|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 24, 2017 12:52:10 GMT
It's funny (ironic) how only 5 out of 18 people who've replied so far even believe in God, yet non-believers seem intent on discussing him/it. I wonder what drives the interest to people who have no belief? In my case it is that I grew up in a very religious family and was compelled to go to church every Sunday in my childhood. Also there's the fact that religion is a major influence in politics in many countries of the world. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I assume that is true about most posters here. But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity). |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 24, 2017 13:37:05 GMT
In my case it is that I grew up in a very religious family and was compelled to go to church every Sunday in my childhood. Also there's the fact that religion is a major influence in politics in many countries of the world. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I assume that is true about most posters here. But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity). I don't kill Indians or run a herd but I love to discuss westerns. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 24, 2017 14:15:44 GMT
I assume that is true about most posters here. But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity). I don't kill Indians or run a herd but I love to discuss westerns. Do you like to discuss Westerners from a current events/reality standpoint, or from a ridiculous and offensive stereotype standpoint? Because if that's what you actually think of "westerners" in reality, then it's no wonder you'd feel compelled to talk about them. Regardless, you still haven't answered my actual question. If you don't have an answer, I'd be more honest to simply admit that. You don't need a reason (that you are consciously aware of) in order to discuss something. It's just something that makes folks wonder. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 24, 2017 14:39:48 GMT
I don't kill Indians or run a herd but I love to discuss westerns. Do you like to discuss Westerners from a current events/reality standpoint, or from a ridiculous and offensive stereotype standpoint? Yes, humour and ridicule have always been the hardest things for religion to overcome, aren't they? (And the direct answer is yes: I enjoy a serious discussion of the art of John Ford as much as I do laughing at the offensive and inept work of an Al Adamson. Heck, I just like westerns.) The answer to your question, spelt out, is that one does not need a believe in something or practice it, just to take an abiding interest. Or even to take it seriously. The only 'wonder' in religion for this atheist at least is in wondering how so many people can be so credulous about something which is not for some consistent, evidenced or logical. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 14:43:07 GMT
If only theophobiacs could come up with something funny.  |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 24, 2017 14:51:18 GMT
In my case it is that I grew up in a very religious family and was compelled to go to church every Sunday in my childhood. Also there's the fact that religion is a major influence in politics in many countries of the world. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I assume that is true about most posters here. But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity). Oh, it does. You think someone who invested a good chunk of his childhood taking the idea of eternal damnation seriously should just walk away and have no concern or interest in the topic? You're quite free to think so, and remain in wonderment about nonbelievers' interest. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 24, 2017 17:03:31 GMT
Do you like to discuss Westerners from a current events/reality standpoint, or from a ridiculous and offensive stereotype standpoint? Yes, humour and ridicule have always been the hardest things for religion to overcome, aren't they? I wouldn't know. Thank you captain obvious -- I'm fully aware of that as it stands, and yet it STILL does not answer the very specific question of WHAT motivates such an individual. I didn't ask whether they needed to believe in something to take an interest in it, nor did I suggest that was the case. You seem stuck in a feedback loop, assuming that I'm asking something that I am not. Thats a fair question. And if that is YOUR primary motivation for coming here and engaging in convincing, you could have simply said that instead of engaging in theatrics! For that was an actual answer to my question (for which I'm appreciative). I only wonder if the majority of other posters here (who are atheists) are similarly motivated, or if they have alternative motivations. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 24, 2017 17:07:00 GMT
I assume that is true about most posters here. But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity). Oh, it does. You think someone who invested a good chunk of his childhood taking the idea of eternal damnation seriously should just walk away and have no concern or interest in the topic? I don't think one way or the other. But I would question what specifically "concerns" you now that you no longer believe it? What is the remaining interest for you? I know. Fortunately, that's not necessary here.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 24, 2017 17:29:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 24, 2017 22:32:33 GMT
None of those really apply to most Gnostics like myself.
God is an entity, but hidden. We see clues throughout the body how demonic entities, whether cognitive or not, are brought into being to replace the Holy Ghost. The fall is one such case. Another is when Peter uses his power given by Jesus to call upon demonic forces to kill two people, almost the first thing he does, whereas Jesus never did any such thing.
The Holy Ghost is all Jesus left here, and that is so cloaked by the evil of idiots in power that we just can't communicate with it very well. Most people brag about wanting evil things to happen, more so than good. That isn't the Holy Ghost. Look at the IMDB top 250. With a few exceptions, most are just celebrations of hate, divisiveness, self righteousness, and sado-masochistic desires. Even the few "positive" films in History have Evil winning more than good.
So, God is capable of being understood, and is an entity, though God's reality is a spirit realm superior to this inferior Universe and its boring constitution and celebration of lack of inspiration and enthusiasm.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 24, 2017 22:33:52 GMT
a dog is a mans best friend. If you teach the "dog" to walk backwards, is it not a "god"? |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Apr 25, 2017 6:59:10 GMT
a dog is a mans best friend. If you teach the "dog" to walk backwards, is it not a "god"? No, it's a Biffer. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 9:03:56 GMT
Yes, humour and ridicule have always been the hardest things for religion to overcome, aren't they? I will indicate, then, when I consider religion from a "ridiculous standpoint", so that then you do know. Well, you did ask, Corporal Oblivious. The motivation is, still, an abiding interest in a subject. I am sorry I have to repeat this, but it really is simple as that, for me anyhow. One is of course, free to see any darker and more conspiratorial 'alternative' motives , just as it suits. Thank for you telling me what you did not say. Perhaps if you made yourself clearer in the first place? The question now is: what motives are unacceptable when it comes to questioning religion? Perhaps you can tell me what you do say on this. I guess you will need start a poll then, if that is what exercises you so much. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 9:12:57 GMT
None of those really apply to most Gnostics like myself.
God is an entity, but hidden. We see clues throughout the body how demonic entities, whether cognitive or not, are brought into being to replace the Holy Ghost. The fall is one such case. Another is when Peter uses his power given by Jesus to call upon demonic forces to kill two people, almost the first thing he does, whereas Jesus never did any such thing. Please provide empirical evidence for the existence of demons. Please provide an independent survey with statistics from which this generalisation has been taken. While things may have changed in recent years, in Hollywood during the years of the production code it was industry policy that evil should never triumph or bring a final reward. And even today happy endings are more common than downbeat ones. It seems some people claim to understand God more than others. One just wishes they agreed on what God is, wants, and means, between them. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 10:10:22 GMT
If only theophobiacs could come up with something funny. One imagines that there is no need when the other side have a supernatural character, divided into three, both man and God at one time, which created evil but which is also all-good, and for which there is no evidence to argue for, that knows everything but that which its most important creation will do, and with a colourful and mystical supporting cast, to play with. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 25, 2017 11:23:23 GMT
I will indicate, then, when I consider religion from a "ridiculous standpoint", so that then you do know. Well, you did ask, Corporal Oblivious. As you just acknowledged finally figuring out -- no I didn't! Thank for you telling me what you did not say. Perhaps if you made yourself clearer in the first place? You're welcome. The question now is: what motives are unacceptable when it comes to questioning religion? Perhaps you can tell me what you do say on this. I couldn't tell you. What do you say to this? I guess you will need start a poll then, if that is what exercises you so much. Well that was kind of the point of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 25, 2017 11:38:06 GMT
If only theophobiacs could come up with something funny. One imagines that there is no need when the other side have a supernatural character, divided into three, both man and God at one time, which created evil but which is also all-good, and for which there is no evidence to argue for, that knows everything but that which its most important creation will do, and with a colourful and mystical supporting cast, to play with. Yeah, that isn't funny  Are you going for serious? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 13:08:18 GMT
Anthropomorphic.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 13:18:57 GMT
One imagines that there is no need when the other side have a supernatural character, divided into three, both man and God at one time, which created evil but which is also all-good, and for which there is no evidence to argue for, that knows everything but that which its most important creation will do, and with a colourful and mystical supporting cast, to play with. Yeah, that isn't funny Are you going for serious? Oh but it is. That and the pointy hats worn by Archbishops and pope etc. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 13:53:53 GMT
As you just acknowledged finally figuring out -- no I didn't! So when you said "But that doesn't explain what compels you to come here and discuss religion (presumably Christianity)" - implying the question of what the 'compulsion' might be, I can't make the reasonable observation that one can just be compelled by an abiding interest in something, without necessarily believing in it? Got it. Thank for you telling me what you did not say. Perhaps if you made yourself clearer in the first place? You're welcome. Now, you just need to remind us that of which you don't think either and all will be clear. The question now is: what motives are unacceptable when it comes to questioning religion? Perhaps you can tell me what you do say on this. I couldn't tell you. What do you say to this? I say that you are once again telling me what you can't, and don't say. It is not very helpful. |
|
