Superstitious God Being
-
all god religions, are superstitious, like satan, god, adam and eve, and also chinese gods like guan yu, god of emperor etc. there are no basis that these beings exists.
-
dead right !
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
all god religions, are superstitious, like satan, god, adam and eve, and also chinese gods like guan yu, god of emperor etc. there are no basis that these beings exists.
-
why believe in an ancient civilisation and a book whose authorship is unknown and primitive. these ancient people dunno that earth is round and that earth revolve round the sound.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
r u a lady first
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
why believe in an ancient civilisation and a book whose authorship is unknown and primitive. these ancient people dunno that earth is round and that earth revolve round the sound.
If its a faith/belief, why do u need proof ?
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
why believe in an ancient civilisation and a book whose authorship is unknown and primitive. these ancient people dunno that earth is round and that earth revolve round the sound.
Fixed: earth revolve around the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Poor galileo, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest after his unfair trial in Rome by the Roman Inquisition.
From wikipedia:
Galileo was ordered to Rome to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world," against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned
The way they behave is like a particular political party in a particular country sia. Their method is exactly the same - imprisoning the opposition. No freedom of speech allowed.
-
exactly. the purpose of having a god so that people can obey the commandments to control people mah.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
If its a faith/belief, why do u need proof ?
too many people are being hoodwinked into believing and then donating their hard earned money to their causes.
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
too many people are being hoodwinked into believing and then donating their hard earned money to their causes.
Those people donate because they choose to do so. We cant argure if they are stupid or clever, its a belief.
-
Originally posted by Hound297:
Fixed: earth revolve around the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Poor galileo, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest after his unfair trial in Rome by the Roman Inquisition.
From wikipedia:
Galileo was ordered to Rome to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world," against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned
The way they behave is like a particular political party in a particular country sia. Their method is exactly the same - imprisoning the opposition. No freedom of speech allowed.
It's alright. Galileo glorified the Christian God, not the church.
-
He whom do not see yet believe will be more blessed that he who see and believe
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
all god religions, are superstitious, like satan, god, adam and eve, and also chinese gods like guan yu, god of emperor etc. there are no basis that these beings exists.
This is my personal view, but it is not without basis. However, to what extent you believe that basis is up to you. Afterall, no matter how much you do not believe in any of these entities, someone, somewhere has written about these entities and handed down something about them.
-
superstition is prevalent in everyone
who calls himself clean is lying, just like scientists find all men watch porn
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
Those people donate because they choose to do so. We cant argure if they are stupid or clever, its a belief.
Yes, what you say is correct. We respect because it is the belief.
The people giving should know their reasons for giving.
Ultimately though, the people managing the church funds are answerable to the congregation. If the congregation as a whole feels they need big expansive,costly buildings, no one can do anything.
Even if auditors come in, so long the payments are really for what the congregation is told, legally at least they have done nothing wrong.
-
What is proof? Why do we have to prove something exists before we can believe? What constitutes proof?
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens. Problem is, this includes his statement too.
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - W.K. Clifford.
So, where is the proof for this claim too? Evidently, these 2 are all self-defeating claims.
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
What is proof? Why do we have to prove something exists before we can believe? What constitutes proof?
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens. Problem is, this includes his statement too.
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - W.K. Clifford.
So, where is the proof for this claim too? Evidently, these 2 are all self-defeating claims.
these two are perfectly rational claims
so where is the proof god exists?
-
In an effort to "raise consciousness", consider this:
The statements "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified" and "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified" are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified
William P Alston in The Rationality of Theism
The statement "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically", is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true".[29] (This kind of issue was a serious problem for logical positivism).
much as i hate to refer to wikipedia, read up on "self-refuting idea".
-
means blindly believe everything
-
A proof that there are no proofs is nonsensical, so is a proof that there are proofs. Reason is the starting point of everything. Cannot treat reasosn as a mere phenomenon, or rather as a consequence of millenias of intuitive knowledge passed on from parents to children. By seeing it as a mere phenomenon, that person is now outside of it, and no way back into it.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
A proof that there are no proofs is nonsensical, so is a proof that there are proofs. Reason is the starting point of everything. Cannot treat reasosn as a mere phenomenon, or rather as a consequence of millenias of intuitive knowledge passed on from parents to children. By seeing it as a mere phenomenon, that person is now outside of it, and no way back into it.
don't misunderstand, i don't deny the existence of proofs. I've merely highlighted the problem of proofs. What do you think of the above self-refuting statements?
I agree that reason is the starting point of everything. So does the Gospel of John in John 1:1-4, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The word "Word" (logos in Greek) can also be translated as logic, reason, wisdom.
So if reason is not a mere phenomenon, or the consequence of "millenias of intuitive knowledge passed on from parents to children", what is reason then? How did it come about? How do we account for the universal laws of logic?