Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-11-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeda

Woot!! Cool sounding game.

I have been trying to break my on-line game addiction, but you tempt me.

At the risk of taking this topic, well, off-topic, I'd say that you shouldn't get B&W, or at the very least, wait until B&W 2. Sure, playing a god with your own big-ass creature sounds cool but it gets boring... fast.

Magdlyn · 06-12-2004, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ion

As for Jung -the psychologist brought up by Magdlyn above-, psychology is not science.

Phsysics, mathematics and chemistry are science.

I thought it was. Reaearch into the workings of the human brain (psyche) is not science?

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/index.cfm

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/research.html

Mageth · 06-12-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

He doesn't force people to worship Him. Those in Heaven want to worship Him, or they wouldn't have sought forgiveness and salvation from Him.

People don't typically seek "forgiveness and salvation" because they want to worship god. They typically seek "forgiveness and salvation" because they fear the consequences of not doing so. Preachers don't usually sell salvation so much as a way to heaven as they do to it as a way to avoid hell, in my experience. Even if they don't do so explicitly, the implied threat of consequences is always there.

Sin is a sickness Christianity invents so they can sell the only cure, and fear is their strongest advertising gimmick.

Magus55 · 06-12-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ion

Magus,

I keep asking you for many posts now to stop using "...He...", "...Him..." when these are not corresponding to any real creature.

Before you use them, ensure first -without using any religion- that "...God...", "...He...", "...Him..." exist in reality.

After you establish first -without using any religion- that "...God..." exists, then you can start talking about this established "...God...".

Right now, you talk about "...God..." while God's existence is unproved, so you talk about an inexistent creature.

That's imbecility.

This made no sense. How do you discuss God, without referring to God? And why do I need to prove to you that God exists, for me to be able to speak of Him as real? I could care less whether you accept He is real or not.

sharon45 · 06-12-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gospelog2

List me your top 3 reasons for refusing Christ.

Since jesus really only exists in books and people's imaginations, I have to ask, which version of a christ are you asking about?

Based on the NT's version, I didn't refuse him, he refused me many hundreds of years before I was even born.

That character from the NT even did a very good job of refusing his own self and teachings along with those of god, (or his 'father'), from out of the OT.

Most simply, because the NT's jesus is a very mixed-up and unwise character. with a poor ethics system and logic sense.

sharon45 · 06-12-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

This made no sense. How do you discuss God, without referring to God? And why do I need to prove to you that God exists, for me to be able to speak of Him as real? I could care less whether you accept He is real or not.

That is obvious, but your NT does command you to care to be able to 'spread the good news'.

Ion · 06-12-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

This made no sense. How do you discuss God, without referring to God?...
...

It doesn't make sense indeed:

before discussing God, first you prove that God exists so that you can talk about a reality.

So, why are you discussing God, before proving that God is a reality?

Starboy · 06-12-2004, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ion

It doesn't make sense indeed:

before discussing God, first you prove that God exists so that you talk about a reality.

So, why you discuss God before proving that God is a reality?

Because that is how Magus was suckered.

Starboy

Ion · 06-12-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I thought it was. Reaearch into the workings of the human brain (psyche) is not science?

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/index.cfm

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/research.html

This is besides the thread here.

To me, neurology is a science, psychology is not (regardless of Stanford's -and many more- claims, which I am aware of).

DBT · 06-12-2004, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ion

It doesn't make sense indeed:

before discussing God, first you prove that God exists so that you can talk about a reality.

So, why are you discussing God, before proving that God is a reality?

As for me,I feel quite comfortable discussing God/gods, heaven,hell, original sin,punishment or anything else to do with religion.
To me it doesn't seem any different to discussing Harry Potter or the Lord of the rings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.