lpetrich

luvluv:
All the people in the history of the world who have been religious have been gullible sheep? Do you really think that?

That may be an overstatement, but that is what many people have believed about those who believe in religions other than theirs.

Just to name one example, I wonder what luvluv thinks about the Islamic Paradise -- does he think that anyone who believes in it is grossly gullible?

Also, the large majority of people who have ever lived have NOT believed in luvluv's favorite brand of religion. Which is still true today, no matter what sect luvluv believes in.

Much, much smarter people than both of us have been believers, and have found the Bible to be a superior source of wisdom and moral virtue.

And the same can be said about religions and ideologies and sacred books that luvluv rejects.

Also, if one takes what one likes and leaves what one does not like, one can "prove" anything one wants to.

ImGod

Not to derail the interesting debate of the last 2 pages (that I've convenently skipped over for reasons of sanity), but this comment stuck out begging for comment.

What a load of bullshit.

First, you (or the book) define the something you have faith in as substantial. Then you say atheists don't have substantial faith because they don't believe in your definition of what's substantial. I have substantial faith, just not the same thing(s) as you.

Silly, to say the least.

Radorth

I suspect Fenton and Daggah well knew I was being facetious (as virtually everyone else knows) but are just, typically, baiting Rad. Anyone besides them think not?

I also suspect skeptics dance around my own question because they know an honest answer such as "Yes, I would still live here even God told me it was the best he could do," shows their holier-than-God arguments to be specious and pretentious.

I'll go check the other thread though, and see if I'm mistaken.

Rad

Daggah

Ah, I see. When we do it, it's "baiting Radorth." When Radorth does it, he's being "facetious."

Thanks for clearing that up.

Radorth

Well no. Baiting involves trying to draw someone into a "discussion" to try to make them look bad, or to trip them up. That was not my motive at all. I was simply satirizing the atheist position in general.

Nice try though.

Rad

NOGO

If this is the best he can do then why was Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God?

Oviously Jesus thought that God could do better otherwise what have you to look forward to.

What you are implying is that in the Kingdom of God you will not have free will otherwise there is the possibility of sin and all that comes with it (at least according to your way of thinking).

Radorth

So what? That doesn't prove anything. Some scientists think some evolutionary theories are stupid and everyone who believes them are blind. It doesn't mean one particularly theory cannot be true.

And of course nascent Chrsitianity is so unique as to lack the major characteristics of a religion (i.e earning your way to heaven) that it cannot rightly be included so surepticiously.

Rad

Opera Nut

Personal comments deleted.

lpetrich

Radorth:
So what? That doesn't prove anything. Some scientists think some evolutionary theories are stupid and everyone who believes them are blind. It doesn't mean one particularly theory cannot be true.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

And on this subject, I wonder when Radorth will tell us that evolutionary biology owes its existence to Xtianity, and that Darwin was only describing something clearly written about in the Bible.

And of course nascent Chrsitianity is so unique as to lack the major characteristics of a religion (i.e earning your way to heaven) that it cannot rightly be included so surepticiously.

I'm not QueenofSwords, so I doubt if I'd be able to give this pretension of irreligion the burlesque it deserves.

Stephen T-B

Hello Butlerk
I thought this thread was developing well until all at once it seemed to shoot off at a tangent, referring to posts and arguments I still can’t find in it.

Anyway, back (for the moment) to your OP.
I have a slightly similar experience to yours.
I was brought up in a religious movement which placed a lot of value on the power of the Theatre to change people’s minds, and while I was at school I took my best friend to see one of their plays, thinking it would help him share my enthusiasm for what the movement stood for and how it operated and why it was so wonderful.
The opposite occurred: the play put him off completely.
What happens, I think, is that critical judgment tends to be suspended when we encounter something which expresses the very things we want to believe, or supports the things we hold to be true.
It’s like when the Jehovah Witnesses come round with their Watch Tower, thinking the people they’ve called on will only have to open it to want to read it, and having read it, will be converted. It might sometimes work: it often doesn’t.

Actually Christians have the same faith in the power of the Bible to make the unenlightened see the light.
Those that do are judged to have used their “free Will” to make the right choice, and are therefore on their way to a Heavenly Everlasting Life (while those that don’t are on the way to permanent death, or a Hellish Everlasting Life - and I have to say I am somewhat confused as to which of these two fates awaits me.)
Muslims, of course, have the same faith in the power of the Koran to make the unenlightened see the light, Mormons have the same faith in their Book of Mormon - and indeed every religion thinks its sacred texts contain such pure truths as to make them irresistible.

It is called Wishful Thinking, and every religion dangles on it.