Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Christians? Annoying? - I think so. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ++Hex++)
    The whole point of religion is that some people believe it isn't a human creation - it's based on the idea of God, something so important that religious faiths are given far more attention than most other sorts of belief.
    It is a human creation though whether they believe that or not



    I would disagree with that - I think his main message was that he was the Son of God, whether it was true or not.
    If it wasn't, then he was probably insane, considering some of the things he said - "on a level with a man who claims he is a poached egg", as someone put it.
    Sure, he was supposedly the son of God but that's hardly his message. I agree with the original poster - his message was a humanist one of "good will to all".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDoh)
    It is a human creation though whether they believe that or not
    That's your opinion of it, though. For the people who believe in God, the existence of God is a truth, and all that goes with it.

    (Original post by RDoh)
    Sure, he was supposedly the son of God but that's hardly his message. I agree with the original poster - his message was a humanist one of "good will to all".
    Then why would the Bible be about Jesus, and not some other random do-gooder?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    you put forward the idea you believed in science and i am mearly saying that science is not fallable as I have shown, so just be carefull about adopting and trying to stand up for a whole belief system, there are always going to be dodgy bits and you would of been better for saying something like "i believe is science is more likely to have the answers" rather than "science has the answers"

    then you aren't an athiest, since someone who is an athiest believes God does not exist and can't.
    I do believe that god doesn't and can't exist.

    Yet like anyone sensible I accept that there is a possibility that I could be wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    then you aren't an athiest, since someone who is an athiest believes God does not exist and can't.
    Most atheists will accept that there is a possibility that god exists in the sense that they don't believe in him but no one can ever be 100% sure they are correct. Athiests by definition don't believe in God but that doesn't mean that they are closed minded. Many of my athiest friends would believe in god if someone came up with some evidence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Most atheists will accept that there is a possibility that god exists in the sense that they don't believe in him but no one can ever be 100% sure they are correct. Athiests by definition don't believe in God but that doesn't mean that they are closed minded. Many of my athiest friends would believe in god if someone came up with some evidence.
    surely that is an agnostic view you describe in the opening sentance, if not could you please describe how you differentiate between the two. And i am sure that alot of people's views would change if someone had proof for against the exsistance of God, since the proof would allow you to change a belief into a theory.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samdavyson)
    Now don't take this the wrong way I don't mean all Christians I mean the minority.
    ...
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    How does "have you seen any annoying Christians?" equate to all Christians being annoying.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    surely that is an agnostic view you describe in the opening sentance, if not could you please describe how you differentiate between the two.
    An agnostic is someone who isn't sure wether there is a god or not I believe and an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god but most will allow for the possibility that they COULD be wronge in that belief, but as far as they feel there is no god.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    An agnostic is someone who isn't sure wether there is a god or not I believe and an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god but most will allow for the possibility that they COULD be wronge in that belief, but as far as they feel there is no god.
    I suppose the appropiate question is whether someone who was religious believes there is the possiblity that God doesnt exist?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I suppose the appropiate question is whether someone who was religious believes there is the possiblity that God doesnt exist?
    I have a friend who goes to church every week and is involved in all things to do with the church choir, helping at sunday school ect but isn't sure if god exists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I have a friend who goes to church every week and is involved in all things to do with the church choir, helping at sunday school ect but isn't sure if god exists.
    you are very lucky to have such a balanced friend, i am at a roman catholic school and i am agnostic generally, (its changed me from being really extreme in my younger years) and some of the ppl here will go on an go every now and again about religion
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The 'God cannot be disproved' argument is true but NOT for context in which it is often used. The God which cannot be disproved (or proved) is the creator deity, one who is assumed to have created the universe - AND NOTHING MORE. The argument bears no relation to the Christian God with all its extra bells trumpets and trinkets added on which is disproved by simple logic and common sense through the contradictory nature of its own attributes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    The 'God cannot be disproved' argument is true but NOT for context in which it is often used. The God which cannot be disproved (or proved) is the creator deity, one who is assumed to have created the universe - AND NOTHING MORE. The argument bears no relation to the Christian God with all its extra bells trumpets and trinkets added on which is disproved by simple logic and common sense through the contradictory nature of its own attributes.
    yeah i see that, a christain god doesnt make that much sense at all
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    yeah i see that, a christain god doesnt make that much sense at all
    Neither does any God if you think about it for long enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, and neither does mankind if you continue down that route - but we're still here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samdavyson)
    I think that Christening a child at Birth should be banned.

    It gives no choice, before the baby is one they have ties with the church.

    I agree with you, it is very imposive. However, if the child grows up to abandon religion, then for them the ritual of baptism will stand for nothing anyway. Child gets dipped in water, some words said, it only has symbolic significance to a person of the Christian faith.
    I know several people who think this way, they have been baptised but are now atheists. I think the problem is having beliefs shoved down your throat from an early age, where a child is likely to believe whatever it is told, and those crucial first few years make an imprint on the child's beliefs for the rest of it's life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Aye, and neither does mankind if you continue down that route - but we're still here.
    ...so far.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimoni)
    I agree with you, it is very imposive. However, if the child grows up to abandon religion, then for them the ritual of baptism will stand for nothing anyway. Child gets dipped in water, some words said, it only has symbolic significance to a person of the Christian faith.
    I know several people who think this way, they have been baptised but are now atheists. I think the problem is having beliefs shoved down your throat from an early age, where a child is likely to believe whatever it is told, and those crucial first few years make an imprint on the child's beliefs for the rest of it's life.
    It has had serious consequences. In the 19th century, in the papal states, a christian servant secretly had an ill jewish child, Edgar Mortara, baptised to save him from hell. The child recovered, the pope learned and had him taken from his family and brought up as a christian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    It has had serious consequences. In the 19th century, in the papal states, a christian servant secretly had an ill jewish child, Edgar Mortara, baptised to save him from hell. The child recovered, the pope learned and had him taken from his family and brought up as a christian.
    well.. back then yes. I should think it highly inappropriate if the Pope started stealing people's babies..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimoni)
    well.. back then yes. I should think it highly inappropriate if the Pope started stealing people's babies..
    The pope didn't think he was "stealing other people's babies". He was ensuring a christian child was brought up as a christian. It wasn't so far " back then" either, about a hundred and fifty years. The only reason the pope and other religious leaders has stopped doing things like that is because they were forced to stop, not because they recognised the error of their ways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee86)
    then explain the human EYE
    As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated,

    "As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes, the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: the retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!
    Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily--even though we can make little use of paleontology (because eyes, like all soft tissues, rarely fossilize)."

    Obtained from my good friend, google.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.