That's a meaningless argument that could be applied to any 'supernatural' viewpoint whatsoever. The fact that we don't 'understand' is the precise reason why many people turn to religion. In any case most people seem to be rejecting very specific notions of the afterlife / higher powers / creation story (ie those taught by organised religion) using entirely logical reasoning rather than some airy fairy intangible possibility that something/anything/****-knows 'exists'.
- Fair play, but to call it a "meaningless argument"? You sound like an intelligent person so surely it cannot be dismissed as such, certainly when there IS so much we do not know. And my post was a reaction to the previous one, I have no religion etc. But I feel people who dismiss things they know nothing about, like that post, are just as stupid as people who follow a religion. Again, we know **** all.
My point was that because we lack knowledge, it doesn't follow that we have to accept that all possibilities are valid. Sure, there might be a big beardy bloke in the sky who made us all in his image, but in the absence of any evidence, it's as preposterous as entertaining the possibility that the greek gods or norse gods or pixie queens or alien dwarves from Uranus exist. And yes, some form of an 'afterlife' might exist, but the current list of religious or supernatural explanations strike me as unlikely (to say the least).
In the absence of evidence, human beings are quite adept at making up things to suit, often in the most ludicrous way. No one knew where barnacle goose went in the summer so some scientists came to the amazing conclusion that they hibernated in the sea. As I said earlier in this thread, 70 per cent of Americans believe in little green men despite there being NO hard evidence to prove they exist. Until there is evidence that God exists what rational person would believe in his/its existence?
You total numpty! "shortsighted nothingness" - Show me ONE bit of evidence to suggest there is a god.
The only religion with any basis in reality is Buddhism, at least we know through corroborating evidence that Buddha was a real, historical figure. And even then he's not a God, just a man. An ordinary man.
Of course the ideas regarding a soul and the process of enlightenment is a different argument altogether...
Moltisanti - ________________________________________________________________________________________ I didn't start this thread as an attack on people who believe in a God, it was an attack on ******s who ignore hundreds of years of scientific evidence, all proven as much as can be, all corroborative and all falsifiable for... dun dun dun... Faith. Faith that the Magic man waved his wand and everything appeared as it is and, not only that, but that he tricked us with fossils, an expanding universe, CMBR, the rapid diversification evident amongst fast-reproducing organisms that allows to SEE evolution, etc, etc, etc... Faith and Ignorant Delusion VS Science and Reason
You boys who are too clever to believe in God make me laugh you know. Evidence? How about your sub-conscious? No one needs to prove their own existence to some one who's so far stuck their own arse
I sincerely hope not, otherwise this God chap has very poor taste. It would be like replacing Drogba with Heskey
There's nothing about the human brain that can't plausibly be explained by chemical and electrical processes. If the human mind is so mysterious and metaphysical, it shouldn't be affected by physical things like drugs, alcohol, and head trauma.
Not at all, there's very little evidence that he even existed. And Jesus is a bit different, given that he supposedly raised the dead, walked on water, exorcised demons, fed 5,000 people with a few fish and bread loaves, healed a paralyzed man, controlled the weather, gave blind men sight, healed a cripples, healed internal bleeding and haemophilia, 'allowed' a deaf man to hear, cured leprosy, restored a severed ear and caused a fig tree to whither because it didn't bear fruit. The earliest accounts about him are from at least a decade after he supposedly died. There are literally NO contemporary records, even by notable historians from the time. Even the most powerful Churches around the world have admitted that certain parts of the Bible were wrongly ascribed to his supposed disciples. Also, Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. The disciples were mostly poor men, such as fishermen and shepherds, who should have been barely literate in their own language. So how did they come to learn classical Greek, given that it is that language in which the earliest accounts detailing Jesus are written? Additionally, the Romans - who apparently crucified him - kept records of EVERY crucifixion they carried out, yet not one exists of that of Jesus. Rather strange, given that he was supposed to have been seen as a massive threat to them and their empire.
You could do with reading the rest, but if you want to carry on letting people think you're a moron then leave it. Alternatively, please tell me of ONE (just one) CONTEMPORARY piece of evidence that supports his existence. There's no written records, no paintings/tableaux, no artefacts, no grave, etc. Absolutely nowt.
