- Joined
- 2 September 2008
- Posts
- 1,038
- Reactions
- 1
In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.
The people I've laid an attack on are the bastards in Africa who tear apart the lives of little children by declaring them to be witches.....all in the name of God of course. Or the so-called Christians in Northern Ireland who use their opposing religions as an excuse to hurl petrol bombs and stones and bullets at each other.
Or the Muslim suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people in the name of God.
These are the people who are truly religious nuts.
I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling. On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.Ktrianta ... please no trolling allowed.
This is one of those rather abstract concepts which will mean something different to most of us.I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.
In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.
Ah, beamstas. It's certainly disgusting to us. However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food. It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole. To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!
In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.
The above comment about horses is completely retarded.
If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.
As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.
I think that comparing a spur of the moment deicision based on the name of something to believing in god is ridiculous. Maybe if a person announced their faith in a certain god because they like the name that analogy could be used, otherwise it's just a bad analogy that wasn't well thought out.
And im sure raping little kids, hurling petrol bombs and suicide bombing is perfectly acceptable to the people who do it too.
Your comment, proved my point exactly, and the fact that the people do the above does not mean it's true for all religion. It's just true for the sick people who do it.
Brad
I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling. On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.
This is one of those rather abstract concepts which will mean something different to most of us.
I know what you are meaning Bunyip, but might suggest that the girl at the races was somewhat misusing the notion of "having faith" when referring to the horse.
I guess most of us need something on which to base our existence. For those of us who do not believe in a God (or are agnostic which is my own preferred position), we need to believe in our own capacity to make meaning of our existence. This might take any number of forms, including simply believing in our own ability to make a difference to the world in which we live.
But for others, they prefer the concept of a 'guiding force' if you like, some entity which is in charge of all existence. I expect this is reassuring and offers a sense that whatever happens, it was 'meant to be' in the Great Plan.
When I look at the few religious people I know, I see that this faith/belief gives them a great deal of comfort and confidence, and at times I even vaguely envy that.
So maybe we need to acknowledge that a faith or belief must, ipso facto, be not demonstrable in concrete, material terms, and therefore expecting anyone to justify having a 'faith' will never be fruitful.
Ah, beamstas. It's certainly disgusting to us. However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food. It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole. To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!
Beamstas: you are doing exactly what you earlier criticised someone else for doing - making a quite ridiculous analogy.
To compare a religious belief which encourages rape and suicide bombing to the entirely physiological mechanism of dogs' vomiting is one of the more ludicrous analogies I've ever come across!
They're religious people alright Brad.......they're absolute religious fanatics.
Many of them are regulars in churches and mosques.
Many of them spend countless hours praying to God, many of them are regulars in the confession box.
Some of them are convinced that their actions will be pleasing to God and he'll reward them with 80 virgins when they get to heaven.
Which brings me to another thought.....I wonder if the female suicide bombers believe they'll get 80 virginal men when they get to heaven.
Yes Julia, ktrianta has been very concise in his posts. Unfortunatley he copied and pasted a 300 plus word edict TWICE. Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread.
Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.I expressed an opinion.....call it whatever you want - a claim, a statement, an argument - it makes no difference to me.
No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created. But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been.Do you know of anything that came into existence without being created in some way?
Created things (contingent entities) are our general experience. This raises the question of whether only created things provide a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of any one thing, let alone the whole collection of created things. To skip the in-between steps one must finally consider one of two possibilities:I could be wrong, but unless something is created then in my opinion it cannot exist.
Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.
No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created. But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been.
Created things (contingent entities) are our general experience. This raises the question of whether only created things provide a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of any one thing, let alone the whole collection of created things. To skip the in-between steps one must finally consider one of two possibilities:
1) an infinite causal regress of contingent entities
2) an uncreated, eternal first cause or ground of being
For myself, I've found no satisfactory reasons to accept (1) as there are too many attendant paradoxes (confer "Hilbert's Hotel") and it violates Occam's razor. (2) has the best explanatory scope and is simpler, thus to be preferred, IMO. Ultimately one should decide as best as one can, which option is preferable.
There are several steps from (2) to any particular definition of God, but God fits in the set of independent (or uncaused) entities as opposed to the set of created (or contingent or caused) things. To ask, "Who or what created God?" is a categorical mistake of the same type as asking, "Has this created thing existed eternally?"
You may not agree with Ktrianta, but what he said is in fact an answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?