lol, the fuck are you talking about. Spirituality and the belief in some higher power has been a human thing for eons. Neanderthals would bury their dead with decorations and what not.
go read a book
the need for religion is a need that’s been around since before Mesopotamia. The administration was diffrent…
I choose my beliefs, my parents would take to church, but I never liked it, I just went. I made the choice, I went through some typical atheist dip shit phase and hated it on some 1st grade logical fallacies. I grew up, looked at it like an adult, saw the role religion plays, and made my peace with it.
and here is the typical response. the love for friends and family. You still haven’t answered my question. things get better, what about those who have it bad, suffer, and die alone. What consolation do they have. You are only thinking about your relative perspective. what happens when I die? Is that it? all that struggling I did, all the things I did right, yet I still struggled and suffered everyday. for what? What do I gain from all of that. Seriously
buddhisim is still a philosophy in which one lives their life. Christianity, Kwansa ass fools, Muslims, insert religion x here all are supposed to do that. buddhism provides the same relief other religions provide without the origin story.
The more you “athiests” speak out, the more obvious you are on the anti-chirstian hate mongoring bandwagon that believe it’s Christianityies fault the dark ages happened and was responsible for setting humanity back 1000 years. LOL
And people still killed in the name of Buddhism, so your point is invalid.
THat sounds like a problem with the people who are in charge. Your issue is with institutionalized power, not the idea. Channel your hatred and collect yourself.
You also assume everybody is going to be fine with your choice, with your outlook. You are behaving no diffrent than the fundementals that scream death to infidels. You believe your model is good enough for everybody and it should be the norm
and again, all of you miss the point. You assume too much. Why are all of you responding as if I’m a believer, I asked a question and stated from the beginning my stance.
And why are you talking about school? I never stated anything regarding school and religion, and you still post about that shit while responding to my question. It’s obvious you haven’t read my other posts, where i clearly state the real issue with religion in school.
jAll I’m getting form all of you is a typical copy paste response that you probably saved somewhere on your computer.
why can’t one be spiritual but not religious? if anything, the dogma and rigidity of organized religion kills off any chance you can get to gain true enlightenment. i find beauty in the small and mundane things, and I don’t need religion to ruin it. disclaimer, i don’t consider buddhism, as some people practice it, to be a religion. i dont believe in karma or nirvana or any of that, but i believe in the benefits of meditation and practicing mindfulness.
The question still remains, at what point did humanity in its evolutionary history gain a life force? Do bacterias have a life force? What about viruses? To pass on genes, traits typically have to confer to some sort of advantage to ensure that its genes are propagated. Humans having a soul would make sense only if you believe the creation story where god breathed his spirit into humans. But if you subscribe to evolution, then humans gradually came into existence, so that moment when god breathed into a fully formed human never happened. it gradually happened. which doesn’t really make much sense at all.
Saying god did it is not a scientific model and it is just hand waving. Just like how the sheep herders back in the day saw lightning and thought, “oh god did it”. that explanation sufficed for them. sure that explanation might have made sense back then with their limited understanding, but luckily curious minds dug deeper and gained a better understanding of the how/why of lightning. creationism is much the same way. if we did not evolve but all magically appeared in place by some powerful being, there would be plenty of evidence of it, and as a result, scientists would be able to study the mechanisms for how this powerful alien accomplished these feats. in the case of a painting yes, you could conclude someone painted it, and you would be able to do research and figure out who painted it and how. creationism just says “god does it” and stops at that. its not science. it does not advance knowledge or understanding of the world but instead retards it. young earth creationists argue that the earth is not billions of years old. ok fine, propose a new way of dating how old the earth is, and provide evidence and a rigorous scientific model to defend it. they don’t. all they do is try (unsuccessfully) to invalidate the age of the earth, while not providing an actual alternative theory other than “herp derp god is magical!” that’s not science. if we settled for “herp derp god is magical” we’d still be living in caves.
And no, you cannot disprove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because its most likely santa is imaginary does not mean he is. He could have a highly advanced cloaking field that evades all attempts at human detection. And so on and so forth.
A guy who is currently employed in a role where he has to think critically and be mindful of evidence – and who desired to be something else with similar prerequisites – is touting what many a shithole website has: that there’s biblical “evidence” of modern science in an ancient text written by desert-dwelling farmers who used mythology to explain what was then unexplainable.
This should be cause for reflection, because if he can be a lawyer or a scientist, this planet is in a whole heap of trouble.
I don’t disagree with the idea that in moderation, a belief system isn’t necessarily harmful and can even be inspiring. And of course science is imperfect, which is the point: it doesn’t claim perfection because a counter-claim can throw everything we know into flux. Religious doctrine seldom allows the same flexibility, even if its practitioners choose to ignore those more rigid parts.
When teaching children specifically though, an impressionable young mind that is told something can be true despite a lack of any sort of evidence is going to apply that to anything. These are the type of people that con artists like Sylvia Browne (who claimed herself psychic) prey upon. Best to teach a kid critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, and let that kid decide from there what religion, if any, they will follow.
I don’t think we’re necessarily that far away from each other ideologically. Perhaps this damn toneless internet text is to blame.
I’m not saying that, but a lot of people here are saying you can’t be religious and being religious is stupid, and teaching your kids your faith values is child abuse. Which is the stupidest fucking thing i’ve read in a long time.
And so, you again illustrate the real issue with religion. It’s not religion, it’s the institution in which you peeps have issue with. But 4that doesn’t make the idea retarded. Just like science, it’s a tool an idea/method, it’s the people who ruin the idea.
Lastly, you take philosophical points from Buddhism to live your life. that’s what religion is/should be. A philosophy that you apply to your life to make it better.
Wrong again, I am under no disillusion that force can’t be overcome or that there aren’t rare individuals with religious parents who honestly escaped pressure to convert. I take special issue with “Just you grow up with it, doesnt mean you have to accept it your whole life.” This is not a reason to or not to do anything, and if taken on its own merit excuses just about any mistake a parent makes.
You know what a real example of not forcing something on your kids is? Letting them choose their job. You’re a farmer? Billy doesn’t have to be a farmer. Because that would be barbaric for force your kids to be like you simply because that is who you are. You don’t even have to demand they be a farmer, you impress it on them, you make life decisions for them when they’re young that directs them toward that job. That’s force, and if the kid overcomes it and becomes a stock broker or some shit then everyone on the sidelines breathes a sigh of relief.
Now replace “job” with “religion” and “farmer” with whatever it is religion that you have.
In the single post I read of his, he didn’t say anything horribly wrong. Right now science hasn’t answered the question of what created the big bang so he is right in saying any theory is as good as the other because the fact is we don’t know and we aren’t really close to knowing at the moment. The belief everything came about on its own is as good as something put it there. Till the day science figures that one out or at least makes advances toward figuring that out, any theory is as good as the next.
Your mistake is assuming he meant Creationism as the young earth version which is currently the one at odds with science. A wiser choice would be to ask him to clarify his position because guess what? Creationism is a broad term! We often associate it with strictly the Christian version of it, but the fact is that creationism means as its name sound “someone created the universe” that someone could be a lot of different things if it is true. Even if you can prove the Bible is 100% wrong, you have not disproved the notion of a God, you’ve disproved the notion of the Christian version of God. Logically it could be they were right about there being a God, but totally wrong about the mechanisms used by said God.
So sorry but you inserted your own bias to see the point you wanted to see and followed it by a personal attack. That’s a shitty fucking string of logic.
Just because you are for science does not mean your argument can’t be utter nonsense. If you are going to support science don’t insult those of us in it by using poorly thought out reasoning. Someone defending a logical pursuit by using illogical arguments to me is like someone celebrating that marijuana is illegal by going out to smoke a joint.
Frankly I don’t even know why I am in this thread because so far people have only succeeded in pissing me off even if I agree with their stance because they keep defending their stance in fucking idiotic ways.
You actually answered your own question a bit. We gained our souls through his, like in genesis after the dust was formed we got our spirits. Replace the word “dust” with “bacteria”. This question of yours can be examplified by any man made technology or material. Look at computers, it works when there is energy or electircity in it. Most of it’s components are and originate as mere metal, does the metal or the materials involved automatically come with the electricity to power it on? No. It is infused and a source is used to allow the metal and the components to function. Even science itself shows that it is factual that things can only work through energy. If the metal and components were just built yet not given energy, it just remains as an object.
Like what i said before, the “God did it” is based off observable facts that we have it’s not because we are facing a something and giving it an answer out of the blue. We just don’t have anything to erase that language, order and mechanisms can just be here with out a mind is factual. And if there is, then show me other methods. Those people during that time didn’t have examples or observances to give their conclusion that god is currently throwing bolts, therefore their level understanding should be given the same treatment of level in both ways. In terms of creationism, that logic just doesn’t fit due to the fact of examples and observances.
So then what would be the more logical thing to think? That we were made by a greater mind and then evolved to meet and survive the changes in our enviornment or we just appeared just like that and given the capabilities to progress and change to meet our environments, all from accident?
Next, you can’t use the term “magically appeared” and then apply that to creationism because Creationism doesn’t believe we “magically appeared” we believed we intentionally appeared… “intentionally” contradicts “magically” because magically implies randomness just happened… and which side is arguing against the “intentionally appeared” side? Since scientists are able to study the mechanism shows evidence of an agent because suprisingly, the mechanism is readable and it’s because of that Newton and Galileo knew there has to be a God because how else can a mechanism be that accessible if there was no language, and how else does language produce with out a mind?
The geocentric theory was disproved to be a negative, the flat earth theory was proven to be a negative… what more should i reference?
I kinda cosign on fishjie’s response to you. I think Spirituality and Religion are of two different things, or attitudes if you will. I always found Religion with out spirituality to be just a bad form of politics.
Spirituality is a crap word. Oh look, I’m gonna faith but no religion? So what do you believe? I dunno, I just choose to be mentally aloof.
If you’re gonna believe in something, actually believe in something. Trying to put together a bunch of shit out of thin air and call it spiritually actually makes you fucking retarded compared to religious people.
I don’t think you know what spirituality means bro. Which is understandable since it has undergone change from it’s original meaning. Too put it simply too me as a martial artist, being a spiritual person has to do more with cultivating ones self and discipline than it does with any religion. Less focus on the external and materialistic and more on your own internal functions and how you affect the world around you. Probably why they say that religion is for people afraid of hell and spirituality is for those that have already been there.
How so? i think the fact the citing of theologians to explain the misunderstanding shows the complexity in dealing with these text. That’s how scholars do it when investigating writings of certain periods, you need to take note of translations, teminologies, cultural standpoints and all that when try to get a message of an ancient text.
And saying that or suggesting that we just got it here is not a claim? Is saying God doesn’t exist and it’s scientifically right not a claim If you are trying to engage in intellectual reason, everyone is required to present their evidence. In fact, if you feel you don’t need to present at the least try to show an example to show that we are possibly wrong. You guys gloat out about how Science shows this yet when asked for it, suddenly it’s not a requirement to show? If someone comes to me and claims that Santa Claus exists, even if he is making that claim, i am still at duty to prove him wrong.
Please name a SINGLE logical fallacy about atheism.
I find it fucking ABSURD that a Christian, whose core belief is that people who don’t agree with them get TORTURED FOR ETERNITY would dare call any other group “hate mongers”.
when they claim a god cannot exist or god doesn’t exist. You can’t prove that until you remove yourself from our observable experience into something higher. You especially cannot use logic against something that by default is claimed to be above everything. Do I agree with it? No, but it’s pointless to use logic to disprove something that from the very beginning claims existed before there was anything. You can’t apply rules to something that supposedly can create the rules it wants.
oh and read those txtbook meme’s which are pushed by supposed atheists, and they just so happen to attack one single religion…obviously not all athiest’s push this shit and don’t carry themselves like that, but a large majority i’ve met do.
Look I’m not arguing christian morals or not, I’m not one, and I don’t believe in a god nor do I believe one cannot exist. But it doesn’t matter what the christian does, you can’t commit the same bullshit they do. Be better than them, otherwise you or anybody else scoop to the same level a lot of these stupid christians are.
I don’t know how much more proof you need. It says right there "The world is mine"
This isn’t some secret, esoteric message written by an inbred desert cave dweller on some stretched sheep guts. This is GOD, speaking DIRECTLY TO YOU.