firedragon
Veteran Member
It was the intent, not the discussion, that was being questioned.
)_.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It was the intent, not the discussion, that was being questioned.
The forum is not to discuss religious topics? Change the name.
Who are you?
You just spoke of yourself.
Everyone is. That is why its absurd to ask about other peoples passions or as you called "Obsessions".
That could be turned around right back at you as well. As in, 'why are you obsessed about other peoples obsessions"?
I am not accusing you of anything. But this forum is for this purpose. It is absurd to go to forum that is called religious forums and question peoples religious discussions.
Strange.
You said the purpose of the forum was for allowing people to proselytize.
Of course I did. I don't presume to speak for others.
Sorry but you just made that up.
Of vs For.
I'm not going to argue with you. It's right there in black and white.
God is Spirit. The spirit of a thing is the very notion of this thing. Definition. Spirit of Love, Spirit of Knowledge am God. Therefore, God is Science Himself.
That is only relevant to the awareness of the one. It doesn't suggest there is anyone else who knows. Nor that the one exists.But what about this:
All-knowing one would know about own existence as well. Hence, he does exist.
Nope. Made up. You just made that up.
Unbelievable.
Just so you know, it's okay to make a mistake and be wrong.
Another thread, making another claim for "proof", and of course offering absolutely nothing beyond vague claims and bare assertions, to possess some hidden esoteric truth. I've seen it all too many times before.
I don't need saving. The idea I'm at risk of anything after I die is not supported by a shred of any objective evidence, so I am not remotely concerned about the claim, I worry far more about climate change, and with good reason.
Then the god(s) he is wrong about could any god(s) from any religion that anyone has ever conceived. Or any that hasn't. It could be a god that doesn't care. Or a pantheon of gods only interested in people who don't use faith to make decisionsSo you don’t care you might be wrong? Then your views are infallible? Assertion that others are wrong and you are right doesn’t make it so. What if you’ve made a major error of judgement and there is a God?
Then the god(s) he is wrong about could any god(s) from any religion that anyone has ever conceived. Or any that hasn't. It could be a god that doesn't care. Or a pantheon of gods only interested in people who don't use faith to make decisions
I agree.I think all we can each do is sift through the information we each have from our education, study and life experience and then do the best we can to make head or tail of life, God and so on.
That is definitely false. I can definitely blame all of the people who have done harm based on the direct and immoral instructions of their religion. Your religion bars same sex sex. Immoral. At least you got the slavery thing right.We can only believe what we feel is true according to our own understanding and interpretation. No one can be blamed for understanding differently. Everyone, I believe has an important aspect of truth we can learn from.
Me too. Some, of which I am deeply ashamed. But I don't take the things that I believe are true and good to be unquestionable. My positions are always open to revision with the discovery of new evidence and better reasoning. Morality is not a set of rules.I made many mistakes and still do. I look back sometimes and think I should have been more humble and hopefully I become a better human being.
I agree. But we are only going to get there by walking the path of hard truths.To me, the most important thing is not that you believe what I believe, but that you and your children and future generations get to live in a world of peace, prosperity and happiness without war, prejudices and hatreds. That everyone will have plenty to eat, clothing, food and shelter and access to education and medical care.
That is certainly a good thought.It doesn’t matter to me what others believe. I just want them to inherit a better world and do everything in my power to make it happen. So whatever you believe or don’t, you are part of my human family and that’s what matters most above all.
I agree.
That is definitely false. I can definitely blame all of the people who have done harm based on the direct and immoral instructions of their religion. Your religion bars same sex sex. Immoral. At least you got the slavery thing right.
Me too. Some, of which I am deeply ashamed. But I don't take the things that I believe are true and good to be unquestionable. My positions are always open to revision with the discovery of new evidence and better reasoning. Morality is not a set of rules.
I agree. But we are only going to get there by walking the path of hard truths.
That is certainly a good thought.
So you don’t care you might be wrong?
Then your views are infallible?
Assertion that others are wrong and you are right doesn’t make it so.
What if you’ve made a major error of judgement and there is a God?
About what?
I have never claimed so.
Indeed not.
I cannot make a judgement when I am presented with no objective data, but to withhold belief. That said what if you have subjectively picked the wrong deity? You are of course espousing Pascal's wager, and the flaws are that firstly Pascal's wager makes the unevidenced assumption that any risk exists in the first place, strike one. It then makes the false presumption, that all the risk would rest with disbelief, strike two, and finally it makes the assumption that, given the number of deities, and religions that people adhere to, with no objective difference between them, that unevidenced subjective credulity incurs no risk, strike three.
This is not to disparage the intellect of Blaise Pascal of course, but anyone can have an off day, and like all other geniuses, he was firstly an evolved ape, and secondly therefore fallible.
Who decides what's best for humanity?It’s not about winning or losing an intellectual debate for me but about what’s best for humanity.
Who decides what's best for humanity?