Messages

Yes, Andrew, you repeteadly said (not in this thread) that the message of the new testament is that "we are forgiven".

I can read, and I can remember.

Obvious.

<sigh>
Ps. I know enough about Quantum Physics to know that nothing is impossible (with the exception of objectivity).

In singularities and in microsmall scale. Does that mean that you can out a couple of each animal kind in a boat? No.

And Ozzie, i think you should say "A post from Nacho that is, in my opinion, sensible" From my point of view, all the post I do are sensible, otherwise I wouldn't post them ^_^.

That's one of the big problems of Religion, too, and now I am strictly talking from the point of view of the "users".

I mean, for SSH if you are good you are saved, no matter if you believe or not (I think it's a quite sensible belief).

Some others think that, no matter how good you behave, if you don' t believe you can' t go to heaven.

Some others think that the message is that "Christ paid for our sins, so, we are forgiven".

Some people think that what Bible say is "Behave with the others as you want the others to behave with you"

So... which is the value of the Bible if any person reading it takes different conclussions?

Does it make sense to you that, after reading a flight manual, the angle of approaching to the landing track is:
12º for 3 of the guys who read the manual.
16º for 7.
01º for 12.
05º for 4.

For me, the value of that book, as a manual, would be 0.

Misj:

"Irrational: Not rational; unfounded or nonsensical.
an irrational decision"

So, basically... Yes.

Religion is the most irrational popular belief. If people changes and start believing more in some other irrational thing, I will start fighting against it, meanwhile...

Tuomas, what I repeteadly said is that religion has to be taken out of any official institution. I don' t care what people believes indoors. It's a pitty they tech their kids something irrational, but that' s their problem.

I never said anyone "Don't  believe". What I say is that there is no evidence, that it' s irrational, and that you must not try to convince me.

If you think I am saying something else... Read the posts again.

@SSH. I was not talking of "people in other religions having such experiences"

(I don 't know from where you took that, since I wrote: "There is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience", but it' s okay)

I was talking of people who had important experiences based on friendship, people who has been touched by movies, books, by love... Yes, even experiences based in following a football team.

Those experiences, from outside (I can' t tell since I never had a religious experience) look indistinguishable from religious ones I've witnessed. I can't tell which ones were "more vivid", since I was not "inside of that person" to know what he/she was really experiencing, but, from outside, they look equal.

And if in "experiences B" I know there is not "divine intervention" (Unless you tell me that you really believe there is something divine on crying after seeing Darth Vader dying for the zillionth time or seeing how your football team wins the Champion's League), then, with "experiences A" (The religious ones) there' s nothing telling me that there actually is a divine intervention. If the divine experiences are different from the "normal" ones I could say "Hey, it' s true, there is something unexplained there, it must be God".

But they are not.

Unless you say "My experiences are better than yours". Well... You can' t, because you can' t know what I feel. If, even with that, you go on saying "I can't  feel what you feel, but, even with that, I know that my experiences are more valid than yours", then, you should feeling superior to me (Because you would be assumimg that you can do something I can' t and because you would be assuming that something we described in simillar words is "better" when "felt by you", and not "when felt by me").

And that' s another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

I might not know much of debate, but at least I know about physics... And I know that Bible is full of impossible things... and I know that believing in something without having more evidence that "believe it because I say so!" is not the correct way to procede (It opens the door to "Black people are infra humans! Why? Because I say it!" or "Women are less intelligent! Why??? Because I say it")

Do you believe in something? Prove it to me.

Your "evidences" are the experiences you had with God? Okay. I can testify that there is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience". You don' t believe my word? Okay... I don't believe yours.

Does your "People who uses banana phones are weird" belief include the argument that anyone considering the opposite is wrong?
Is your belief told to million of kids every year, without any warning that your belief might be false?
Is yur belief official in many countries?
Does your belief receive money in any countries, no matter if you want or not?

That are important points...

Thanks. Your point is clear.

You want me to accept your beliefs giving me the same level of evidences you would consider insufficient if coming from me.

THAT, is RELIGION.

My personal experience tells me that many believers believe just because of that. It doesn't work for you? Perfect. Your personal religious experiences do not work for me, either.

What I ask, is, that I am told to accept someone' s beliefs even if he ask not further evidence than "They are mine", they must accept my beliefs of not believing. Since the original belief is "You must believe in God, and the ones who do not are wrong" that's a believe that I can't accept.

EDIT: Oh, you don' t accept my "anecdotes" te believe me when I say that a lot of people believe because "it is easy" but I must accept your "anecdotes" when you tell me that "God is real"? How is that?

So, your "evidences" work, and when I reply exactly the same, on the other side don't?

Mmmm... I thought this was about being respectful... Apparently RELIGION does not accept what it asks the others to accept. It' s not respectfull.

And yes, that "the bible is full of lies" is an evidence. It' s full of things that are impossible from the point of view of physics. Want me to start?

My evidences about my statement that people believes because it's a "jocker" they can use in the unlikely case that life after life exist are:

My personal experience about believers, many other's personal experiences about believers, because they have told to me, because there is no rational reason to believe in it other than that, that the Bible is full of lies and nothing on it shows it has been inspired by something else than man.

Show me that evidences.

One different to "I believe it and I know it's true", please.

Or telling them "I believe them in a complete irrational way. There are no evidences suporting my beliefs and I might be wrong".

But none, of almost none of religious parents say that to their children.

If you are right, your kids will live forever. If you do not, then it doesn't matter what they believed when they were alive after dying, they will be dead, and nothing else that dead.

So, let' s believe, a sure way to win!

It' s one of the main reasons why people belive, yes...

I don't think that a "real believer" can really accept that the others might be right, since "real belief" is basically, believe upon all the rest.

If believing means "Believe in me, but respect the others", then I might agree, but for belivers, the thing has allways been "Believe in me, full stop".

Yay! Many replies!

I will try to reply to all of them in the best way I can:

Voh, apparently you disproved the existence of Spider-Man. the existence of God it' s supported by the same amount of evidences. If you can disprove one, and not the other, it's a mistery for me. A mistery that must have answered by you, not me.

God is a supernatural being. An evidence of a supernatural being could be an a proof that something supernatural has been made. Bible is full of "evidences" that support that supernatural things happened (Divine interventions, such creating everything, open the red sea, creating the lenguajes, send us the Deluge...). Everybody agrees that "those evidences" are flawed, so... No evidences.

We are at the starting point, we have nothing.

No archaelogical support.
No rational support.
No scientific support.

Only... "Faith".

Of course, a "common faith" sprouting in the mind of all the earth population at the same time, making everybody feel the same and worshipping the same, would be a big evidence that "something" supernatural put that "faith" there. It should be an unexplained event. As far as I know, inexplicable as well.
But we do not have that. We have "Allahs", "Jahvés", "Gods", "Vishnus", etc, etc... What I can't really understand why believers say "respect me", and are not able to respect, as somebody else said, "StarWarism", "Scientology", "LordoftheRigsosism", or "Flyngspaghettisism".

Where do you put the line? You put the line in that commonly accepted Gods are older?

Ok, that earth was flat is a quite old concept... Excuse me if I don't trust of it. The "age" of the beliefs has never been a support about its plausability.

Do we "accept this commonly accepted Gods" because they are more popular? No. At least, we shouldn' t. Truth is truth, no matter if it's deffensed by everybody or only one (or novbody).

I think that the number of people in the USA believing that the Earth was the centre of the Universe still is around 30%. Even if they were 99%, the Sun would still be the centre of our System. Faith do not move mountains, or planets...

I didn' t deny the existence of God... I just say that the amount of evidences to support its existence is equal to the ones supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti, the Smurs, Superman, or the  pink Unicorn. CERO. Since it' s impossible to proof the unexistance of something, I will not try to prove the unexistance of God. Why do believers say that "Everything but my belief" is false? I don't  know.

I' ve been asked to "respect them".

How can I?

They say "My God is real".

They don' t say "I think my God is real", or "God is real for me", or "Man, it probably does not exist after all, but I draw a set of moral techings from Bible that work for me".

They say "God is real, if you don' t believe in him, you are wrong".

Which could be ok... When you argue with someone, no matter how polite you are, you are basically saying that your point of view is correct, and the other' s side is not, let' s face it. But religion has a set of institutional and moral advantages that are unfair.

If we find that a parent is putting a set of irrational ideas into a kid's mind, with no support of logic, rationality or critical thinking we would probably complain. It is unfair, the kid can' t fight against those irrational ideas. "Man, it' s my dad who is telling me that, it must be true! It' s my teacher who is telling me that! An adult! It MUST be true!"

Why we don't complain when the set of irrational belifs comes in the accepted pack called "Religion"? We should.

At the end, the only reply, no matter how you express it is: "Because I believe on it".

And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

I said I am open to change "idiot" to "illogical", Zoot...

But man... believing that a guy opened the red sea is... phew...

@Ozzie: We simply can't  demmand separation of church and state if believers don' t recognise that their beliefs are indistinguisable from any other belief created by man, because if they don' t recognise so, they will allways find that they have "the divine right" to keep church and state together.