Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

Yes, one can't very well utilize "un-true" scientific knowledge to build working technologies.

Its not at all like religion where "truth" is subject to personal belief/perspective and which cannot be applied to building the tools and technologies of advancing civilization, at best being only able to supply "moral" constraints to those applications.

 

Why are you hiding your God from us?

Are you ashamed to be truthful with us?

Why keep your God a secret? Shame?

Regards
DL

 

It is a fictitious character from the bible and is supposed to represent Jesus and or God.

Where Christianity plagiarized the archetype from I don't know and have never cared enough to investigate the first source or use of the archetype.

Regards
DL

 

Still waiting for those 3....

 

Manitou
Ahura Mazda
Prajapati
Amenominakanushi

There's four and I think you'll find that every religion has a creation myth ascribed to one or more of their god(s), if you would only investigate.

 

No it won't.

Again this is circular logic. You first need to prove this being exists, before you can claim it is eternal.

How what came from nowhere?

itnwas a textbook example of circular logic.

lol, you think a discussion about the existence of God isn't a discussion about religion?

 

Gee... it is beginning to seem as though you understand that there is a difference between science and religion and that the goals of one is not the goals of the other. You might also want to take notice that your worldly logic is not applicable to Religion (Christianity at any rate) because Christianity uses theologic. Our use of theologic however does not ban us from holding you and those other users of worldly logic to the rigors of that logic that you have elected to use.

As for the "un-true" scientific knowledge... what has science ever been able to PROVE when everything within the scientific arena is subject to change and can change at any given moment. What does science KNOW about 'truth'? Truth is not a tangible object that can be analyzed with the technology that you praise.

 

Lol, in what way is what I'm looking for not scientific?

 

Father son and holy spook.

We are done.

Thanks for showing us all who you believe in and how his created abominations are quite good to you.

Regards
DL

 

Well, if you have never investigated it then it is reasonable to assume that your knowledge of it may well be tainted by various prejudices possibly handed down to you by others else you formed your own bias against it as a result of things that you have heard or seen. In other words your lack of caring to learn about it, tells me that IMHO you are speaking through ignorance of the subject matter whenever you speak or write about it.

 

Yes, we should be held to the rigors of that logic because that is a Fundamental Aspect of Science.

I have always understood that Science and Religion are two entirely separate "species".

I agree that truth is not a tangible object although it can be manifest in tangible objects.

That science simply adopts "new" truths and discards "old" truths as "the" truth is revealed thru the scientific process is wholly unlike the dogmatic apologism of religion.
Sometimes science just gets "truthier" , a step along the path towards a definitive answer because if nothing else we owe it to our species to never waiver on the quest to UNDERSTAND our universe, our environment, and our place within it.

 

Huh? What bias against the concept?

Further, to chastise without correction is rather cruel my friend.

What are we even talking about?

You did a good job of losing me.

Regards
DL

 

"Truthier" would indicate that there was never a 'truth' to begin with... only an acceptance of something as though it were 'truth'.

 

I have no problem with people believing in fairy tales for themselves, it's when they demand that others abide by the rules in their fairy tales that problems arise.

 

No, there is no actual scientific theory that tries to explain where the "it" that our "it" came from, there are only hypotheses backed up by some pretty cool math of where our it might just possibly come from.


- - - Updated - - -



Many claim to be the Creator? Name me 3.[/QUOTE]

 

As the present jihadist bunch are proving to be.

They are following Christian methods from Inquisition days. Our way or die.

*******ned religions have some good points but they should try to be a part of this century and not the long gone ones.

We have no need for another Dark Age of free though thanks to stupid literal reading of myths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

 

What "concept"?
Did some of the data addresses get corrupted.. perhaps a virus has entered into your human computer system and has degraded some data.
You did a good job of losing me.

 

You were talking of the shepherd concept. No?

I don't know what you wanted to say about it.

Regards
DL

 

Everything came from somewhere and is n it's way to somewhere else. The only problem I have with the various religions that some people choose to believe in is that they receive huge tax benefits. Why should the charlatans that run outfits like the Catholic Church or the Latter Day Saints get these huge tax benefits? These are two of the sleaziest organizations in the world and also two of the richest.

 

And how is it you know what justice is?
and What is it that makes you more qualified to say what justice is vs. what they say?
What does "DL" stand for?

 

No! I asked if you knew who the 'shepherd' is. I said nothing about a 'concept'. So there you go, attempting to change the parameters of what I stated.

"Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them."

Perhaps you might want to reconsider your "concept".

 

BTW Greatest I am: The title that Jesus ascribed to himself (according to the 'Bible') was this:
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Notice that adjective standing before 'shepherd'... as distinguished from that which is just 'the shepherd'? (as seen in Eze. 34:10) In Eze, the shepherd(s) was referring to the priests in Israel who were not doing as they were told to do.

 

What is there to argue in theology? What issue is there with theology? Any theological argument is based upon speculating of the existence or lack thereof a theological intangible. How does one prove or disprove the thus far unprovable? What point is there in arguing if "Religions are fairy tales for adults" when there is no firm evidence to support a definitive conclusion either way? Does the lack of evidence prove definitively that a theological intangible does not exist? No. Is the evidence that compels a believer to believe proof to others that said theological intangible exist? No. So again what use is there in arguing when neither side can empirically prove to the other that they are right?

See this is a huge flaw in humanity and perhaps the singular most significant source of strife in our world... that being our need argue over the otherwise inconsequential. I say I believe that there is a God, you say "Religions are fairy tales for adults"... but so long as I am not trying to convert you then what logic do you follow that lead you to make the claim on a public forum that "Religions are fairy tales for adults"? Why not live and let live? I say so long as we are not hurting each other then what does it really matter if one believes in God while another does not?

 

go with that.

 

I will certainly go with that. "that" points out that what you accept as though it is truth, has the possibility of later being found to not be truth and perhaps it was due to something offered that was "truthier" or because what was accepted as though it was truth was proven to be false.