General religion

[Learner]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

We are told by others that God did that. We have not heard it from God. Always those who speak of behalf of their version of God...never God.

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When someone tells you there is an invisible god who wants you to give him money, it’s a scam. They don’t do it just for the money. Passing themselves off as a representative of a god, the scammer is often respected to a level resembling worship.

I believe in Jesus just like I believe in Mohammed, the Pope, Billy Graham, Al Sharpton and Irvin Piell. They all get some degree of worship using the same tricks to lead their flock into a fantasy world. They are all pulling the same scam. Some are more successful than others.

When a theist does something they wouldn’t do in front of their spiritual leader, do they not believe that a god is watching them? People don’t have faith in gods, they have faith in the people who control their fantasy.

Religion is a scam. That is all it is. It seams to me this forum has strong evidence of the scam. All the BS the religious bring to you, plus the fact that everything they bring is BS, certainly is evidence of something.

Writing is extremely difficult for me. I may not be able to make follow up posts.

What brought you to this position? Did you use to believe in God? Do you feel scammed personally in any way?

 

[DBT]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

We are told by others that God did that. We have not heard it from God. Always those who speak of behalf of their version of God...never God.

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

So we are left in the situation where people tell us that they have communicated with God.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As always, a claim without evidence may be rejected without argument.

 

[Learner]

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

So we are left in the situation where people tell us that they have communicated with God.

As I would expect also, right from where we started. 'The communicate with God' is just part of the package...

As always, a claim without evidence may be rejected without argument.

Rejection without argument is a little premature imo - just because one (especially sceptics) can't replicate at will for your satisfaction - having YOU try and communicate with God, for the proof you need (a tad logic-defeating imo). Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible ...other parts of the package that corroborate,e.g. historical, archeological, geological, bio-chemical sciences, and the looking out for prophetic signs and events of course.

 

[southernhybrid]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

We are told by others that God did that. We have not heard it from God. Always those who speak of behalf of their version of God...never God.

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

People believe all kinds of weird stuff, and believing something doesn't make it true. My neighbor believes that burning a white candle brings peace or that sage has some kind of special power, among other things. Your beliefs have no more validity than her beliefs. But, I will tell you the same thing that I tell her....whatever floats your boat, as long as it's harmless is fine with me. Mythology has a powerful grip on many humans. Just try and use those beliefs to do good works and be helpful to your fellow citizens.

If I were to have a religion. It would be that God is love, nothing more and nothing less. God isn't an entity. God is just a concept that represents the better parts of human nature. I say that because the world always needs more love and love is often difficult to maintain. Love often means giving up a little of yourself and sometimes putting the needs of others before yourself. There's a song I like that's called, "Just a Little bit of Love". It claims that's all we need. Now, I would say that's an idealistic myth, but it's a myth I can embrace. Why can't religion be as simple as that?

 

[Learner]

As previously...

Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible, I've changed my mind on a few understandings in regards to parts of scripture just in a couple of weeks. I'm already convinced anyway, so far - I certainly don't know enough to go out preaching, but just want to get on with life at the moment in these times etc.. (I still look things up, depending on particular topics when infuenced / encouraged by discussions like these on the forum.)

I'm all for good works and getting along as you're describing. I just say, It's not so simple for those wanting to seek truth for anyone, what ever form they see it as.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As previously...

Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible, I've changed my mind on a few understandings in regards to parts of scripture just in a couple of weeks. I'm already convinced anyway, so far - I certainly don't know enough to go out preaching, but just want to get on with life at the moment in these times etc.. (I still look things up now and then, perhaps infuenced / encouraged by discussions like these on the forum.)

I'm all for good works and getting along as you're describing. I just say, It's not so simple for those wanting to seek truth what ever form they see it as.

There is a difference between seeking truth and creating truth. In other words:

... a claim without evidence may be rejected without argument.

 

[Learner]

There is a difference between seeking truth and creating truth. In other words:

And a difference between genuinely seeking and not.


Testing ,Studying, 1, 2, 3,.

 

[skepticalbip]

God already did that, yet people still turned their backs to Him as the story goes... meaning, trying by ourselves we'll realise that we WILL need God when the time comes.

We are told by others that God did that. We have not heard it from God. Always those who speak of behalf of their version of God...never God.

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

But which "others"? Muhammad said he communicated with god but got a very different message than Christians that claimed to have communicated with god.

I just had a discussion with god and he told me that both the Christians and Muslims are full of shit - that he hadn't communicated with either. He said that he gave his real message to Gautama Buddha.

Now the question would be, how could you objectively determine which, if any, were trustworthy?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is a difference between seeking truth and creating truth. In other words:

And a difference between genuinely seeking and not.


Testing ,Studying, 1, 2, 3,.

Critical Thinking 101 would identify that as the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Would I be incorrect to think of religion as the practice of True Scotmanism?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Maybe. But no true Christian requires critical thinking to validate faith.

 

[Atheos]

As previously...

Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible, I've changed my mind on a few understandings in regards to parts of scripture just in a couple of weeks. I'm already convinced anyway, so far - I certainly don't know enough to go out preaching, but just want to get on with life at the moment in these times etc.. (I still look things up, depending on particular topics when infuenced / encouraged by discussions like these on the forum.)

I'm all for good works and getting along as you're describing. I just say, It's not so simple for those wanting to seek truth for anyone, what ever form they see it as.

Believers are also encouraged to accept the bible uncritically. Abraham was required to sacrifice Isaac when it made no sense to do so. Nadab and Abihu were burned alive with fire from heaven for a simple alteration to the worship procedure. "Though he slay me yet will I trust him" is the proverb from Job. Saul's downfall was for failure to kill every man, woman, baby and goat belonging to the Amelekite nation as Yahweh had ordered through Samuel. Jesus praised Thomas for believing what he saw and touched with his own hands but then gushed over those who later would believe without seeing (John 20:29). Paul threatens anathema against anyone who preaches "another gospel" whether angel, apostle or garden-variety human (Gal 1:8-9).

The key here is "test and study the bible." If you bury your head in that book and refuse to compare it to anything else or ever honestly question its authority the result is a feedback loop of indoctrination. The moment one opens oneself up to the possibility that these words were written by normal human beings who simply wrote eloquently about their personal religious beliefs a lot more things begin to make sense and one can come to understand there's nothing about the christian bible that distinguishes it objectively from any other religious writing produced during the rich history of human creativity (other than popularity). The mental block that is nurtured in Christianity is the one that says "Satan wants you to doubt God's word. Don't do it, because that's blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, the inspiration for all those writers." The fear of committing an unpardonable sin is a strong incentive to stay in line.

 

[abaddon]

Come on now,

You must know which God DBT was refering to? Who he was posting to?

Did it seem useful to you to skip over how I said that if the Bible is how God communicates then that demonstrates DBT's point?

Yep. What's your favourite 'storiy' of famous people or historic events?

Evolution. Because it's demonstrably true in present times; there's no "testimony" to have faith in.

Whereas people have to fool themselves for the Bible's silly stories to seem true to them. As you keep illustrating every time you talk about "theistic" and "atheistic" perspectives.

Evolution's demonstrably true regardless of anyone's beliefs. So it's a true "story".

You've already established it's from a book and must realise (long long ago), that asking a theist, anything about what God does ... is asking a theists biblical POV, getting an answer in that manner! (I was on about something like revelation btw)

I didn't know if you were talking about Revelations or the day of one's death or other, because you were too vague.

If I'm supposed to believe that God's necessary to survive something or other in the future, there really ought to be a more direct evidence and not just the Bible. That there isn't, is powerful evidence against EoG and Revelations. Anyone who cares about what's true will reach this conclusion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Did it seem useful to you to skip over how I said that if the Bible is how God communicates then that demonstrates DBT's point?


Evolution. Because it's demonstrably true in present times; there's no "testimony" to have faith in.

Whereas people have to fool themselves for the Bible's silly stories to seem true to them. As you keep illustrating every time you talk about "theistic" and "atheistic" perspectives.

Evolution's demonstrably true regardless of anyone's beliefs. So it's a true "story".

You've already established it's from a book and must realise (long long ago), that asking a theist, anything about what God does ... is asking a theists biblical POV, getting an answer in that manner! (I was on about something like revelation btw)

I didn't know if you were talking about Revelations or the day of one's death or other, because you were too vague.

If I'm supposed to believe that God's necessary to survive something or other in the future, there really ought to be a more direct evidence and not just the Bible. That there isn't, is powerful evidence against EoG and Revelations. Anyone who cares about what's true will reach this conclusion.

As I have argued here and elsewhere, the unverifiable nature of the premise in fact implies that if there is a god, god does not want your belief but rather your good behavior for the pure sake of being good to others and self. It strikes me that the correct way to make it through an apocalypse is not to allow your motive to be corrupted with thoughts of the end or of "salvation" or whatever other nonsense.

The inversion of Pascal's Wager continues to apply even in a shitty apocalypse.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah if God isn't evident yet exists then belief is STILL the least virtuous response.

 

[Learner]

I believe those who don't believe, is less likely to. Those "others" communicated with God, should be sufficient enough imo.

But which "others"? Muhammad said he communicated with god but got a very different message than Christians that claimed to have communicated with god.

Within the previous religion topic of Christianity, those others were the prophets or annointed.

I just had a discussion with god and he told me that both the Christians and Muslims are full of shit - that he hadn't communicated with either. He said that he gave his real message to Gautama Buddha.

Now the question would be, how could you objectively determine which, if any, were trustworthy?

I see your point! Will have to ponder on it for a bit. Your communication with a god seems quite "convincing."

 

[Learner]

Believers are also encouraged to accept the bible uncritically.......

Sure to a point. I'm pretty certain that it's more like the difference in interpretations that's not so easily, uncritically accepted !

The key here is "test and study the bible." If you bury your head in that book and refuse to compare it to anything else or ever honestly question its authority the result is a feedback loop of indoctrination.

I think I may know what you mean:

Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible ...other parts of the package that corroborate,e.g. historical, archeological, geological, bio-chemical sciences, and the looking out for prophetic signs and events of course.

 

[DBT]

Wouldn't you expect dialogue that comes from the Creator of the Universe to be clear, concise and completely unambiguous so as to avoid confusion, division or conflict? Yet we have the opposite.

 

[funinspace]

As previously...

Believers are encouraged to test and study the bible, I've changed my mind on a few understandings in regards to parts of scripture just in a couple of weeks. I'm already convinced anyway, so far - I certainly don't know enough to go out preaching, but just want to get on with life at the moment in these times etc.. (I still look things up, depending on particular topics when infuenced / encouraged by discussions like these on the forum.)

I'm all for good works and getting along as you're describing. I just say, It's not so simple for those wanting to seek truth for anyone, what ever form they see it as.

Believers are also encouraged to accept the bible uncritically.

I'd say it depends a lot on the sect in question. For example, many of the churches within the ELCA and UMC definitely support critical thinking, even if it ends up confusing some of the members.