Religion is Doomed

[lawdog77]

Or maybe you and brew need to meet somewhere in the middle because each individual is different.

Maybe some religious folks live life to the fullest and treat people with respect, and others don't. And some non-religious folks live life to the fullest and treat people with respect, and others don't.

Crazy, I know.

I get that, and I respect his beliefs. I'm just not a big fan of "knowing there's not an afterlife" and looking down on those that have the faith there is one.

[21Jumpstreet]

Or maybe you and brew need to meet somewhere in the middle because each individual is different.

Maybe some religious folks live life to the fullest and treat people with respect, and others don't. And some non-religious folks live life to the fullest and treat people with respect, and others don't.

Crazy, I know.

Crazy indeed!

[MU82]

I get that, and I respect his beliefs. I'm just not a big fan of "knowing there's not an afterlife" and looking down on those that have the faith there is one.

Agreed.

Most of the trappings of religion seem so "out there" to non-religious people that it's difficult to not "look down" on those who have faith. And it's similar the other way -- faith is so strong that many of the faithful can't understand how others don't share the faith.

All I ask is that one's faith not be forced on others. I don't think that should be a very difficult ask, but to many people it seems to be.

[brewcity77]

I get that, and I respect his beliefs. I'm just not a big fan of "knowing there's not an afterlife" and looking down on those that have the faith there is one.

It's a simple logical conclusion. When the heart stops beating and the neurons stop firing, that's it. If there were a prime mover with the capability religion ascribes to its various gods, it would give humanity as much thought as humans do to individual plankton. There are hundreds of conundrums that undermine the notion of religion.

The religious tend to turn a blind eye or believe in defiance of those conundrums. The non-religious are incapable of ignoring them and it is not possible for them to be convinced or swayed. But ultimately, there are only two possibilities. There is no prime mover that cares about individual human existence, or that being exists and has malign intentions. As I can't possibly conceive of a being of that power that would care about us one way or the other, the former is the only logical conclusion.

[lawdog77]

It's a simple logical conclusion. When the heart stops beating and the neurons stop firing, that's it. If there were a prime mover with the capability religion ascribes to its various gods, it would give humanity as much thought as humans do to individual plankton. There are hundreds of conundrums that undermine the notion of religion.

The religious tend to turn a blind eye or believe in defiance of those conundrums. The non-religious are incapable of ignoring them and it is not possible for them to be convinced or swayed. But ultimately, there are only two possibilities. There is no prime mover that cares about individual human existence, or that being exists and has malign intentions. As I can't possibly conceive of a being of that power that would care about us one way or the other, the former is the only logical conclusion.

How do you jump to that?

[Pakuni]

But ultimately, there are only two possibilities. There is no prime mover that cares about individual human existence, or that being exists and has malign intentions. As I can't possibly conceive of a being of that power that would care about us one way or the other, the former is the only logical conclusion.

As someone who leans strongly agnostic, but is welcoming to the possibility a higher power, I find this little rhetorical trick to be the most obnoxious thing about atheists.

You set up a false dilemma fallacy argument in which "God" - or whatever someone chooses to call their deity - can only be either unthinkably cruel or cannot exist, ignoring infinite other possibilities.
Beyond its weakness as an argument, it's hilariously arrogant (a trait that's never been associated with some atheists) for an atheist to declare what a person of faith must or must not believe. And it's an argument limited to only what the human mind can conceive. I firmly believe that if there is a God, that entity's existence goes far beyond anything our tiny brains can understand. It would have to. Trying to understand God in exclusively  human terms, IMO, is folly.

And sorry, atheists, you're not the first to ponder this question. It's been grappled with by theologians for centuries.

[pbiflyer]

As someone who leans strongly agnostic, but is welcoming to the possibility a higher power, I find this little rhetorical trick to be the most obnoxious thing about atheists.

You set up a false dilemma fallacy argument in which "God" - or whatever someone chooses to call their deity - can only be either unthinkably cruel or cannot exist, ignoring infinite other possibilities.
Beyond its weakness as an argument, it's hilariously arrogant (a trait that's never been associated with some atheists) for an atheist to declare what a person of faith must or must not believe. And it's an argument limited to only what the human mind can conceive. I firmly believe that if there is a God, that entity's existence goes far beyond anything our tiny brains can understand. It would have to. Trying to understand God in exclusively  human terms, IMO, is folly.

And sorry, atheists, you're not the first to ponder this question. It's been grappled with by theologians for centuries.

It's hilarious that true believers can divine what god thinks, wants, says. And worse that they want to impose their interpretation of those thoughts, desires, and words on others.

[muwarrior69]

One can believe in God, and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, without believing in the immaculate conception or that he physically rose from the dead. I can even go with divinely inspired, or a prophet, but I'm not going to believe in something that is inherently not believable.

So I don't think Paul is right about this.

If you actually read First Corinthians chapter 15, for Paul and the others  it is not an act of faith but are witnesses to the risen Christ. I understand for you it is inherently unbelievable, but for them it was an experience of a lifetime. Either one does not believe their account which they openly admit if not true, then Christ is a fraud and Christianity is a lie, or one does. It is pretty simple.

[The Sultan]

If you actually read First Corinthians chapter 15, for Paul and the others  it is not an act of faith but are witnesses to the risen Christ. I understand for you it is inherently unbelievable, but for them it was an experience of a lifetime. Either one does not believe their account which they openly admit if not true, then Christ is a fraud and Christianity is a lie, or one does. It is pretty simple.

I don't believe their accounts.

And no I don't believe that the only thing that makes Christians Christian is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead after three days.

[Uncle Rico]

I don't believe their accounts.

And no I don't believe that the only thing that makes Christians Christian is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead after three days.

I bet I could beat Jesus at tennis

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I bet I could beat Jesus at tennis

The Good Lord is a pickleball player.

[Uncle Rico]

The Good Lord is a pickleball player.

Freaking hippies are always in the way

[muwarrior69]

I don't believe their accounts.

And no I don't believe that the only thing that makes Christians Christian is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead after three days.

That is fine. Most Christians profess that belief when they recite the Creed, there are some that do not, but still believe in the resurrection. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not believe in the resurrection is kind of missing the point.

[Coleman]

I could see how this is true. I know a lot of people that were raised Catholic, and confirmed Catholic, but really don't believe in religion anymore. They still identify as Catholic though.

Like me!

Not religious, still consider myself spiritual and have been trying to open my mind to other ideas and experiences. But I guess Catholicism is still "home base" in terms of my identity.

[Coleman]

That is fine. Most Christians profess that belief when they recite the Creed, there are some that do not, but still believe in the resurrection. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not believe in the resurrection is kind of missing the point.

Not sure I agree with that. I believe that being a Christian, in its most basic form, is being a follower of the teaching's of Jesus (the Beatitudes).

There are forms of Christianity that do not accept the Nicene or Apostles Creeds. They are no less Christian, IMO.

I am skeptical of any flavor of Christianity that claims to have exclusive access to truth. It is my biggest beef with Catholicism.

[muwarrior69]

Not sure I agree with that. I believe that being a Christian, in its most basic form, is being a follower of the teaching's of Jesus (the Beatitudes).

There are forms of Christianity that do not accept the Nicene or Apostles Creeds. They are no less Christian, IMO.

I am skeptical of any flavor of Christianity that claims to have exclusive access to truth. It is my biggest beef with Catholicism.

...and is not one of his teachings that He is the resurrection and the life and who so ever believes in Me though he shall die shall live? I know. Some petty profound stuff to rap our minds around as are the beatitudes.

Sure Christians have accepted or rejected parts of the Nicene Creed, but they all accept Christ's resurrection and as I have said to reject the resurrection is missing the central point of calling oneself a Christian.

[Hards Alumni]

...and is not one of his teachings that He is the resurrection and the life and who so ever believes in Me though he shall die shall live? I know. Some petty profound stuff to rap our minds around as are the beatitudes.

Sure Christians have accepted or rejected parts of the Nicene Creed, but they all accept Christ's resurrection and as I have said to reject the resurrection is missing the central point of calling oneself a Christian.

I thought the main point of calling oneself a Christian is that you follow the teachings of Christ.

Unfortunately, many Christians miss this most important part.

[Jay Bee]

Hopefully a lotta yall like it hot

[tower912]

Well, the way the heat wave is going...

[Skatastrophy]

Hopefully a lotta yall like it hot

lol, nobody believes in a literal hell right? Good grief I have some gold coins to sell you

[Uncle Rico]

Hopefully a lotta yall like it hot

Do you?

[Pakuni]

Hopefully a lotta yall like it hot

"Hell's got all the good bands anyway."
- The Flaming Lips

[The Sultan]

...and is not one of his teachings that He is the resurrection and the life and who so ever believes in Me though he shall die shall live? I know. Some petty profound stuff to rap our minds around as are the beatitudes.

Sure Christians have accepted or rejected parts of the Nicene Creed, but they all accept Christ's resurrection and as I have said to reject the resurrection is missing the central point of calling oneself a Christian.

IMO "the resurrection" is a symbolic representation of the hope in eternal life by the grace of God. That doesn't need a physical resurrection to take place.

[Coleman]

IMO "the resurrection" is a symbolic representation of the hope in eternal life by the grace of God. That doesn't need a physical resurrection to take place.

Yeah the number of people in modern society who are unable or unwilling to distinguish mythos from history is discouraging.

[MU82]

What? Next you're gonna tell us that Noah didn't really live till he was 950 years old!