TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What happens when you die ?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

could you paste the article in a post because i don't feel like signing up to see it. thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Neo nEro could you paste the article in a post because i don't feel like signing up to see it. thanks

Word... Anyways I don't know if I belive in religion & such... But death is my #1 fear...

quote:

Originally posted by Stassi http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/s...21CND-JESU.html this link belongs here for all the arguing about jesus existing or not. not that i really care. My views on religion are mixes and therefore i take the scientific approach to life after death. There is none. The end.

An inscription in stone, found in or near Jerusalem and written in a language and script of 2,000 years ago, bears the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

This could well be the earliest artifact ever found relating to the existence of Jesus, a French scholar has concluded in an analysis of the inscription being published this week in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review.

If the inscription is authentic and indeed refers to Jesus of Nazareth, it would be the earliest known documentation of Jesus outside the Bible. The magazine, which announced the find yesterday, is promoting it as "the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate biblical references to Jesus."

Other scholars are reacting with caution, calling the find important and tantalizing but saying it will probably be impossible to confirm a definite link between the inscription and any of the central figures in the founding of Christianity.

Fraud cannot be ruled out, they said, though the cursive style of the script and a microscopic examination of the etched surface seemed to diminish suspicions. An investigation by the Geological Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering.

Radiocarbon dating was impossible because no organic material was found with the inscription. But the words were carved on a 20-inch-long limestone burial box, similar to ones the Jews used only in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. More specifically, the scholar said, the style of the script and the forms of certain words placed the date of the inscription to the last decades before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Biblical scholars said in interviews that the circumstantial evidence supporting a link to Jesus was possibly strong, but circumstantial nonetheless.

Although James (Jacob or Ya'akov), Joseph (Yosef) and Jesus (Yeshua) were common names of that time and place, several scholars noted, it would have been highly unusual to have them appear in the combination and kinship order found in the inscription. The words, in Aramaic, "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua," were carved on a burial box, known as an ossuary, which presumably once held the bones of a man named James who died in the first century A.D.

Several times the New Testament mentions that Jesus had a brother named James, who became leader of the nascent Christian community in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. And the first-century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that James was executed by stoning around A.D. 63.

The James whose name is on the stone could have been one of many Jameses. But the rest of the inscription significantly narrows the possibilities. First, in the common practice, his father is identified, in this case as a Joseph.

Rarely, though, would a brother of the deceased have been added to the inscription, unless the brother was prominent. James the apostle might have wanted to proclaim one last time his kinship with Jesus.

Dr. Andr� Lemaire, a researcher at the Sorbonne in Paris and a respected specialist on inscriptions of the biblical period, calculated the statistical probability of the three names' occurring in such a combination as extremely slim. Probably over two generations in first-century Jerusalem, no more than 20 people could have been called "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," and few of them might have been buried in inscribed ossuaries. Other calculations yield an even lower probability.

"It seems very probable that this is the ossuary of the James in the New Testament," Dr. Lemaire wrote in the magazine article. "If so, this would also mean that we have here the first epigraphic mention � from about A.D. 63 � of Jesus of Nazareth."

But elsewhere in his article, he acknowledged that "nothing in this ossuary inscription clearly confirms the identification" of this James as the one known in Christian tradition.

Christians have three different interpretations regarding the kinship of James to Jesus, Dr. Lemaire noted.
Protestants generally read the New Testament to mean that James was the son of Joseph and Mary; in this case, Mary presumably gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and then had James and other children. A second interpretation, dominant in the Eastern Orthodox Church, regards James as a son of Joseph by a previous marriage. Roman Catholics tend to regard the word "brother" to mean any close relative; perhaps James was a cousin, the son of Joseph's brother, which would accord with teachings of Mary's "perpetual virginity."

Before this, Biblical Archaeology Review reported, the earliest mention of Jesus was in a piece of papyrus containing a fragment of the Gospel by John, written in Greek in about A.D. 125. Most of the existing early texts for the New Testament date from 300 or more years after the time of Jesus. The earliest Gospel to be written, by Mark, is thought to have been composed around the year 70.

Only a few other ancient artifacts mention New Testament figures. In 1990, the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, was uncovered. Even earlier, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that bears the name of Pontius Pilate.

Like other biblical scholars, Dr. James C. VanderKam of the University of Notre Dame praised Dr. Lemaire as an authoritative epigrapher, or specialist in ancient inscriptions, whose research is thorough and evaluations judicious.

"Since the research comes from Andr� Lemaire, I take it very seriously," Dr. VanderKam said. "If it is authentic, and it looks like it is, this is helpful nonbiblical confirmation of the existence of this man James."

Dr. Eric M. Meyers, an archaeologist and director of the graduate program in religion at Duke University, said the rarity of this configuration of names occurring, especially the inclusion of a brother's name, "lends a sense of credibility to the claim."

But Dr. Meyers questioned whether the discovery, if it does refer to Jesus Christ, will "tell us anything we didn't already know." He and other scholars agreed that Jesus as a historical figure has long been well established.

Dr. Joseph Fitzmyer , professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Catholic University in Washington, hailed it as a significant discovery if it does indeed refer to Jesus of Nazareth. "That would be a new extrabiblical attestation of his existence, and there are so few extrabiblical things that do," he said.

Still, Dr. Fitzmyer said he had serious doubts that the third name on the inscription actually referred to Jesus of Nazareth.

"My reaction is, it's possible, but I hesitate to say probable," he said. "I don't see how anybody can say any more."

How the ossuary was discovered is part of the problem, scholars said. It somehow fell into the hands of looters, who then turned a profit selling it on the antiquities market. Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, said the ossuary was now owned by an unidentified collector in Jerusalem.

Because the ossuary did not come from a controlled excavation, where archaeologists plot every detail and possible clue to a discovery's context, scholars said they despaired of ever knowing the inscription's meaning beyond doubt.

"This could be something genuinely important, but we can never know for certain," said Dr. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a professor of biblical and Near Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University. "Not knowing the context of where the ossuary was found compromises anything we might say, and so doubts are going to persist."

A few scholars criticized the magazine for publishing an article based on research involving looted goods, arguing that this encouraged unethical practices in the antiquities market. The Discovery Channel announced it planned a television documentary next spring on the scientific testing of the so-called James ossuary.

Ossuaries were used in the two-burial practice that was standard among Jews in the first century. When a person died, the body was first laid out in a burial cave for about a year. After the flesh decayed, the bones were then gathered and placed in a limestone box, an ossuary. The one in question was unadorned, except for the inscription of 20 Aramaic letters etched on one side.

In the article, Dr. Lemaire concedes that no one knows whether Christians at the time continued the Jewish two-burial custom. He said the shapes of three of the letters in the script indicated that the burial occurred shortly before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.

In the immediately preceding years, Dr. Meyers of Duke said, it was possible that the nascent Christian community in Jerusalem might still have been following certain traditional Jewish practices because "they were just beginning to articulate the differences between Christianity and Judaism."

quote:

Originally posted by Mental Exodus How do u know that DAVI? Have u ever heard of subconcious reincarnation ?

i didnt make a statement, i asked a question. but a statement did spring forth from my question, and thats because my question made you realize the truth.

First, if Jesus actually existed, that doesn't prove anything. We are sure that Muhammed existed, and that doesn't mean the Kuran is right.

Second, from what I've heard (I may be wrong here, I heard it only once on a tv documentary) Mary wasn't a virgin at all. Instead, she was a young woman, and when bible was first translated into greek, the word for young woman got confused with the word virgin, and from then on later she's a virgin. Besides, it's highly improbable that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary at all, and for no obvious reason.

Or maybe Mary was screwing around and got herself pregnant and Joseph was very gullable, so she sold him the story about divine pregnancy and he actually fell for it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 First, if Jesus actually existed, that doesn't prove anything. We are sure that Muhammed existed, and that doesn't mean the Kuran is right. Second, from what I've heard (I may be wrong here, I heard it only once on a tv documentary) Mary wasn't a virgin at all. Instead, she was a young woman, and when bible was first translated into greek, the word for young woman got confused with the word virgin, and from then on later she's a virgin. Besides, it's highly improbable that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary at all, and for no obvious reason. Or maybe Mary was screwing around and got herself pregnant and Joseph was very gullable, so she sold him the story about divine pregnancy and he actually fell for it.

This is true, but I felt like throwing a curveball in the thread.

ok i just read this whole thread and i think im only going to start from the last two pages, or this could take days

quote:

you shouldn't take literally everything that's written in the bible, that Adam and Eve story and kinda most bible's passages are just methafors so that the people at the time would understand it

i don't think that it's so much a metaphor, but just that the bible was written as almost a guidebook for life(i know, that was a bad metaphor) and it was written so openly so that people could apply it to their daily lives, and be like o, i see how that applies to me, if only they read it that way. if you want to reply to that, go open the bible to just about any page, really think about your life, and see if any of what you are reading could help you or apply in any way, then get back to me

quote:

Or maybe Mary was screwing around and got herself pregnant and Joseph was very gullable, so she sold him the story about divine pregnancy

....and then decided to tell her son about it, who managed just managed to "make up" a religion, and get so many people to believe him that it has lasted for almost 2,000 years?

i'm sorry if i sound condescending, or snobby, or holier than thou, but it just bugs the crap out of me when people try to make points about something they really haven't studied enough to understand well enough to actually hold up in a discussion.

My soul will be what i have said below and enter a STATE OF TRANCE

quote:

Originally posted by undertensecond My soul will be what i have said below and enter a STATE OF TRANCE

I wonder if Armin will be in charge of you

quote:

Originally posted by sherman i'm sorry if i sound condescending, or snobby, or holier than thou, but it just bugs the crap out of me when people try to make points about something they really haven't studied enough to understand well enough to actually hold up in a discussion.

When the mode of communications transmission is sufficiently unreliable, the content of the message is irrelevant when analyzing the probability that the message is a manifestation of the truth.

As Illusion so eloquently described on the first page of this thread, religious texts have been subject to a plethora of opportunities for corruption. Even assuming it was the truth to begin with, it almost certainly no longer is.

Just as I can discount the beliefs of the Raelians as soon as I read:
"... started by a French Journalist who was abducted by aliens who told him the secrets of our creation."

I can also discount the beliefs of the Christians as soon as I read:
"... based on a 2000-year old book."

I don't need any more. A 2000 year old book is simply NOT a reliable source of information. It's not relevant how many people believe it. Basing your life on a 2000 year old book is an act of lunacy.

quote:

....and then decided to tell her son about it, who managed just managed to "make up" a religion, and get so many people to believe him that it has lasted for almost 2,000 years?

Well Muhammed managed to make up a religion which lasts for almost 1500 years, and shows no signs of weakening, on the contrary, it is getting stronger.

Besides, at the time Jesus appeared, situation was very good for cults like that one to gain popularity. Jews were opressed by the Romans, and were fighting amongst each other. People longed for unity and faith in better life, and christianity offered both. It later spread through Rome, which had many poor people and few rich people, and the poor people were very suspectable to the idea that in the afterlife they'd be rewarded while the rich would suffer. After that came the middle ages, where most people were uneducated, and blindly followed dogmas. Their ideal was in some way the Roman empire, for it's very developed culture. And christianity was part of that culture.

"You should never doubt what no one is sure about. But where is all the tasty bread, in the heart or in the head?"

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen "You should never doubt what no one is sure about. But where is all the tasty bread, in the heart or in the head?"

OK someones been smokeing some abstract CRACK!!

more or less in the words of confucious; why worry about the after death when u've got other issues to worry about in this finite life?

anyways, my beliefs lie btwn the Daoism & the Transcedentalism w/ touches of buddhism and what not, though i was baptized as catholic yrs ago...
where i stand on this topic is.... well:

* i DO believe in a higher power
* i DON'T believe in "GOD" (though they say, better bet God exists b/c when you die, and u are an atheist, u are in trouble. but if u are a theist, then you have no penalties! )
* i DO believe in fate and nature runs its course = the way of nature
* i DO believe that above all nature is the highest force
* i DON'T believe in reincarnation
* i believe that after u die, you become part of nature though ur soul may live on, ur finite body rots in the ground (lol)...but all in all you become one w/ everything like in monoism...



-BLuEOcEaN420

The ignorance in this thread is astounding... most people here are very confused. I suggest you study religions first before you make such ridiculous comments...

quote:

Originally posted by BLuEOcEaN420 more or less in the words of confucious; why worry about the after death when u've got other issues to worry about in this finite life?

so...it's better to worry about the little things in this life...instead of worrying about how you are going to spend the rest of eternity...forever and ever and ever until the end of time...compared to if you should go with the pink or blue socks? i know thats not exactly how you meant it, but still...really think about something like that before you say it

Energy can not be created or destroyed so by that fact alone u kind of do live on after body functions cease, and you are constanly being recycled.

as far as there being a heaven, where u can relax and chill with elvis...highly doubtful.

i can only talk from a catholic point of view because thats how i was brought up. catholics believe that the only way to get to heaven is to belive in jesus...that means every jew, muslim, buddist, hindi are going to hell...seems a bit unfair....all the people who died before jesus was born are also in hell...also unfair to burn for eternity because of when u were born. oh yea...gays...burning in hell. if u were never baptised...ur burning in hell.

lets just say there is life on other planets...do all those beings burn in hell too...they probaly dont know about jesus. heaven cant be just an earth thing because if u believe the bible God is the creator of all things.

a billion years ago the human race wasnt even a thought...a billion years from now we wont even be a memory, and our beliefs and all our accomplishments will die with us. a new life form will evolve somewhere else and start a new religion and they will think that they are the chosen ones...or maybe all those beings will burn in hell too.

I dont belive in God, i only belive in me. I do believe Jesus existed and he was a solid dressing dude...had some good ideas and how we should act toward each other...he just ruined it with the whole God says so thing.

quote:

Originally posted by sherman so...it's better to worry about the little things in this life...instead of worrying about how you are going to spend the rest of eternity...forever and ever and ever until the end of time...compared to if you should go with the pink or blue socks? i know thats not exactly how you meant it, but still...really think about something like that before you say it

ummm well i never meant that to reflect my beliefs but was basically tossing up an 'interesting' semi quote from a well known philosopher...

and honestly, ive given it a lot of thoughts prior to posting it and like ive said, i dont believe in reincarnation and what not so, the idea of eternity really has no influence on what and how i value my actions. though thats not to say that i go out and do 'immoral' stuff but i strongly believe that we shouldnt dwell on whats going to happen after we die b/c when the time comes, theres nothing that we can do change the fact of whats going to happen to us. and i guess b/c of these beliefs, im not afraid to die and pay the consequences of my beliefs if there should be any... if that makes sense... to sum it up, im not gonna be threaten into practicing beliefs that i dont believe in b/c, practicing and understanding/believing are two different things. even if i live worrying about whats going to happen to me after i die, if i dont believe in heaven/God, when the time comes, the higher power isnt going sympathize me for pretending to believe something i didnt! heh

i say, live your life to the fullest(not to mention live in the moment), and live accordingly to what you believe is right and when the time comes u have to part from this realm of reality, you will leave w/ no regrets and will be content w/ whatever the future holds for you

"Future is a fucking concept that stops us from living in the moment!"

Argh its so frustrating to try to verbalize my train of thoughts b/c beliefs/relgion/philosophy are such complicated issues! and sorry if i went off tangent, i guess i was just trying to develop and vocalize my thoughts at the same time

and please this is all just MY OPINIONS so, take is as a grain of salt, ya know ? no reason to get upset over opinions lol... in the grand scheme of things, none of this matters

-BLuEOcEaN420

quote:

Originally posted by sherman so...it's better to worry about the little things in this life...instead of worrying about how you are going to spend the rest of eternity...forever and ever and ever until the end of time...compared to if you should go with the pink or blue socks? i know thats not exactly how you meant it, but still...really think about something like that before you say it

Being that there exists no valid reason to even postulate that we might exist eternally, worrying about it in any capacity is an act difficult to justify.

quote:

Originally posted by BLuEOcEaN420 and please this is all just MY OPINIONS so, take is as a grain of salt, ya know ? no reason to get upset over opinions lol... in the grand scheme of things, none of this matters -BLuEOcEaN420

and that is the double truth, ruth

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo The ignorance in this thread is astounding... most people here are very confused. I suggest you study religions first before you make such ridiculous comments...

i would have to agree on this point. and let me just state for the record that i'm on the opposed side of the discussion. personally, i can never find someone who believes in something so blindly as religion to be intelligent. you may be well read like me, but that just furthers your stupidity if you've been exposed to so much and still remain this ignorant. i have a vast knowledge in many of the world religions because i have a passion for learning and never have i read anything to convince that the words in any holy text are anything more then epic tales of whatever. the problem with this argument is that religious people have no ability to think of other possibilities outside of what they have been raised to believe. the only way that i could respect someone with such strong beliefs is if they came to these ideas on their own instead of just assuming the best case scenario. and the debate goes on...

Most people here have opinions based on the wrong "knowledge"...

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i would have to agree on this point. and let me just state for the record that i'm on the opposed side of the discussion. personally, i can never find someone who believes in something so blindly as religion to be intelligent. you may be well read like me, but that just furthers your stupidity if you've been exposed to so much and still remain this ignorant. i have a vast knowledge in many of the world religions because i have a passion for learning and never have i read anything to convince that the words in any holy text are anything more then epic tales of whatever. the problem with this argument is that religious people have no ability to think of other possibilities outside of what they have been raised to believe. the only way that i could respect someone with such strong beliefs is if they came to these ideas on their own instead of just assuming the best case scenario. and the debate goes on...

Finally a comment worth commenting on (i'll address it later).


And then we have absolute idiots like kirbtastic making comments like "i can only talk from a catholic point of view because thats how i was brought up. catholics believe that the only way to get to heaven is to belive in jesus...that means every jew, muslim, buddist, hindi are going to hell...seems a bit unfair....all the people who died before jesus was born are also in hell...also unfair to burn for eternity because of when u were born. oh yea...gays...burning in hell. if u were never baptised...ur burning in hell"

1) Don't even attempt to talk from the Catholic point of view because you have no idea what it is.

2) You don't have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven.

3) Just because you're a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. doesn't mean you're going to Hell.

4) All the people born before Jesus did not go to Hell.

5) You don't have to be baptized to go to Heaven, just as you can burn in Hell even if you were baptized.

Umm.. that's the real Catholic position on this whole issue. And don't even try arguing because I'm not wrong.

quote:

lets just say there is life on other planets...do all those beings burn in hell too...they probaly dont know about jesus. heaven cant be just an earth thing because if u believe the bible God is the creator of all things. a billion years ago the human race wasnt even a thought...a billion years from now we wont even be a memory, and our beliefs and all our accomplishments will die with us. a new life form will evolve somewhere else and start a new religion and they will think that they are the chosen ones...or maybe all those beings will burn in hell too.

Comments like these make me wonder... is this an argument against religion? I'm not quite sure, but I do know for sure its an argument for you're immense stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller you may be well read like me, but that just furthers your stupidity if you've been exposed to so much and still remain this ignorant.

*cough* Are you really well read? "If you've been exposed to this much and still remain this ignorant?"... that's a ridiculous comment. When I used the word ignorant I was referring to the people who studied nothing and/ or thought they were an authority on something they knew nothing about. But can the definition also be extended to include people who may not be ignorant in the traditional sense (ie they are well read), but have missed the entire point?

You see, it's ok to study a lot and learn a lot and then form opinions, but not to criticize other people for their beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller personally, i can never find someone who believes in something so blindly as religion to be intelligent.

Oh God... historically the smartest people have been religious. Einstein? Does that name mean anything to you?

And what about the RC Church's Pope? He's one of the smartest men alive.

Or Aquinas? Thomas More? Surely these people are not all fools.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller the problem with this argument is that religious people have no ability to think of other possibilities outside of what they have been raised to believe.

Quite a stereotype... accurate in many cases, and a lot are extreme, but nonetheless not true in all cases. And how can you explain something like the story of St. Augustine? If you don't start "thinking outside the box," the only argument you can possibly have is that Augustine never existed, which we all know is an impossibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo And then we have absolute idiots like kirbtastic making comments like "i can only talk from a catholic point of view because thats how i was brought up. catholics believe that the only way to get to heaven is to belive in jesus...that means every jew, muslim, buddist, hindi are going to hell...seems a bit unfair....all the people who died before jesus was born are also in hell...also unfair to burn for eternity because of when u were born. oh yea...gays...burning in hell. if u were never baptised...ur burning in hell" 1) Don't even attempt to talk from the Catholic point of view because you have no idea what it is. 2) You don't have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. 3) Just because you're a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. doesn't mean you're going to Hell. 4) All the people born before Jesus did not go to Hell. 5) You don't have to be baptized to go to Heaven, just as you can burn in Hell even if you were baptized. Umm.. that's the real Catholic position on this whole issue. And don't even try arguing because I'm not wrong. Comments like these make me wonder... is this an argument against religion? I'm not quite sure, but I do know for sure its an argument for you're immense stupidity.

well i was an alter boy from the age of 10..and i went to catholic school until the age of 16..that was what i was taught..and im not against religion at all..religion helps instill a good set of values, it gives something for people to believe in and gives hope. i just choose not to believe in it anymore.

please do not refer to me as an idiot..im entitled to my opinion and you should respect that just as i respect your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo Most people here have opinions based on the wrong "knowledge"... Finally a comment worth commenting on (i'll address it later). And then we have absolute idiots like kirbtastic making comments like "i can only talk from a catholic point of view because thats how i was brought up. catholics believe that the only way to get to heaven is to belive in jesus...that means every jew, muslim, buddist, hindi are going to hell...seems a bit unfair....all the people who died before jesus was born are also in hell...also unfair to burn for eternity because of when u were born. oh yea...gays...burning in hell. if u were never baptised...ur burning in hell" 1) Don't even attempt to talk from the Catholic point of view because you have no idea what it is. 2) You don't have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. 3) Just because you're a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. doesn't mean you're going to Hell. 4) All the people born before Jesus did not go to Hell. 5) You don't have to be baptized to go to Heaven, just as you can burn in Hell even if you were baptized. Umm.. that's the real Catholic position on this whole issue. And don't even try arguing because I'm not wrong. Comments like these make me wonder... is this an argument against religion? I'm not quite sure, but I do know for sure its an argument for you're immense stupidity. *cough* Are you really well read? "If you've been exposed to this much and still remain this ignorant?"... that's a ridiculous comment. When I used the word ignorant I was referring to the people who studied nothing and/ or thought they were an authority on something they knew nothing about. But can the definition also be extended to include people who may not be ignorant in the traditional sense (ie they are well read), but have missed the entire point? You see, it's ok to study a lot and learn a lot and then form opinions, but not to criticize other people for their beliefs. Oh God... historically the smartest people have been religious. Einstein? Does that name mean anything to you? And what about the RC Church's Pope? He's one of the smartest men alive. Or Aquinas? Thomas More? Surely these people are not all fools. Quite a stereotype... accurate in many cases, and a lot are extreme, but nonetheless not true in all cases. And how can you explain something like the story of St. Augustine? If you don't start "thinking outside the box," the only argument you can possibly have is that Augustine never existed, which we all know is an impossibility.

i knew that this comment on my part would raise controversy...its a strong, may seem stupid, statement. allow me to reply in the same fashion you did?

i know what you meant in your statement about people talking about things they don't know about...i guess i was simply demonstrating a different dynamic that i find peoples ignorance in...not their lack of knowledge, but resisting the ability to construct their own reasons for things. i cannot tolerate people that simply go along with something because they are raised to do so. i believe that people should come to their own conclusions through a rational process of thought. now some might say "well you follow science" or whatever the medium is, but i would have to say that these arguments are well supported and rational. questions of religion are different... i just don't see how people can listen to it because it is all assumptions passed on through the generations. What separates one man's beliefs from another...if your christian you believe in god because "god wanted it that way" thats the final answer.

addressing the people you mentioned i.e. einstein etc... these are very smart people, but academics is something different. i could be a complete math genius but be a complete idiot at other things. no doubt these people you mentioned have special talents, but without the ability to see through religious propoganda i don't know where they stand in my list of intelligent rational people. i mean hitler was smart too, but he still killed lots of people didn't he? i also must believe that their are very few people out there that truly believe in their religion...at least in america anyway i suppose a great deal of muslims are very devote, but in the developed western world religion has become something that people state as their religion, but don't actually practice it...people mentioned earlier not going to church but that its ok because god ok's it? thats bullshit. people's abilities to arbitarially pick and choose what they "believe" simply to make their lives more convenient and have this false security of being "heavenly" just shows how absurd religion has become.

as far as my response being stereotypical...i'll respond by pointing out the response that we have gotten here on this thread. as far as i'm concerned...there have only been a few good posts in this thread mostly by those trying to provide information to sway people's opinions of religion. well i've tried that before and it is pointless so i've tried to refrain from presenting a bunch of knowledge that won't matter in the end because people want to believe what they want to. personally i couldn't care less what the rest of you think on the subject, i can see the mistakes that you make in your arguments and i have justified my argument to myself so thats all i need. (and i know that someone is going to say "it sounds like you are the one that isn't open to other opinions and let me just say...if you provide the right reasons hey...i'll run down to the local church and get down on my knees, but thats not going to happen...at least not on this board). alright its late...i'm going to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by kirbtastic well i was an alter boy from the age of 10..and i went to catholic school until the age of 16..that was what i was taught..and im not against religion at all..religion helps instill a good set of values, it gives something for people to believe in and gives hope. i just choose not to believe in it anymore. please do not refer to me as an idiot..im entitled to my opinion and you should respect that just as i respect your opinion.

you just mentioned the points of religion..."religion helps instill a good set of values, it gives something for people to believe in and gives hope". coming from an alter boy...there you go. if anyone knows it would be him right? well he just said in so many words that religion is a means to get people to behave and give them hope...hope is the key word here. people need hope to live their stupid little lives...i just don't see why people need something as arbitrary as religion to give them a reason to live...they are so many other things worth living for.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.