- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/15/18 at 5:43 pm to lsufanz
quote:
Polytheism predates your examples and is still around today.
Ever heard of Baal? He was documented in the Bible as another God.
quote:
In Phoenician he was called Baal Shamen, Lord of the Heavens.
Where did he come from, if the writers of the Bible knew for a fact there was only one God (not called Baal), and they kept a chronological record from creation? Obviously, someone who was once part of those original Semitic people altered their views to incorporate Baal. And then made him into the universal god of fertility, and was also called the Lord of Rain and Dew. He was an evolution from the same origins
The whole point of the Biblical story of the prophets of Baal and Elijah was to show that some had evolved away from the creative origins and was wrong in their thinking. Even though they knew for a fact that they were right, and willing to die for their belief
quote:
On Mt. Carmel, Elijah said to the people of Israel, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him”
The evolution of religion is simply a wavering of opinions over time, that people chose sides about. Not simply that people came up with fantastical stories based on solely from their imaginations
Posted on 3/15/18 at 5:46 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:quote:
FACT
Don't use this word. You have no idea what it means
There is not a person on the planet who doubts the origin of each religion I listed in that sentence
Says WAY more about you than it does me, however
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:01 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
There is not a person on the planet who doubts the origin of each religion I listed in that sentence
Neat.
Also irrelevant.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:06 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Are you insinuating that Baal is the original God from whom all other religions evolved?
Ever heard of Baal? He was documented in the Bible as another God.
Are you insinuating that
quote:
The evolution of religion is simply a wavering of opinions over time, that people chose sides about.
somehow proves that people did not
quote:
came up with fantastical stories based on solely from their imaginations
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Also irrelevant.
Also bullshite.
quote:cannot be truthfully said about anything.
There is not a person on the planet who doubts
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:15 pm to Lg
quote:Every major religion of today (e.g., Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism) has been in existence for thousands of years, and 3 of those religions predate Christianity. And that doesn’t include the less popular or earlier religions that also lasted thousand of years.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how billions of people have believe and perpetuated a lie for over 2000 years by just being passed down.
So even if one of the five major religions has it right, that means billions have believed and perpetuate falsities for thousands of years, more than those who didn’t.
So why would the number of followers and the length of a religion’s existence have any bearing on the truth of its beliefs?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:22 pm to lsufanz
quote:
Hinduism
Has the same number of followers as Christianity?
quote:
Islam
A lot younger than Christianity.
Come on. You can do better. Active religions with the same number of believers.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So why would the number of followers and the length of a religion’s existence have any bearing on the truth of its beliefs?
Because, apparently is has taken a very, very long time and billions upon billions of people for a few of you to show us how the ignorant masses were all wrong to believe in God. And yet, God still is and believers are still believing.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:37 pm to Lg
Out of the 7 or so billion of us, it's about 33% Christian and a 25% islam 15% Don't Care 15% Hindu and the balance is everyone else.
Edit: And let's be honest out of that 33% only about a billion of em are in the right, the Non-Catholic splitters are all going to hell. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Edit2: ...And Mormons don't count.
Edit: And let's be honest out of that 33% only about a billion of em are in the right, the Non-Catholic splitters are all going to hell. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Edit2: ...And Mormons don't count.
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:40 pm to lsufanz
quote:Especially when it comes to things that are an overlap of philosophy, history, and psychology. Even though I think the idea that the abrahamic religions are stemmed from some shared conception point is pretty reasonable, saying no one doubts that idea, especially the precise point, is ridiculous.
cannot be truthfully said about anything.
People still believe the earth is flat, so to say not single person doubts anything far less obvious is asinine.
I mean Descartes and Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) is only a few hundreds years old AND only refers to the certainty of one’s own existence. So if our own existence and its basis is philosophically complex and still debated to this, then the precise origin thousands of years ago of a slew of religions answers religious beliefs is surely something that does not have absolute unanimity.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:44 pm to Lg
quote:
Has the same number of followers as Christianity?
Can we at least be intellectually honest?
You were trying to make the point that because millions or billions of people over the past 2000 years believed what is written in the Christian bible, it must be true or, as you put it, that many people believing a lie would be the biggest miracle of all time. Given the fact that Hinduism predates Christianity by probably 1500 years or more are you going to tell me beyond a reasonable doubt that they haven't had millions or billions of people ascribed to that belief system over time?
quote:
Islam is a lot younger than Christianity
Another disingenuous point, given the statement you're trying to prove here. In it's shorter history, but closer than Hinduism, it is already getting close to Christianity and expected by many to overtake it in numbers.
quote:
Come on. You can do better. Active religions with the same number of believers.
I addressed your point, dispute mine.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:46 pm to Lg
quote:What? I'm not saying your beliefs are right or wrong. I'm just saying that that if billions and billions of people have believed fundamentally different things for thousands of years, then billions and billions believing any one of those things for thousands of years has no bearing on the right or wrong of any of those things.
Because, apparently is has taken a very, very long time and billions upon billions of people for a few of you to show us how the ignorant masses were all wrong to believe in God.
In other words, I can say that billions and billions of people have believed in Hinduism, which began hundreds and hundreds of years before Christianity. So then why wouldn't Hinduism be just as correct as Christianity?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:49 pm to Lg
quote:
Because, apparently is has taken a very, very long time and billions upon billions of people for a few of you to show us how the ignorant masses were all wrong to believe in God. And yet, God still is and believers are still believing.
You seem to be getting a bit defensive. I don't recall saying anyone was "wrong" for believing what they believe, nor did I refer to any ignorant masses. What I stated and will repeat is that how many people have believed something over time proves nothing. You asked if I was stating that billions of people could possibly believe in a lie and I told you OF COURSE. Over the course of human history people have believed all sorts of things that have since been proven false and are basically laughable today.
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:54 pm to Lg
quote:There are about 1.15 billion followers of Hinduism which is fewer than Christianity but it predates Christianity by at least 300 years. And it's possible that Islam, which Christianity predates by about 500 years, will eventually becomewthe largest religion.
Has the same number of followers as Christianity?
So if Hinduism is older, then for Christianity to be the "truth" then the length of its existence cannot not be the reason so it must be the number of followers. But if Islam were to eventually have more followers then does that mean that Islam is the "truth" at the point it becomes the largest religion?
In other words, arguing the number of followers and the length of its existence is not a valid measure of the truth of a religion's beliefs.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:58 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Maybe Judaism, but I'm fairly certain it predates Christianity by a lot longer.
There are about 1.15 billion followers of Hinduism which is fewer than Christianity but it predates Christianity by at least 300 years.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 7:03 pm to lsufanz
quote:Obviously the basis of objective truth is a complex philosophical debate with many varying schools of thought.
Over the course of human history people have believed all sorts of things that have since been proven false and are basically laughable today.
However, his whole argument about years and followers is based on a bunch of fallacies and likely something that most schools of thought would agree is an asinine basis.
Ironically, hIs argument is basically based on postmodern/constructivism schools of thought, which is what the progs and SJWers use to justify their own arguments.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 7:06 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Oh, shite! Now you've gone and done it.
which is what the progs and SJWers use to justify their own arguments.
Seriously, though, this is why I typically avoid these conversations all together. The arguments used in defense of ones religion would never be accepted in debates over other topics, even by these same people. Yet, questioning a biblical premise results in laughing emojis because they're beyond debate.
I respect the right to worship as one sees fit or not at all, but have a problem when it goes beyond an expression of faith and into a discussion about proven or provable facts.
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 7:08 pm to lsufanz
quote:Yeah. I was just using the most recent formulation of beliefs, but this just shows how complex it is:
Maybe Judaism, but I'm fairly certain it predates Christianity by a lot longer.
History of Hinduism
quote:
The history of Hinduism is often divided into periods of development, with the first period being that of the historical Vedic religion dated from about 1900 BCE to 1400 BCE. The subsequent period, between 800 BCE and 200 BCE, is "a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions"
Posted on 3/15/18 at 7:42 pm to lsufanz
quote:Even when I was an alter boy, in CCD, and generally believed what I was told, this is what always gave me pause.
The arguments used in defense of ones religion would never be accepted in debates over other topics, even by these same people.
It really started to bother me when I was dating a girl in high school whose adoptive parents were extemely religious (don't remember specific denomination) and the first Harry Potter had just come out. They said it was like witchcraft of satanic or some variation, although they had never watched it of read the books.
So if they could make asinine statements like that, as if they were absolute and objective religious truths, and watching Harry Potter is supporting anti-Christianity and it's not debatable, then what is the basis for any of these truths that have been debated for thousands of years and far less asinine in their debate basis? And then why would the opportunity to learn these truths be geographically disproportionate, and why would some be give the ability to see it more clearly? And then how could others with completely different beliefs from some other part of the planet make the same claim to the obviousness of the absolute objectivity of their own beliefs?
Eventually when working on my PhD, I concluded the only thing that seemed intellectually and logically consistent was agnosticism. Since our understanding (especially my own) of the universe is likely so limited, and I can't disprove a creator yet don't have the empirical evidence to prove a God, then I can't say either way that creator exists or doesn't exists.
But whatever the likelihood is that a creator exists, then the likelihood that any of us has gotten it "right" is far less likely, and then the likelihood of any one of those being right is even less likely.
So my reasoning is:
Likelihood of a creator >>>> likelihood any religion in human history got it right >>>> likelihood any specific religion got it right >>>> likelihood I'm unknowingly the creator >>>>> likelihood scientology got it right
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 7:44 pm
Page 40 of 48
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News