| I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. |
epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. They need the help of some omnipotent being just because they're weak. Some follow a God because they can't find an answer to why we were created, how etc, so they believe in this God because what he did makes sense and lots of people believe in him. Yeah, random stuff, I'll edit this for a better response. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Because people have feelings, and bear different customs, cultures and values, therefore have different reasons to believe in different things. |
| A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. |
Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. Refer to my answer. |
| Oh shit! here we go! |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. This is a beautiful question. |
 |
epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. For the same reason many feel strong about eating with a spoon and fork. They grow with it. Their parents make it seem like it's something you should have so it gets engraved inside you. |
epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. |
 |
Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. They don't. You don't see atheist making crusades killing people or burning churches. If you mean about why some like to debate about it is because of one word. "LOGIC". About the same reason you will mock me and tell me to go get my mental institute admission papers if i said aliens killed Kennety or that i have an elf living in my closet. GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. |
Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. |
| |
mrjag said: Immahnoob said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. They need the help of some omnipotent being just because they're weak. To me it is weakness and stupidity. They have been many religious people with more strength and courage in their pinky than you could gather in a 100 years. To answer OP, I would say tradition plays a pretty big role. |
| The Art of Eight |
GrumpyGumpy said: It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. No, because atheism isn't a belief system. Religion contradicts reality, that's why faith is important for the religious. |
 |
GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. Even believers admit that there is no logic behind their faith other than faith itself and not logic. Logic and realism isn't up to debate. If the most famous religion in the world was about a flying spaghetti god it doesn't change the fact that it's against logic no matter how it's believers see it as reality. |
Immahnoob said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. They need the help of some omnipotent being just because they're weak. Some follow a God because they can't find an answer to why we were created, how etc, so they believe in this God because what he did makes sense and lots of people believe in him. Yeah, random stuff, I'll edit this for a better response. Fairly typical misinformed view of religon. Firstly "this god" is not in all religions some are monotheistic with "this God" think of Judiasm, Christianity or Islam. Others are multitheistic such as variations of Hinduism and indeed some are not even theistic such as variations of Buddhism. So no the God line is utter rubbish, just to clear that up. In fact if you want to even try and answer this question first of all come up with a definition of religion which fits all the world's religions. Ignorance certainly isn't limited to being religous you know, more non religious people know fuck all about religion than religious people who know fuck all about science etc etc. |
| |
Monad said: Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. They don't. You don't see atheist making crusades killing people or burning churches. True. Hitler was a Christian too :D |
 |
Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. Even believers admit that there is no logic behind their faith other than faith itself and not logic. Logic and realism isn't up to debate. If the most famous religion in the world was about a flying spaghetti god it doesn't change the fact that it's against logic no matter how it's believers see it as reality. How is it against logic? You're just avioding the question repeatedly. The funny thing about both those who are members of one religion or against it is that neither of them can come up with any real arguments for why they are right or wrong. |
| |
YorozuyaGinSan said: Hitler was a Christian too :D He was a Positive Christian. Not exactly the most sterling implementation of Christian doctrine. |
| I think I saw some statistics where religious people get laid less often than normal people. Likely if you ask me. |
 |
| This thread will not end well. I can't give a proper answer because I have a religion but I have my doubts in believing it either. Let's just say it's because of tradition and conformity. I only realised how unrealistic it is at a later age. |
 |
epicscreator said: I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to strongly follow a religion. Mostly because it's shoved down their throats at young ages. That's about it. There's been a few polls in the UK, which showed that a very large portion of self-identified "Christians" do not even believe in a lot of what they're told in Christianity. To me, that says a lot about conformity. |
TrapaliciousOct 21, 2012 8:17 AM
| Everyone has their own opinion on everything. Just because we don't agree with the fact that a person believes in god or not isn't something to fight over. I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean I'm close minded about it. If someone showed a little proof I wold happily listen and re-think my position. I'm also not going to say someone is weak or stupid because they believe in god, that's just ignorance and gives the atheist community a bad rep haha. |
 |
| I Live in the UK and no one gives a shit about your religion unless you take all your retarded beliefs and ideals from that religion and shove them down other peoples throats. Personally I don't care whether god exists or not as it makes no difference to me. |
YorozuyaGinSan said: Monad said: Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. They don't. You don't see atheist making crusades killing people or burning churches. True. There have been plenty of violent people who have used the words of Marx, on the other hand can you think of anyone more peacefull than a Jainist? |
| |
GrumpyGumpy said: more non religious people know fuck all about religion than religious people who know fuck all about science etc etc. http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx That's funny, because practically all studies done on this subject show the exact opposite. |
Trapalicious said: GrumpyGumpy said: more non religious people know fuck all about religion than religious people who know fuck all about science etc etc. http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx That's funny, because practically all studies done on this subject show the exact opposite. The only thing that's funny is that you didn't even bother to read the link you posted. Did I say more non religous people know less about religions than religiious people know about other religions? No I didn't did I. |
| |
GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. Even believers admit that there is no logic behind their faith other than faith itself and not logic. Logic and realism isn't up to debate. If the most famous religion in the world was about a flying spaghetti god it doesn't change the fact that it's against logic no matter how it's believers see it as reality. How is it against logic? You're just avioding the question repeatedly. The funny thing about both those who are members of one religion or against it is that neither of them can come up with any real arguments for why they are right or wrong. Oh the irony. You are asking from a non-religious person to give arguments when the reason that person is not religious is arguments themselves. Again am telling you is stupid to ask me to give arguments on why i don't believe pigs can fly. A non religious person lives in a religious society and yet he doesn't believe because religion has no arguments. Every argument simply has no logic(that's where logic comes in) since the response is "simply because it's written in the bible. or it's a matter of faith". Religion doesn't have arguments it just has faith. So why are you asking for "logical"(you wouldn't want non sensible ones would you?) arguments from the one that asks for arguments himself. It's ridiculous. I have to give arguments on why i need arguments? |
Why is religion taken so seriously? Did you not take any history classes in your entire life? Matter of fact, take MAL and some views on anime here. Some people take anime very seriously and anime is just entertainment. Take a look at what religion fundamental is, mores, culture, structure, and an answer to what happens after death. Those things are a lot more serious than entertainment. So if you can understand the passion a fan of One Piece can feel for their favorite show then you may be on the track to understanding the passion people feel for their chosen religion. |
 |
GrumpyGumpy said: YorozuyaGinSan said: Monad said: Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. They don't. You don't see atheist making crusades killing people or burning churches. True. There have been plenty of violent people who have used the words of Marx, on the other hand can you think of anyone more peacefull than a Jainist? And what does Marx has to do with non-religious people? |
Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. Even believers admit that there is no logic behind their faith other than faith itself and not logic. Logic and realism isn't up to debate. If the most famous religion in the world was about a flying spaghetti god it doesn't change the fact that it's against logic no matter how it's believers see it as reality. How is it against logic? You're just avioding the question repeatedly. The funny thing about both those who are members of one religion or against it is that neither of them can come up with any real arguments for why they are right or wrong. Oh the irony. You are asking from a non-religious person to give arguments when the reason that person is not religious is arguments themselves. Again am telling you is stupid to ask me to give arguments on why i don't believe pigs can fly. A non religious person lives in a religious society and yet he doesn't believe because religion has no arguments. Every argument simply has no logic(that's where logic comes in) since the response is "simply because it's written in the bible. or it's a matter of faith". Religion doesn't have arguments it just has faith. So why are you asking for "logical"(you wouldn't want non sensible ones would you?) arguments from the one that asks for arguments himself. It's ridiculous. I have to give arguments on why i need arguments? And when I asked why people don't believe they come up with arguments such as logic, which hold no more meaning that saying faith. Yes, that is the funny thing about this whole debate neither side can actually ever show that the other is wrong, they'll endlessly come up with paper thin arguments based around words such as faith or logic which are not universal constants and hold no meaning in abstraction of context. Of course you can quickly see why this is, almost all arguments don't apply to all religions. |
| |
Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: YorozuyaGinSan said: Monad said: Porthos said: A good question will be why atheists attack religion so religiously. They don't. You don't see atheist making crusades killing people or burning churches. True. There have been plenty of violent people who have used the words of Marx, on the other hand can you think of anyone more peacefull than a Jainist? And what does Marx has to do with non-religious people? What has Marx to do with aethists, well what would a Marxist be? |
| |
| Because the odds are in their favor! Lets say the % chance for god existing is .000000001%. (This may not be true but lets just say this just because we can). Then people should still believe in God. The Reward for believing in God if god exists is Infinity because if you believe in God, you get to go to the after life which means the reward is basically infinity. The Reward for not believing in God if god doesn't exist is not much compared to infinity. Even you get a lot of time out of not believing in God, the amount of reward and time you save for not believing cannot compare to infinity. Therefore, according to "Pascals Wager", even if the % chance of god existing is .00000000001%, believing in god is still the better wager since what you could gain/lose is so much that even if God has such a low percentage of existing, then you should still worship him in case he does exist. |
 "I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
GrumpyGumpy said: The only thing that's funny is that you didn't even bother to read the link you posted. Did I say more non religous people know less about religions than religiious people know about other religions? No I didn't did I. Considering it's been shown time and time again that most Scientists are Atheists or lean Agnostic, it's safe to say that's exactly what you would be implying. Regardless of whether you meant it or not. GrumpyGumpy said: Yes, that is the funny thing about this whole debate neither side can actually ever show that the other is wrong Just because X cannot be proven wrong does not mean that people should follow X with no basis. I'm just going to stop myself here now. You're making incredibly weak arguments, that it's actually kind of sad to look at. |
| Atheists on the internet are so cute. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Trapalicious said: GrumpyGumpy said: The only thing that's funny is that you didn't even bother to read the link you posted. Did I say more non religous people know less about religions than religiious people know about other religions? No I didn't did I. Considering it's been shown time and time again that most Scientists are Atheists or lean Agnostic, it's safe to say that's exactly what you would be implying. Regardless of whether you meant it or not. GrumpyGumpy said: Yes, that is the funny thing about this whole debate neither side can actually ever show that the other is wrong Just because X cannot be proven wrong does not mean that people should follow X with no basis. Most scientists are Aethists? What does that have to do with anything? Some of the greatest scientists in human history were religious. The point was pretty simple ignorance of religion is far more widespread that ignorance of science among religious people and it's true as even attempting to come up with a holisitcal definition of religion is all but impossible. Nice to see you edited in some ad hominem at the end, funny thing is I bet you don't have a clue what my argument even is do you? |
| |
Post-Moe said: Atheists on the internet are so cute.  |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: Monad said: GrumpyGumpy said: epicscreator said: I don't mean to offend anyone or sound stupid, I'm just curious as to why many people feel the need to not follow a religion? If you answer your own question above with the one slight change in it then you'll probably find the answer to the question you asked. Why anyone follows what is logical or realistic doesn't need questioning. Why anyone follows something that seems completely unreal does. You don't ask people why they don't believe in flying pigs. You ask them why they do. It is only logical to you and people who agree with you though isn't it. People who have the exact opposite beliefs would find it as deeply illogical not to believe as you find their beliefs. Even believers admit that there is no logic behind their faith other than faith itself and not logic. Logic and realism isn't up to debate. If the most famous religion in the world was about a flying spaghetti god it doesn't change the fact that it's against logic no matter how it's believers see it as reality. How is it against logic? You're just avioding the question repeatedly. The funny thing about both those who are members of one religion or against it is that neither of them can come up with any real arguments for why they are right or wrong. Oh the irony. You are asking from a non-religious person to give arguments when the reason that person is not religious is arguments themselves. Again am telling you is stupid to ask me to give arguments on why i don't believe pigs can fly. A non religious person lives in a religious society and yet he doesn't believe because religion has no arguments. Every argument simply has no logic(that's where logic comes in) since the response is "simply because it's written in the bible. or it's a matter of faith". Religion doesn't have arguments it just has faith. So why are you asking for "logical"(you wouldn't want non sensible ones would you?) arguments from the one that asks for arguments himself. It's ridiculous. I have to give arguments on why i need arguments? And when I asked why people don't believe they come up with arguments such as logic, which hold no more meaning that saying faith. Yes, that is the funny thing about this whole debate neither side can actually ever show that the other is wrong, they'll endlessly come up with paper thin arguments based around words such as faith or logic which are not universal constants and hold no meaning in abstraction of context. Of course you can quickly see why this is, almost all arguments don't apply to all religions. Again you are being incredibly stupid. I just explained to you and you still say that someone that asks for arguments has to give arguments? is like what i just said went completely over your head. How crazy can you get for fucks sake? A non religions person does nothing different from what you just did, it simply asked for arguments and it got none. WHY are you judging him for following logic and not believing something that has no arguments when you yourself ask for arguments to believe something? For fucks sakes, don't you realize how crazy your behavior is? Is like you are trying to divide by zero or something. Why does the one asking for arguments about something needs arguments to ask for arguments? Are you trying to make our brains explode? |
MonadOct 21, 2012 8:51 AM
DarkShards said: Because the odds are in their favor! Lets say the % chance for god existing is .000000001%. (This may not be true but lets just say this just because we can). Then people should still believe in God. The Reward for believing in God if god exists is Infinity because if you believe in God, you get to go to the after life which means the reward is basically infinity. The Reward for not believing in God if god doesn't exist is not much compared to infinity. Even you get a lot of time out of not believing in God, the amount of reward and time you save for not believing cannot compare to infinity. Therefore, according to "Pascals Wager", even if the % chance of god existing is .00000000001%, believing in god is still the better wager since what you could gain/lose is so much that even if God has such a low percentage of existing, then you should still worship him in case he does exist. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any religions where you can only go to the afterlife if you believe in god. |
SRTHGV said: DarkShards said: Because the odds are in their favor! Lets say the % chance for god existing is .000000001%. (This may not be true but lets just say this just because we can). Then people should still believe in God. The Reward for believing in God if god exists is Infinity because if you believe in God, you get to go to the after life which means the reward is basically infinity. The Reward for not believing in God if god doesn't exist is not much compared to infinity. Even you get a lot of time out of not believing in God, the amount of reward and time you save for not believing cannot compare to infinity. Therefore, according to "Pascals Wager", even if the % chance of god existing is .00000000001%, believing in god is still the better wager since what you could gain/lose is so much that even if God has such a low percentage of existing, then you should still worship him in case he does exist. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any religions where you can only go to the afterlife if you believe in god. The point isn't if you can go to the after life if you believe in God. It's the reward in the afterlife. You still lose the wager if you go to hell duh. That is basically infinite punishment. |
"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
Monad said: Again you are being incredibly stupid. I just explained to you and you still say that someone that asks for arguments has to give arguments? is like what i just said went completely over your head. How crazy can you get for fucks sake? A non religions person does nothing different from what you just did, it simply asked for arguments and it got none. WHY are you judging him for following logic and not believing something that has no arguments when you yourself ask for arguments to believe something? For fucks sakes, don't you realize how crazy your behavior is? Is like you are drying to divide by zero or something. Why does the one asking for arguments about something needs arguments to ask for arguments? Are you trying to make our brains explode? A non-religous person does nothing different from what I just did? That's hardly suprising to be honest. I'm not judging anyone for using anything, well aside from a couple of posts correcting mistakes about religion of course. As I put it in my very first post, if you use the exact same arguments on either side of the fence you get the exact same results. "Logic" is no different from "faith" in the way people use it in this debate. If anything logic is weaker than faith here as I've yet to see anyone make a logical argument as to why all religion is wrong, note all not just the monotheistic one that people seem to get so excited about attacking but you can make a faith based argument for all of them. Perhaps if people started off trying to define what religion is then they would see why it is so utterly daft to even try and discuss it as a whole. |
| |
GrumpyGumpy said: I bet you don't have a clue what my argument even is do you? Well lets see your argument, okay? "Ignorance certainly isn't limited to being religous you know, more non religious people know fuck all about religion than religious people who know fuck all about science etc etc." I gave you a link showing that Atheists/Agnostics generally know more about Religion, on top of the fact that Atheism and Agnosticism is far more widespread in the Scientific community. What you're trying to say is just flat out incorrect. Before making silly baseless claims to get your point across, post something to back it up. |
TrapaliciousOct 21, 2012 9:05 AM
SRTHGV said: DarkShards said: Because the odds are in their favor! Lets say the % chance for god existing is .000000001%. (This may not be true but lets just say this just because we can). Then people should still believe in God. The Reward for believing in God if god exists is Infinity because if you believe in God, you get to go to the after life which means the reward is basically infinity. The Reward for not believing in God if god doesn't exist is not much compared to infinity. Even you get a lot of time out of not believing in God, the amount of reward and time you save for not believing cannot compare to infinity. Therefore, according to "Pascals Wager", even if the % chance of god existing is .00000000001%, believing in god is still the better wager since what you could gain/lose is so much that even if God has such a low percentage of existing, then you should still worship him in case he does exist. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any religions where you can only go to the afterlife if you believe in god. If you don't believe in him you go to Hell... Obvious, right? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Trapalicious said: GrumpyGumpy said: The point was pretty simple ignorance of religion is far more widespread that ignorance of science among religious people and it's true as even attempting to come up with a holisitcal definition of religion is all but impossible. I bet you don't have a clue what my argument even is do you? Well lets see your argument, okay? "more non religious people know fuck all about religion than religious people who know fuck all about science etc etc." If you do not want people to "misunderstand" your arguments, then stop swearing so much in place of making any sense. I gave you a link showing that Atheists/Agnostics generally know more about Religion, on top of the fact that Atheism and Agnosticism is far more widespread in the Scientific community. What you're trying to say is just flat out incorrect. Erm no, that was a single line used. A line which you clearly do not understand and to be frank, I'll swear as much as I want though nice to slip in some more ad hominem there. Now in case you missed it, the point was made about the general populace. As Ivan Strenski pointed out in his excellent introduction to his book 'Why Politics Can’t be Freed From Religion’ if you wander round and ask random people "What is Religion" they will come up with answers which clearly do not actually define religion. You've seen many of the classic examples in this thread already such as the word God or the word Faith, as I pointed out in my post which you decided to only quote the bottom line of neither of these are actually true. Now if you went round and asked random relligous people some basic science questions they would be more than capable of answering them. That's the point of the line which you have such difficulty with for some reason, most people can't even answer the most basic of all questions about religion i.e. "What is Religon" in any accurate manner whereas anyone who has finished school can do basic science regardless of their beliefs or lack there over. Now, there was no swearing in that, it was very very simple, just to make up for that, Fuck, happy now? |
| |
Immahnoob said: SRTHGV said: DarkShards said: Because the odds are in their favor! Lets say the % chance for god existing is .000000001%. (This may not be true but lets just say this just because we can). Then people should still believe in God. The Reward for believing in God if god exists is Infinity because if you believe in God, you get to go to the after life which means the reward is basically infinity. The Reward for not believing in God if god doesn't exist is not much compared to infinity. Even you get a lot of time out of not believing in God, the amount of reward and time you save for not believing cannot compare to infinity. Therefore, according to "Pascals Wager", even if the % chance of god existing is .00000000001%, believing in god is still the better wager since what you could gain/lose is so much that even if God has such a low percentage of existing, then you should still worship him in case he does exist. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any religions where you can only go to the afterlife if you believe in god. If you don't believe in him you go to Hell... Obvious, right? at least in my Religion there isn't such things said. if you just be a good guy and don't steal the people's right. you might going to heaven. personally i was not a faithful man. but i felt the god then i start to believe in him. |
| To the OP, The reason why religion is taken so seriously is due to the fact that even after life, people want salvation. They want to believe that even after they die and leave this world, they'll have another one to go to. I'm a Christian and I'll admit, to accept God as my savior and follow some simple rules/morals is a small price to pay than say Atheism, where you believe you just rot in the ground when you die. I believe Christians also see it as an opportunity to live a rich, fulfilling life. I'm not saying Atheists can't, but it's not like Atheists have fundamental rules that say you can rape, murder, and steal and you won't be punished for it in the afterlife (or in their case, no afterlife). To the Atheists, I've got a question for you guys and I realize this doesn't apply to all Atheists, but how come a majority of Atheists complain about having religion crammed down their throat and then proceed to cram their beliefs down other people's throats? I just get a chuckle that Atheists would complain about being bombarded with religion but then proceed to shove what they think down Christians' throats. If you respond, "because Christians do it to us!" and you consider it so bad, then aren't you swooping down to Christians' levels? I guess I can't really say a "majority" because I don't exactly hang out with an Atheistic crowd but it seems like about 90% of Atheists I run into either on the Internet or real life do this. Is it just because you've never taken the high road or is it just a petty way of getting revenge? As you can see, I'm not questioning your beliefs, or lack there of. I'm simply questioning why you make a mockery of Christian behavior and then proceed to act the exact same way. I also have to lol at those calling Christians "weak" and "illogical." Yeah, because that's a GREAT way to win an argument. Just shout down the opposition and call them stupid. That's part of the reason why Atheists aren't taken very seriously by the Christian community. It's not that you don't make valid points, it's that you look down on anyone that believes in a god. Again, I'm not saying ALL Atheists do this. I'm just saying it seems like a majority of Atheists I run into do this. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |