Man invented God(s) to explain unexplainable events.
Romans and Greeks had many Gods who we now dismiss as “mythological.”
Bible was written by man.
No doubt, a great human being who we now call Jesus Christ was born.
But he was a man: like Newton, Einstein, Descartes, Edison, Ghandi, etc…
With the progression of science, unexplainable events became explainable.
Darwin - also a great human being - describes natural selection.
Lots of people believe that Jesus Christ is a saviour and devote their lives to Him.
Lots of people think the same thing about Alla, about Buddha, about David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc.
You see where I’m going with this?
Me: Life is a complete random happenstance on Earth. There’s no supreme being. There’s no existential meaning to life. We are because we are. When you die you don’t go to heaven. If you’re lucky you become a big bag of fertilizer. That’s all there is folks. Get over it and enjoy life while you can.
Meaning you’re saying something that makes sense, but he doesn’t grasp.
My guess is that the raindog has not been wooshed, but that you, the OP, are not familiar with how things are done around here.
In Great Debates, it is customary for people starting threads to make an assertion along with supporting argumentation and/or evidence. Other posters then respond, and discussion ensues; note Metacom’s response. Your task would now seem to be to make the case that 1) and 5) from your OP are in fact true.
That is if you wish to have a debate; as far as I can tell, you seem to think your reasoning is self-evident. I regret to inform you that it’s not.
Hey, I’m just curious, in this 21st century, given our scientific knowledge, why anyone could seriously believe that there’s some kind of omnipotent being floating above us all and controlling, or overseeing, our very existence. This is like Santa Clause for adults. And I really don’t want to be disrespectful, but the Big Guy hasn’t shown up forever, and maybe he sent his Son like 2,000 years ago, but come on people. This is as plausible as Zeus, Triton, and the rest of the mythological stuff.
Please debate this respectfully; I’m not trying to troll here. I’m seriously curious how any intelligent human being can believe these fairy tales. Because that’s exactly what they are.
But wait. Why is it incumbent upon me to prove that items 1 and 5 are true, and not incumbent upon those responding to prove that they’re untrue? Surly I must be able to put forth a proposition based upon my own intellectual belief and thereby ask for intelligent replies. Is that not what Great Debates should be about?
Yes, I am somewhat new. I’m not trolling. I’m learning. Please be gentile.
You started the thread. If Metacom were to start a thread claiming that there was a God, the burden would be on him to support it.
I think you would be very well-advised to read some of the thousands of threads on the subject. You paid the $14.95 … use that search button.
The insulting tone of your posts thus far does not make it sound like you are the sort of person sincerly looking for a intellectual discussion. If you just wish to mock, I suggest that you request this be moved to the Pit.
People believe in God (or gods) because of personal religious experiences, because it gives meaning and hope to their lives, to make sense of the Universe, to be part of a community of seekers, because it helps them in times of trouble, because it helps them be better people, and for a host of other reasons.
As others have pointed out, the assertions in the OP are just that: assertions. The OP begs the question.
And FTR, it is possible to be religious and accept the whole body of scientific work, including evolution. See this book and, even more so, this one
Myth is a technical term. It’s not like the term is some sort of pejorative; it’s the correct word for a type of story, one that deals with with gods, heroes, or ancestors, that serves as a worldview template and allegory. They’re dealing in matters of meaning – whether creating it, maintaining it, or handing on an understanding of what is meaningful to others.
Myths are stories. “But it’s not factual!” is germane; it misses the point of what’s going on. Judge the stories by their relevance: do they illustrate the way the world works or should work? Do they bring about insights about one’s self or other beings? In short: are they meaningful? This isn’t something to dismiss – this is something to, on the one hand, value as a tool in an appropriate setting, and be aware of so that one does not use it in an inappropriate setting.
Science is a toolset for generating facts which are as objective as can be managed; it cannot generate meaning, because meaning is the product of subjective human processes. So long as people wish to create, maintain, and convey meaning, they will need more tools than science.
Now that I have quibbled extensively with the gist of point #2, I point out that even by its intended meaning it is false, except for certain values of ‘we’; there exist a fair number of followers of the Greek and Roman gods.
How can you honestly expect anyone to debate respectfully with you when you flaunt such disdain for those who disagree with you? Or are you so tone deaf that you can’t see that there’s no way to interpret phrases like “Santa Clause for adults” and “fairy tales” as anything other than inflammatory? You are being disingenuous at best to imply that you want to learn about other points of view while simultaneously insulting anyone who adheres to them.
It’s the same disdain many Christians have shown for other religions from their own. Quite a lot still have that disdain.
Do you honestly have the same level of respect for the belief that a black cat crossing your path will bring bad luck? Sacrificing POW’s on the steps of the temple will ensure that the sun comes up in the morning?
Leaffan sees all religions believing in fairy tales and is baffled by the fact that people still cling to them. That he feels disdain is only natural if he thinks its stupid to still believe in gods.
Aaaaand we have another winner in the “does not understand how debates work” category…
To repeat: the person making a claim needs to support it. Sort of like “innocent until proven guilty.” Otherwise, we have people doing silly things like claiming that “Latro rapes kittens” and saying that it’s up to you to prove it wrong.
The ad pop up for this thread is “Is God Real? a site for high school students.”
Seems incredibly appropriate.
Er…no offence Leaffan, but the OP sounds like you think you’re the first person to come up with this stuff. And once you lay it all out religion will collapse like a house of cards in the face of your well numbered logic.
It doesn’t work like that. Religion and faith are far deeper issues, and none of the things you innumerated are a given.
And I say this as one who does not believe in any of those fairy tales.
