20 Sep 05
If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.
Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by howardgeeHey Howard,
If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.
Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?
While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.
What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance to believe "they know". My "God can beat up your God" etc. Why does someone's belief system have to come at the expense of mocking another's or lack of one?
If you think about it why is the cockroach belief that insane? Why isn't the belief in anything possible? To me the belief in Christ, with due respect, is no less insane than the cockroach, the belief in no god, or Jerry Lewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by Joe FistNow you mention it, there is something a little perverse about our insistence on knowing the answers and feeling certain about things that are cannot be understood by us. To believe certainly in the anthropomorphic God is no crazier than believing certainly in the complete absence of any organizing intelligence whatsoever. Believing certainly in any answer formulated by humans - and then forgetting that the answer was formulated by humans - sounds a little crazy.
If you think about it why is the cockroach belief that insane? Why isn't the belief in anything possible? To me the belief in Christ, with due respect, is no less insane than the cockroach, the belief in no god, or Jerry Lewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.
Some of the mystical traditions within the great religions seem to put an emphasis on the looking, or the questioning, rather than the answers that follow. Once the mind closes around something, it seems to stop looking.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by AlgernonThat's my point that you articulated better than I did:
Now you mention it, there is something a little perverse about our insistence on knowing the answers and feeling certain about things that are cannot be understood by us. To believe certainly in the anthropomorphic God is no crazier than believing certainly in the complete absence of any organizing intelligence whatsoever. Believing certainly in any answe ...[text shortened]... than the answers that follow. Once the mind closes around something, it seems to stop looking.
Why can't everyone admit we just plain simply do not know? That is not to say a Christian should stop being a Christian or the Atheist should stop not believing. One should not infringe on the other but I think that is a bit too optimistic.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by Joe FistIn an ideal world, there should be regular community meetings to discuss local events, have a sing-song, and just get to know your neighbours!
Hey Howard,
While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.
What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance t ...[text shortened]... ewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.
This (incidental) element of religion is a good one. That is as far as it goes though!
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by Joe FistI prefer to use my own invented term "unsane" to describe religious people.
Hey Howard,
While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.
What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance t ...[text shortened]... ewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.
This means to have a belief in something which can never be proven.
As you point out, mankind might just as well believe in the giant cockroach creator theory. It is equally (un)provable as our notion of "God".
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by howardgeeBecause there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and offered the same to all in His name if only they believed in Him.
If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.
Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?
You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by chancremechanic[delete]
Because there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and ...[text shortened]... in His name if only they believed in Him.
You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄
Ah forget it about it. Been down this road way too many times.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicBut your objection is inaccurate, and the analogy still works:
Because there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and ...[text shortened]... in His name if only they believed in Him.
You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄
God = Giant cockroach.
Jesus = little cockroach on planet.
There are plenty of little cockroaches on the planet, millions of whom have died. Whom amongst us can say that one of them was not resurrected being the son of Giant Cockroach and sent to save us (Or cockroach kind)?
Thus there is as much proof for Giant Cockroach as there is for God.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by Joe FistBecause we do not know is precisely the reason why the atheist does not believe.
That's my point that you articulated better than I did:
Why can't everyone admit we just plain simply do not know? That is not to say a Christian should stop being a Christian or the Atheist should stop not believing. One should not infringe on the other but I think that is a bit too optimistic.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by widgetHe is unjustified in doing so. There is nothing to indicate that the proposition is true. Therefore, while it's remote possibility must be granted, belief itself must be withheld. Atheism should be the default position from which one starts, and belief given out in proportion to the available evidence. The statement "I don't know if god exists" should logically translate into "therefore, I cannot believe in god."
... and the theist does
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by howardgeeHello to all of those who are cockroaches :😕
But your objection is inaccurate, and the analogy still works:
God = Giant cockroach.
Jesus = little cockroach on planet.
There are plenty of little cockroaches on the planet, millions of whom have died. Whom amongst us can say that one of them was not resurrected being the son of Giant Cockroach and sent to save us (Or cockroach kind)?
Thus there is as much proof for Giant Cockroach as there is for God.
If I get you in my kitchen, or anywhere else, know that you will be DEAD!
I am glad to see that some ppl refer to themselves as cockroaches, but at the end of the day, we are human. There is proof that Jesus came from heaven, lived and died on the cross.
Will ppl ever believe in Elvis over a 1000 years from now? Yes they will! Cause there is proof.
The problem with religion is that ppl want to create their own one. They want to be the god of that religion.
At the end of the day, Christians believe in capturing souls for Jesus, and we want all to live for Jesus. People who dont believe, simply forces us not to believe. Who is forcing who? You dont believe so no one must believe cause to you, there is no proof. I bet my life on this, and say that even if Jesus was on earth right now, at this very moment, doing what He did a 1000 years ago, U STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettBeating this dead horse again? 😉
He is unjustified in doing so. There is nothing to indicate that the proposition is true. Therefore, while it's remote possibility must be granted, belief itself must be withheld. Atheism should be the default position from which one starts, and belief given out in proportion to the available evidence. The statement "I don't know if god exists" should logically translate into "therefore, I cannot believe in god."