Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Jeez have I created the edgiest thread on the forums? I doubt it but still man, it'd have to be up there.
I guess I should have seen it coming though.
As much as I'd like to shut this down, I'm not going to deny you all the privilege of such enlightened debate.
Good day to you all.
:.|:;
Offline
Jeez have I created the edgiest thread on the forums? I doubt it but still man, it'd have to be up there.
I guess I should have seen it coming though.
As much as I'd like to shut this down, I'm not going to deny you all the privilege of such enlightened debate.
Good day to you all.
But.. but! I wanna keep messing with religious fanatics!
You will never close it.
Offline
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
that's fourteen words
EDIT: speaking of fourteen words
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Offline
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
I think there are arguments that could be made that religion is harmful or beneficial whether or not God exists.
Offline
There is no proof that god exist so why does so many believe in it? That's what's interesting.
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
☆ ★ ★
Offline
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
But atheism isn't harmful if god exists.
Offline
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
pls elaborate more.
Discord: jawp#5123
Offline
This thread summed up in one word: religion is harmful if God doesn't exist, atheism is harmful if God does exist.
The unoriginal Pascal's Wager argument.
In either scenario, atheism is very likely the least risky for several reasons.
You may be very well believing in the wrong god out of thousands of gods that have been conceived through history. CONTENT WARNINGWell, in that case you're ****.
It's conceivable that the true god may be Allah, Zeus or Poseidon. You don't know, and before you tell me that you do, take a look at this.
If you believe in a god for your own selfish desire to go to heaven on the off-chance they exist, you are incredibly conceited and immodest.
It is then that you admit to doing good not for the sake of loving your fellow humans, but rather stemming from a selfish desire to go to heaven.
Which is more akin to following in the steps of Jesus? Doing good for the sake of humanity, as atheists do, or being desperate and selfish?
*u stinky*
Offline
It is then that you admit to doing good not for the sake of loving your fellow humans, but rather stemming from a selfish desire to go to heaven.
How so? According to some sects of Christianity, good works don't earn one's self to heaven. They also believe that if you accept Jesus, you'll be transformed and naturally try to stray away from sin. It's also commanded in their Bible to love one another and to love God, which your statement also seems to contradict.
Offline
XxAtillaxX wrote:It is then that you admit to doing good not for the sake of loving your fellow humans, but rather stemming from a selfish desire to go to heaven.
How so? According to some sects of Christianity, good works don't earn one's self to heaven. They also believe that if you accept Jesus, you'll be transformed and naturally try to stray away from sin. It's also commanded in their Bible to love one another and to love God, which your statement also seems to contradict.
If you believe in a god for your own selfish desire to go to heaven on the off-chance they exist, you are incredibly conceited and immodest.
It is then that you admit to doing good not for the sake of loving your fellow humans, but rather stemming from a selfish desire to go to heaven.
There was no contradiction. My reply wasn't to you.
If you aren't playing Pascal's Wager, it doesn't apply to you.
Re-read the bold print.
*u stinky*
Offline
If you believe in a god for your own selfish desire to go to heaven on the off-chance they exist, you are incredibly conceited and immodest.
It is then that you admit to doing good not for the sake of loving your fellow humans, but rather stemming from a selfish desire to go to heaven.There was no contradiction. My reply wasn't to you.
If you aren't playing Pascal's Wager, it doesn't apply to you.Re-read the bold print.
I may be stretching the definition a bit but Pascal's Wager can apply to other areas. There are other potential rewards from religion other than afterlife. What if one came into a religion with the belief that spirituality would improve their life? In that case, it's less about going to heave or hell, and more about how a person lives their life.
Offline
I may be stretching the definition a bit but Pascal's Wager can apply to other areas. There are other potential rewards from religion other than afterlife. What if one came into a religion with the belief that spirituality would improve their life? In that case, it's less about going to heave or hell, and more about how a person lives their life.
N1KF wrote:I think you fail to realize that spirituality can be a positive personal influence in one's life. By the way you're putting all religion in one circle. Unless you can prove that every single religion people believe in today is meant to start conflict I'm not going to believe you.
A scientific understanding of the universe is much more spiritual than any myth could compete with.
It's far more spiritual to embrace objective reality, rather than embracing mythology and folk-tale.In essence, religion itself started as a primitive attempt at scientific understanding.
They looked up at the same stars, intrigued, and decidedly became philosophers to fill the gaps of their understanding.
As you can likely tell, I've already responded to you concerning this.
*u stinky*
Offline
You will never close it.
Don't challenge me
Besides, I feel like this thread has reached it's logical conclusion: a recursive argument with neither side willing to change their opinions (which is fine tbh)
:.|:;
Offline
[ Started around 1732454132.4713 - Generated in 0.103 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.66 MiB (Peak: 1.89 MiB) ]