|
there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJBARON |
lets see if any of these people that laugh when I base things on G-d and religion can back up their laughs, or are, as we expect, full of !
Does the intricate design of the universe serve as evidence for the existence of God?
Imagine walking in the desert and coming across two small stones in close proximity to each other. Most probably, you would think nothing of it. Two stones randomly sitting beside each other is no big deal.
You continue your walk in the desert and stumble upon three rows of stones piled up in a brick-layer fashion. Chances are you would quickly surmise that someone was here and arranged these stones in this manner. It didn't just happen.
You continue your walk and happen to find a watch lying in the middle of the desert. Would you suspect that a windstorm somehow threw these pieces together and randomly created a watch?
Somebody made that watch. It didn't just happen. Design implies designer.
DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESIGNER?
The intricacy of design in our world is staggering -- infinitely more complex than a simple brick wall or a watch. Dr. Michael Denton, in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain [pp. 330 - 331].
There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10 billion cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000 million million connections, or, 10 to the 15th power.
It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. And they're not just haphazardly thrown together. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world.
Imagine walking by that in the desert! The natural response when perceiving design of such mind-boggling complexity is to conclude that there must be a designer behind everything who created it. None of this just happened.
RANDOM WRITING SAMPLE
Rabbeinu Bachya, in his major philosophical work "The Duties of the Heart" [10th century] presents this argument in the following manner:
Do you not realize that if ink were poured out accidentally on a blank sheet of paper, it would be impossible that proper writing should result, legible lines that are written with a pen? Imagine a person bringing a sheet of handwriting that could only have been composed with a pen. He claims that ink spilled on the paper and these written characters had accidentally emerged. We would charge him to his face with falsehood, for we could feel certain that this result could not have happened without an intelligent person's purpose.
Since this seems impossible in the case of letters whose formation is conventional, how can one assert that something far subtler in its design and which manifests in its fashioning a depth and complexity infinitely beyond our comprehension could have happened without the purpose, power, and wisdom of a wise and mighty designer? ("The Duties of the Heart," The Gate of Oneness, Chapter 6)
The two most common objections to this argument go as follows:
The argument is too simple. There seems to be a big jump from concluding that someone must have made rock formations in the desert to concluding that there is a Creator who must have made the universe.
What about evolution? Over a very long period of time everything could have come about as a random occurrence! With millions of years to play around with, isn't it possible for some kind of order to emerge just by chance?
Let's address these two objections.
ADDRESSING ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE
The principle "design implies designer" applies across the board, whether the designer is a Bedouin nomad piling rocks in the desert or the Infinite Source of all existence. Intellectually it is the same logical process. In fact, there is more reason to assume a designer in the latter case since the level of design is much higher.
Simplicity is not an inherent fault in an argument. Perhaps the reason why some people take issue with this application of logic is due to the accompanying consequences.
Since the Bedouin doesn't make any moral demands on our life, there is no resistance to drawing the logical conclusion that someone designed that rock formation. But when the conclusion points to God, cognitive dissonance kicks in, creating an instinctive opposition to what one perceives to be threatening. [See the previous article in this series: "Seeing the Elephant"
When the interference of cognitive dissonance is removed, what is the objective standard of design that we need to see in order to conclude something was created? What we need is a control experiment that determines this threshold of design in a case that has no threatening consequences. "The Obvious Proof", a book by Gershon Robinson and Mordechai Steinman, delivers a compelling presentation of the design argument, and describes such a control experiment involving millions of people concluding the necessity of a designer.
The laboratory consisted of theaters across the globe that showed the film "2001: A Space Odyssey." In the film, American scientists living in a colony on the moon discover during a dig the first evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets. What did they find? A simple monolith -- a smooth, rectangular slab of rock. The Americans keep this significant discovery secret, afraid of the widespread culture shock and social ramifications this would have without proper preparation.
Thousands of film critics and millions of moviegoers went along with the film's basic assertion, agreeing that intelligent creatures other than man must have created this smooth, rectangular monolith. It didn't just randomly appear. Free from all emotional and intellectual bias, in the comfort of darkened theaters with popcorn in hand, people unanimously agreed that a simple, smooth slab with a few right angles was conclusive proof of intelligence.
When the conclusion does not point to God, everyone realizes that the simplest object can serve as the threshold of design, the point at which one concludes an object could not have come into existence by random accident. The universe, infinitely more complex than a monolith, had to have been created.
WHAT ABOUT RANDOM EVOLUTION?
Given enough tries over a long period of time, isn't it possible for complex structures to emerge randomly? After all, with sufficient trials even improbable events eventually become likely.
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, uses a national lottery to illustrate this point ["Origins", Bantam, p.121]. The odds of winning the lottery may be 10 million to one. Winning would be incredibly lucky. But if we were to buy a lottery ticket every day for the next thirty thousand years, a win would become probable, (albeit very expensive).
But what are the odds of life coming about by sheer chance? Let's take a look at two examples to get a sense of the odds involved in random evolution.
Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book "A Brief History of Time":
It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters -- most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?
Well could it be?
In response to Hawking, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist, calculated the odds of monkeys randomly typing an average Shakespearean Sonnet in his book "Genesis and the Big Bang." He chose the one that opens, "Shall I compare you to a summer's day?"
There are 488 letters in the sonnet ... The chance of randomly typing the 488 letters to produce this one sonnet is one in 26 to the 488th power, or one in 10 to the 690th power. The number 10690 is a one followed by 690 zero's! The immense scale of this number is hinted at when one considers that since the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, there have been only 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, which have ticked away.
To write by random one of Shakespeare's sonnets would take all the monkeys, plus every other animal on earth, typing away on typewriters made from all the iron in the universe, over a period of time that exceeds all time since the Big Bang, and still the probability of a sonnet appearing would be vanishingly small. At one random try per second, with even a simple sentence having only 16 letters, it would take 2 million billion years (the universe has existed for about 15 billion years) to exhaust all possible combinations.
Robert Shapiro cites Nobel laureate Sir Fred Hoyle's calculation of the odds of a bacterium spontaneously generating [p.127]. At first Hoyle and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, endorsed spontaneous generation, but reversed their position once they calculated the odds.
A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 1040,000. Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
These are the odds of just a single, simple cell, without which evolution cannot even get started. Never mind the odds of more advanced compounds like an organ or all the enzymes in a human being.
Shapiro writes:
The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.
For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE
Imagine you are the presiding judge over a murder trial. Ballistic tests match perfectly with a gun found in the possession of the accused. The odds of another gun firing the bullet that killed the victim are let's say one in a billion.
The defendant claims that it is a sheer fluke that his gun happens to match the ballistics tests and that there must be another gun out there that is the real murder weapon. "After all," he says, "it is a possibility."
The defendant's fingerprints are found all over the victim's body. He claims there must be another person out there who happens to have astonishingly similar fingerprints. Again, it is possible.
There are also eyewitnesses who testify to seeing a man gunning down the victim who looks just like the defendant. The defendant claims there must be another person out there in this big world who looks just like him, and that man is the real murderer. After all -- it's not impossible.
You are the judge, and you need to make a decision. What do you decide?
In the pragmatic world of decision-making, odds this high are called impossible. One needs to weigh the evidence and come to the most reasonable conclusion.
Does the universe have a Creator? Look at the design, look at the odds and look honestly within. Where does the more rational conclusion lie?
For further exploration: http://www.2001principle.net/
what do you have to say? this provides overwhelming evidence that there is a G-d that exists. and if so, then a=b=c=d=e=f=cyrusking is a monkey |
|
|
| Perfect_Cheezit |
ok, cool
now the real challenge
1. make everyone who reads this thread read all that
2. get them to believe all that
i mean no disrespect, btw |
|
|
| DJBARON |
"you can get a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink"
listen, the truth is out there, if people want to hide in their shells and not become one with the truth, they will be left out of reality and suffer the consequences :)
if their arguments are worth anything, when a challenge against their slander stands up, they gotta knock it down, or else its checkmate on their intellectual beliefs.
simple as that :)
honestly though its already been proven who is right and who is wrong here, but like the arab terrorists, they just don't let up, keeping up with their crap spewing :eyes: |
|
|
| Perfect_Cheezit |
well said
but in the vein of descartes, you have to respect those who let doubt fill their mind for it is that which makes us human |
|
|
| DJBARON |
| quote: | Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit
well said
but in the vein of descartes, you have to respect those who let doubt fill their mind for it is that which makes us human |
it is true and smart to fill our minds with doubt about what 'appears' to us, so that we can question & answer, thus turning our doubt into 100% knowledge.
this is the point of existence, to doubt, then question, and find answers. It is the absolute reason to our being. The ability to think, to discover for ourselves the truth, and the answers that lie hidden away for us to seek out. |
|
|
| Perfect_Cheezit |
| quote: |
this is the point of existence, to doubt, then question, and find answers. It is the absolute reason to our being. |
case in point :)
to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward? |
|
|
| DJBARON |
| quote: | Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit
case in point :)
to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward? |
AMAZING QUESTIONS!!!!!!
YUMMY YUMMY!! THIS IS THE REASON FOR THIS FORUM IN MY OPINION!!
woo hoo!!
I am going to think about these questions for a few hours, and i'll respond with a good answer for you in a few hours :)
this is worthy of contemplation! :)
but for a brief quick answer, the idea of objectivity vs emotional subjectivity comes to mind...
'beyond a shadow of a doubt'
but i will write something nice soon :) |
|
|
| tathi |
I wish it were the case that people's opinion could be swayed by reason alone, that factual evidence would be the basis for belief. Religion is what is wrong in todays world, it's a disease, it infects the minds of the dumb and ignorant, what's worse is the disease is not terminal.
In the past religion may have had some credibility, a way for despots to control the idiot masses, add 5000 years and you have an insidious corrupt money hungry facade. Propaganda / marketing / spreading the faith, it's all the same bull, only the simplistic of mind fall for it.
Christianity / judiasm / islam / hindu: They are all a pathetic amalgamation of retired religions, a syncretic blend of past forms of faith that have failed. The only reason these conceptual ideologies are still in business is that they threaten their drones with "eternal hellfire" in case they leave.
If there was no such thing as Satan (or its equivalent in other religions) would there even be religion in todays world?
I believe Robert Heinlein has provided us with some very good insight into what places of worship will be like in the future. Pubs, Poker Machines and Prostitution. The only difference between churches now and his speculative view of churches in the future, is that now the christian church is a brothel were seedy old men can sodomise underage boys. I bet Robert didn't see that one coming.
Man created god in his own image |
|
|
| DJBARON |
| quote: | Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit
case in point :)
to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward? |
I thought intensely of these questions and here are some answers.
Where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicsm?
Lets define these two.
A person who doubts accepts the proof they recieve when they can see it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
someone who is cynical is someone who has a knack towards seeking the negative no matter what the proofs are. They are not willing to accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
ex: the sun rises and sets everyday. We do not know 100% if it will rise tomorrow, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
a cynic will say we don't for sure, or for whatever reason throw out the statement "the sun WILL rise tomorrow" because of their emotionally motivated answers.
next question, which further clears the confusion ->
when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact?
if we look at the structure of the court, we ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The person will be sentenced, not by the fact that the jury SAW HIM DO IT, but they have seen enough evidence to suppor that claim.
i'd like to add on this forum, this is true about the whole discussion regarding israel. People make claims, and they are disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, but still people continue to spew their filthy lies, because they are based not on a reasonable doubt, but on subjective rationalization, because they will dismiss anything contrary to their beliefs.
third question which further clarifies everything :)
When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward?
this question was a little hard to understand fully, but here is my take on it.
As long as we are emotionally attached to something that we see as true, then any evidence that contridicts this will make you WANT to doubt it.
At this point, where you are uneasy about accepting evidence because it supports something that you DON'T LIKE, THIS will hold you back from discovering the objective truth.
case in point ---> people who blame israel for the crisis. ie: cyrusking. [had to add that in :D ]
so i hope that clarifies all this. Lets continue with this discussion, i'm enjoying the intellectual stimuation for a change! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
Man created god in his own image |
And that's the crux of it all right there.
All ID arguments run, basically, along this pattern:
1) Nature is complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore nature has a creator
Take the watch-maker argument you provided, for instance, the most overused anology in theistic apologetics:
1) Both the watch and nature are complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore, both the watch and nature require a creator
What the argument fails to take into account, though, is that the universe and the watch possess different types of complexity. The watch contains artificial, mechanical moving parts none of which can be explained or created via a natural process. The cogs, the springs, the watch-face, the hands - none of these things can be created "naturally" on their own, let alone assemble themselves in the exact form necessary to function as a "watch". If we were to find a watch while strolling along the beach we could only assume that it must have been created by an intelligent designer because the facticity of the watch (that is, the sum of all its properties) possess a complexity far different to that which we find anywhere else in nature.
"Natural complexity" though - which we can view in the form of the "laws" of nature, especially in seemingly more "complex" bodies such as living things - is far different. Whereas a watch is made up of components that are entirely artificial - i.e. that cannot be created via a natural process - there is nothing artificial about the composition of life. Similarly, while it would be impossible for the components of a watch to come together and function "naturally", the components of a living organism require no creator to either come together nor function harmoniously.
Besides, what strikes you as more odd? That a dead, blind, purposeless universe could exist without a creator, or that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient super-being with the ability to create beings of complexity ex nihilo at will can exist without a creator? You can't have it both ways: either all complex beings require a creator or you concede the possibility that some don't. If it's the former, then I can only ask what created God (or point to the flaw in the argument which essentially implies the necessary existence of an infinite number of "creators" - a view that would be nearly impossible to justify) or if it's the latter, then I can only ask why you believe that the universe requires a creator but an even more complex being like God doesn't?
Intelligent Design is bunk, and to understand why I suggest you read the following article (though I doubt that, even if you open it, you'll make any effort to understand it):
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=308 |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Ok, let's analyze the first part of your post, and that is the existance of a god. You are saying that the fact universe is organized and it exists is an evidence of a god. But what you're doing here is attempting to explain one unexplainable entity by making up another unexplainable entity and saying it created the first one. You can't explain how the universe came to be, so you're saying it was made by a supreme being. The thing is, you simply can't explain how that supreme being came to be, just as you can't explain how the universe came to be. Basically, you can go on forever like that, and explain that supreme being's creation as a pet project of an even more supreme being. Maybe the universe is a pet project of some supreme being, who knows, but that doesn't bring us any closer to the real answer. When you think of such an idea, it seems like you're moving in solving the puzzle one step further each time, but what you've done is you've just created an infinite loop whose ultimate solution is nowhere closer than it was before.
Now, you may limit yourself to just one supreme being, or a god. So when you look at the universe, you see it has no reason or logical purpose, and therefore you attribute its existance to some sort of higher purpose that we aren't able to understand. But what is the purpose of the creator of the universe? It has no purpose. It just is. So why is it so acceptable for you to have a purposeless uberentity that simply existed forever and which created this universe with a purpose, while it is impossible for you to accept the probability this universe itself existed forever and had no purpose at all?
And now about the second part of your post which deals with evolution. While the first part was understandable, because there'ss no way to definitely prove you're right or wrong, the second definitely isn't very intelligent. Yes, it is true that the likelyhood of a human being emerging from nothing is basically equal to zero. But, let's look at it from a different point of view. There are 9 planets in this solar system, there are more than a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The number of galaxies that are out there we don't even know. Since we've recently discovered that stars usually have many planets, that's about a trillion planets in our little galaxy alone. Now, let's come back to our own little planet. It's almost certain that out of such a vast number of planets, some will have conditions and materials needed for life to emerge. Now, the only thing that is needed for life is to have some sort of self-replicating molecule, or in our case the first DNA or RNA. As soon as such a molecule appears, if it has enough resources around itself, in a very short time the world will be covered with those molecules. Some of them will have mistakes in them that will prove to be fatal, while some will be neutral or beneficial. Since our planet is pretty big, and it is also full of nutrients needed for life, imagine how much molecules that is. It's somewhere along the lines of 10^40 (my quick approximation). And all that is needed is that some of those molecules interact between each other in a right way. Those interactions are infact not that uncommon, as some discoveries have shown that some clouds of gas in the universe contain large amounts of amino acids. What that means is those reactions needed for life are quite common because those molecules react well with each other. Now, let's say your article is correct and the odds for a bunch of those molecules coming together really are 1 040 000 to one. That's one in 10^6. Since there are 10^40 molecules out there, that chance is pretty likely. And the 747 analogy is quite wrong. You see, molecules don't connect in completely random ways. If you put together same molecules under same thermal conditions together, you'll get the same result each time. If you put 747 parts together and mix them up, you'll get a different shape each time.
From that point on, evolution is no longer a random play, as your article seems to suggest. The reason why species are improving at a staggering rate is natural selection. Without it, it would truly be unbelievable that a human, or any higher animal evolved. Infact, it would all dissipate and we'd sooner or later devolve to the primordial ooze we came from, because harmful mutations are much more common than the positive ones. But when you have the constant struggle for life and death, the situation is a little different. Those species with even minor edge over the others will be greatly rewarded, while those with even the slightest defects will most likely perish. Imagine an antelope that runs 10% slower than other antilopes. It's not such a large difference, and yet it will be eaten as soon as the first lion attacks the herd.
If we look at our brain development, we see the same thing. There are many more people with mental diseases and handicaps than there are geniouses. And yet those few geniouses will procreate, while the idiots most likely won't. Now, we do know for a fact that mutations are happening. On average, a child has about 10 mutations in its genetic code that aren't inherited neither from the father, nor from the mother, but are instead created by an accident. Most are neutral, many are negative, and only a few show improvement over the original DNA. However, only the neutral and improved will be able to procreate further. Therefore evolution is infact directed by external forces, but those forces are not divine, they're of rather logical nature. Here's an interesting thing that's soon gonna be on the Discovery channel that proves my point. This guy whose name I forgot was working on the AI systems and multiprocessor interaction. He made a test in which a computer simulation connected the processors in a random way. Many of those systems were flawed or didn't work, many were just as good as the original versions, but a few showed improvement over the original human made design. Now since there's an external force choosing which of those systems should be multiplied (natural selection/benchmark results), only the best systems will remain while the bad ones will soon be forgotten. |
|
|
| DJBARON |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
I wish it were the case that people's opinion could be swayed by reason alone, that factual evidence would be the basis for belief. Religion is what is wrong in todays world, it's a disease, it infects the minds of the dumb and ignorant, what's worse is the disease is not terminal. |
lets do this point by point ok?
why can't people be 'swayed' or convinced or something based on fact and objective logical conclusion? i agree that today religion is totally corrupted. But there are venues of religious observance that are not corrupt. If you say that religious corruption is a microcosm, then the world as we know it corrupt and we cannot accept the world if we cannot accept religion.
how is religion disease? because we give, and get nothing? sounds like your religion is not fulfilling you my friend.
| quote: |
In the past religion may have had some credibility, a way for despots to control the idiot masses, add 5000 years and you have an insidious corrupt money hungry facade. Propaganda / marketing / spreading the faith, it's all the same bull, only the simplistic of mind fall for it.
|
unfortuntely what was once pure and strong ethically, through corruption and the establishment of a bridge between man and G-d which is the idea of a living 'bridge' being the heirarchy of the modern day major religions [excluding judaism because there exists no such heirarchy] corruption and bending of the truth has taken place. It is no magical wonder why today everyone laughs at the idea of religion. When you have the catholic church accused of molesting little boys, what can you expect?
| quote: |
Christianity / judiasm / islam / hindu: They are all a pathetic amalgamation of retired religions, a syncretic blend of past forms of faith that have failed. The only reason these conceptual ideologies are still in business is that they threaten their drones with "eternal hellfire" in case they leave.
|
please back this up with sources.
from my clear understanding, judaism was around way before the other mentioned religions, and is also the spiritual base for both christianity and islam. Both religions are 'hybrids' based of the old bible given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. Once people changed around the original bible and the laws of it, resulting in both christianity and islam, a manmade aspect came into being. Even though there is some truth to what they say, the eventuality of corruption became evident within the middle ages as the church began to take over europe, and as we even see in modern day, the islamic leadership is all religious, and they say what they want, and the people believe what they say. This is not true observance to the word of G-d. this is observance to the word of MAN. TOTAL CORRUPTION, which is worth nothing in the eyes of any intellectual. So we do have an agreement on this.
| quote: |
If there was no such thing as Satan (or its equivalent in other religions) would there even be religion in todays world?
|
what do you mean if there was such thing as satan? what does satan have to do with religion in todays world?
i dont understand how satan connects with the reality of there being a G-d who requests people to follow his commands?
| quote: |
I believe Robert Heinlein has provided us with some very good insight into what places of worship will be like in the future. Pubs, Poker Machines and Prostitution. The only difference between churches now and his speculative view of churches in the future, is that now the christian church is a brothel were seedy old men can sodomise underage boys. I bet Robert didn't see that one coming.
|
this man sounds like he has a point. it is true that with the corruption of the church, and the personal ambiitions of the hierarchy of the major religions that have take presedence over the supposed 'word of G-d' they preach and the evidence we can gain from powerful computers and science, anything that is said by the church or anyone else for that matter (the universe goes around the earth! not the otherway around you heretics! LOL) has to go a long way in their claims. To date for myself, who has been on this search for years, I found one thing that no matter what stands the tests of time in its unique truth that is unbreakable.
here is my conclusion. Tathi if you want to be amazed, before you subjectively throw this out, check out www.aish.com they are a huge organization dedicated to seeking the truth. They use tons of science, accreditted sources, and I promise you will be amazed.
This is actually the school I learn at. You find anything that is not true there, anything that you cannot say proves something 'BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT' and i will go over it with you, and bring it to the sources themselves.
[/QUOTE]
| quote: |
Man created god in his own image |
this is too true today. With the disgusting lack of ethics in todays world I agree 100%. Religion is a way for smart men to control the ignorant masses.
but what if those smart men said, 'dont take my word for it. go research it yourself!'
this is why I am so keen into judaism. You are not ALLOWED to take the anser and just accept it. You must research it, and know it, and question it.
for people who are not jewish, G-d says just follow the 7 laws of noah and you'll be fine!
want to know more? go research it for yourself!!! I'm no preacher! |
|
|
|
|
