This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A question about Religions
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
How would he say that he sent bacteria? How would he explain that to people who lived thousands of years ago?
Omnipotent?
Anyways, it just comes down to likelihood - any conspiracy theory COULD have happened - the Holocaust could have never have happened either, but when it comes down to it, we have to say how LIKELY is that? You say that the Holocaust happened as fact, but in reality you're just having faith that the evidence that supports that it happened is great enough. When I look at the evidence against God, I have faith that there's enough evidence to reasonably reject the conclusion that he exists.
It just comes down to hypocrisy - you don't say that tiny aliens keep things in motion when that perfectly well could be, but why is it acceptable to you to think that god exists without evidence of it? If there's not enough evidence, you don't have to say "That's ambiguous", you just don't acknowledge it at all.
Post by
ASHelmy
How would he say that he sent bacteria? How would he explain that to people who lived thousands of years ago?
Omnipotent?
Anyways, it just comes down to likelihood - any conspiracy theory COULD have happened - the Holocaust could have never have happened either, but when it comes down to it, we have to say how LIKELY is that? You say that the Holocaust happened as fact, but in reality you're just having faith that the evidence that supports that it happened is great enough. When I look at the evidence against God, I have faith that there's enough evidence to reasonably reject the conclusion that he exists.
It just comes down to hypocrisy - you don't say that tiny aliens keep things in motion when that perfectly well could be, but why is it acceptable to you to think that god exists without evidence of it? If there's not enough evidence, you don't have to say "That's ambiguous", you just don't acknowledge it at all.
I acknowledge it because it makes me happier to do so. And more importantly, because Islam is honestly a good system. To this day, I have not regretted listening to what the Qu'ran says even once. I have reason to trust that system. As have other before me, and their lives were drastically better because of it. And just because something is not statistically likely to happen, does not mean it it never happens, as I am sure you know. And how would he explain bacteria to people how did not know anything? That would take several books of it own. The holy books are not books of science.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
I've got a question for the religious folk. (And I'm asking this purely out of interest, I'm not trying to prove a point or anything)
If, hypothetically, a man is brought up somewhere in the wild and no-one has told him anything about science or god or any other beliefs, and he spends his entire life not even thinking about how the universe started, but he's kind to every other living being and never raises a hand to anyone, will he go to heaven?
Furthermore, if a man is told about god, and he actively believes that god doesn't exist, but he too is kind to every living being and never raises a hand to anyone, will he go to heaven?
Sorry if this has already been asked :)
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy."
Ok, fair enough, but what do you believe would happen to them, making an educated guess? I know that only god decides according to the bible, but what do you believe? I'm just interested, that's all :)
I would say that they both wouldn't go to Heaven. The first man would see God's majesty in His creation and the second man refuses to believe.
Post by
Skyfire
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
This ^
Ignorance is bliss?
Wut?
Basic sentence understanding fail?
Wut?
Interpreting "seen" as metaphor for "experienced", I stand by my question: Ignorance is bliss, wut?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.Interpreting "seen" as metaphor for "experienced", I stand by my question: Ignorance is bliss, wut?
A) Someone who has not seen but believes
B) Someone who has not seen and does not believe
Both of those are
ignorance
(as you're defining it, not me), yet only the first one is being called "blessed." So to derived from that the conclusion that the bliss/blessedness is derived from the ignorace/not-seeing part shows a lack of understanding of the sentence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Ok, fair enough, but what do you believe would happen to them, making an educated guess? I know that only god decides according to the bible, but what do you believe? I'm just interested, that's all :)
The most I can say is that the one who chooses to reject God freely and with full knowledge cannot go to heaven.
Post by
TheMediator
-50 DKP to Jesus for encouraging willful ignorance.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Thanks Queggster and Hyper for answering :)
I'm gonna go and try to believe in god then :P
Pascal's Wager
might interest you.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Btw, do you have an awesome Scottish accent?
<3 Awesome Scottish accents.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lecks
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.Interpreting "seen" as metaphor for "experienced", I stand by my question: Ignorance is bliss, wut?
A) Someone who has not seen but believes
B) Someone who has not seen and does not believe
Both of those are
ignorance
(as you're defining it, not me), yet only the first one is being called "blessed." So to derived from that the conclusion that the bliss/blessedness is derived from the ignorace/not-seeing part shows a lack of understanding of the sentence.
And yet, it's still ignorance. So what's your point?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If A and B are both ignorance but only one is 'blessed,' it can't be the ignorance that's making it blessed, now can it.
Therefore it's not ignorance that's 'bliss,' it's belief that's 'bliss.'
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.Interpreting "seen" as metaphor for "experienced", I stand by my question: Ignorance is bliss, wut?
A) Someone who has not seen but believes
B) Someone who has not seen and does not believe
Both of those are
ignorance
(as you're defining it, not me), yet only the first one is being called "blessed." So to derived from that the conclusion that the bliss/blessedness is derived from the ignorace/not-seeing part shows a lack of understanding of the sentence.
You left out two options. If you're going to consider both of those cases of "have not seen", you must also consider those who "have seen".
That throws a wrench right in your counterargument just as well.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You left out two options. If you're going to consider both of those cases of "have not seen", you must also consider those who "have seen".
That throws a wrench right in your counterargument just as well.
It doesn't throw a wrench into anything. Yes, there are 4 cases...the passage only covers 1 of them. I didn't bring in the other two because your argument didn't cover those.
Your point is that the ignorance is what's blessed (or blissful). No, what's blessed is belief despite ignorance.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
it can be argued that ignorance and belief are the same thing.
If I can believe or not believe yet remain ignorant, then they must be different things.
Take aliens. Everyone is ignorant of their existence. I don't believe they exist; my brother does. Therefore it follows that ignorance and belief are not the same thing.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.