not surprised he posts justifications for the murder of people who change their ideas.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 04:06:24