Your question was rhetorical, sir. We are not debating if it would make sense or not for "god" to do something, but whether or not he exists, I am saying he doesn't, so why would I answer that question? It has no relevance to the debate about the viability of his existence.
I didn't mean for the question to be rhetorical, I honestly wanted an answer. If you refuse to answer it, that's cool. It's your thread. 😠I'll never make you a believer an you'll never make me a disbeliever. The "proof" I would use for the existence of God would equal science and nature to you possibly (flowers, trees, birds and bees). The only minds that would change from a debate on the existence of God are sitting the fence anyway. Personally, I appreciate that you even posted this, since this is the kind of thing me and the homies tallk about when we blaze
Thank you for the kind words . I don't refuse to answer that, and I understand that if you believe in a god, it is a legitimate question, and I don't think anyone could answer it because if a god existed, we would lack the capability to comprehend it. What I meant was that the answer to that question doesn't really have any implications in the debate for or against the existence of god. That's a whole different topic.
Why does there have to be a reward for belief at all? If god loved us like his children, why would he reward us for believing things without reason? Why would he encourage us to stumble around blindly believing any stupid idea that pops into our heads? Only ideologies with no basis in fact try to make a virtue of ignorance because they rely on faith - the firm belief in something without evidence. Faith is not a virtue. Being gullible enough to buy any story someone sells you without evidence is not something to be celebrated.
I think the church is more about the ppl. Ie: helping each other Keeping others out of trouble keeping self and others happy bla bla But they use god as their mascot, Like a football team would use a crab. or a hockey team a squid. tho there are the ones that take it as a money maker. want you to give 10% to the church, the donation pan passed around, And some churches do very well using god as a con to get ppls money. Big churches built. Big embezzlement schemes. Some use it as a sanctuary to fondle little boys and get away with it. Some to shed blood and blame god for telling them to do so. Some to brain wash a group of ppl just like the Gov does. A head strong person that likes control. A gang with virtually nothing to offer but an idea. peace of mind for giving them your hard earned money(what the Gov. hasn't already taken). I think the bible was really written to scare ppl into following a certain group. taking gold and power. Some even became so big they threatened entire empires. propaganda at it finest.
I think good people do good things, whether they belong to a church or not. Look at the humanist associations around the world and foundations like Beyond Belief. Good people don't need the church, the church needs good people. Church's desperately need good people to fund their operations and empower their political machinations and also to do good things in their name so they can take the credit to justify their continued employment. That's essentially what the church is. It's like a union. Everyone pays their fees in donations, tithes, etc and the church gets paid for its services. I choose to think much more of my fellow man than the 'chosen ones' of any given religion do. I think that without the church, those good people would naturally do good things anyway. Religious people tend to think that without the church, their fellow members would have no morality and would go astray committing 'sins'.
Your shitty bible quotes aren't convincing anyone. Wow, just like a typical religious fanatic to cop out of an intelligent debate.
Actually I'm far more inclined to believe in the darker side than the light. Ghosts, demons, stuff like that. I've had experiences in my life that leaves no doubt in my mind that evil stuff exists, but I've seen no evidence that any positive power exists out there. If there is, it certainly hasn't communicated with me, and believe me, I've tried.
Do you really think just saying that over and over will make it true? You accuse me of lacking knowledge about religions yet you don't know that Taoist schools claim that they can achieve longevity and even immortality through their practices? That's a claim that's testable. So is claiming to be able to divine the future, which they also say can be done. Sikhism was only invented in the 15th century and is an excellent example of trying to claim revealed knowledge of an all powerful god without actually making any real claims or saying anything meaningful. They say their god is all powerful and omnipresent, yet formless and unknowable (except the ten gurus seem to have conveniently managed to know). But even they make claims which can be tested. They say that "once the truth begins to shine in a person's heart, they can understand the essence of all holy books from all religions both now and in the past. That can be tested. So far I've yet to meet or hear of a Sikh with an understanding of pre-babylonian Sumerian scripture so either they're as full of crap as the rest, or they just suck at their own religion. They also believe that all religions are valid. A claim that falls apart as soon as it's examined. If you have an actual point to consider, lay it on us. But if you're just going to repeat the same false statement over and over, please do it somewhere else.
You're free to have your beliefs, but don't taint the name. Of science or religion with them. The religious experience was cultivated and transmitted for a good reason. Nothing to test. Simple as that. Want to speak on Sikhism? Sikhism says there is an experience to be had and one has to put in effort to achieve it. The message is universal. Buddhism says no god, Sikhism says one god. It's the same in the end. Your bitterness of where humans have failed in the name of religion isn't a valid excuse to reject the treasure that religion harbours.
Your premise is false to begin with. Religion doesn't step on the toes of science. Simple as that. If you have something proper to say, then say it. Otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.
When religions make a claim that has an effect on the natural world, it can be tested by science. Science is the observation of the natural world. Is that seriously too complicated for you to understand? So far all you've offered is criticism with nothing to back it up and outright false statements.
Lol you dunce. I say religion in general isn't meant to make claims about the natural world. If it does, then it isn't religion. Religion has nothing to say about science. Science might become interrelated because we can't separate science from anything, but if religion goes against science, then throw that idea out the window, revise it. Religion has a particular domain and purpose. Not only that, but it has a particular language as well. None of it having to do with making claims. Religion was never meant to make claims and prove them. It's a human institution that water the roots of human socialization and culture. Religion has to do entirely with the personal and subjective experience. Is that seriously so complicated for you to understand?
Pure nonsense. I hate to burst your bubble, but your definition of religion is drivel. As is your characterisation of what I said. I haven't said religion makes claims about science, nor did I say they have to. Religions make claims about the nature of the natural world. Is this sinking in at all, or are you really trying to say that 'real' religions, whatever the hell you conveniently define them as in your head, make no claim to know anything about the nature of the universe? So far you've repeated the same laughably farcical argument three times now and misrepresented what I've said twice in your efforts to build a straw man you can knock down and now we have the most pathetic use of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy I've seen in some time. Are you saying the Taoists claim to be able to divine the future isn't a testable claim? If that's the case you have no understanding of science and philosophy whatsoever. If you understand that a claim like that can be tested, then by your ridiculous argument, are you saying that Taoism isn't a religion then since it makes a claim that can be tested by science? Bearing in mind that you cited Taoism as a religion in your false assertion about it's lack of claims? You still haven't offered anything to back your argument in the form of either reason or example