A question to all non-Christians

Discussion in 'Space Junk' started by Fenix, Feb 5, 2008.

A question to all non-Christians

Discussion in 'Space Junk' started by Fenix, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. Blackskies

    Blackskies New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    No its not you asked for GM_k to prove that religion is imaginary well I'm telling you that there are several cases in which religions were and still are being imagined. This can lead some to believe that all religions originated the same way as these. Just to support my argument heres a list of fake religions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_religions
     
  2. don_bocci

    don_bocci New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    But he was arguing that All religions All, not just some, are imaginary so no the fact there are some fake religions does really mean anything. So it doesn't help his argument anyway.
     
  3. Blackskies

    Blackskies New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Well how do we know from that all religions are fake. Considering all the ones created in the past 50 years seem to all be fake. I would say thats pretty good grounds to call all religions fake.
     
  4. don_bocci

    don_bocci New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Not really, just because a new something is bad doesn't mean the old something is bad. Look at sonic: The new game that they have on the xbox or whatever that has people in it really sucks. But Sonic the hedgehog for the sega genesis kicks all major rear.

    So just cause the new is bad that doesn't make the old bad.
     
  5. Blackskies

    Blackskies New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    but we arent talking about good or bad we are talking about whether or not religion is imagined or not imagined. Those are two completely differant things. One deals with quality the other with truth.
     
  6. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    If you agree that a human who hasn't heard of god, but lives an uplifting, inspiring and heroic life deserves a place in heaven more than a lazy Christian does, then why don't you believe that an animal who's lived such a life to deserve a better place than a lazy Christian?
    So it's impossible for animals to sin? Ever heard of (i forget the term for it, anyone know?) young birds in the nest ganging up on and killing siblings to increase their chance of being fed? Ever heard of cannibalistic insects?
    The sky is blue.
    Aboriginal Dreamtime stories were passed down by the Elders, just as Christianity was passed down by prophets and disciples. We now know that the stories of the Aboriginal Dreamtime aren't true, so just because something is passed on and passed down, it doesn't mean that it's true.
    I've admitted that some stories in the Bible have historical truth behind them, but all of those have practical explanations.
    We know that you believe it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't originally just made up. Kinda like how kids believe in Santa, but it's just been made up. It's not their imagination affecting their life, but their belief in Santa, who is made up, that affects it.

    EDIT: Typo. :p
     
  7. don_bocci

    don_bocci New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Animals don't go to heaven, thats just how it is. I don't see why you care so much since you don't believe in heaven anyway lol.

    We eat animals to sustain us, to survive. Animals don't have sin they just survive, its not like they eat each other out of Malice, they can't have Malice. In order for killing to be a sin you have to have a malicious intent.

    So it is, at a loss for what to say or just felt like saying the sky is blue lol

    I know I just thought I'd throw it out there for kicks

    I don't think you meant to but you just totally agreed with me on that last one lol
    I think you wanted a wasn't on the first line and not a was lol
     
  8. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    Humans shouldn't get benefits just for being human. It isn't an animals choice to be born an animal, so if it is able to lead an uplifting and positive life, both for it and for others around it, like pets for example, then they deserve to be rewarded for it. Just because I don't believe in heaven, it doesn't mean that I cannot have other views on it, nor does it weaken my argument.
    Animals act out of malice all the time. I gave the example of fledglings killing siblings with the intent of getting more food. It's basically like someone killing their brother or sister so that they can get a larger inheritance. Another example is if you continually provoke a dog, cat, rodent, etc, then it will attack you. It isn't defending itself, because you're not harming it, you're just annoying it, so it acts with a malicious intent.
    Seeing as you agree with the statement 'the sky is blue' you can now agree that animals don't believe in religion. The sky isn't always blue, but it is overall. Animals don't always not believe in religion, but overall they don't.
    Thanks for the correction. At least you understood what I meant to say. :p
     
  9. don_bocci

    don_bocci New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Heres how it works, it is the Catholic belief that animals do not have the right to heaven. Or I should say it was not their purpose to go to heaven so they don't go to heaven. If animals were created to be in heaven with man then they would be. But if it is the case that you say had an animal you loved dearly I wouldn't doubt that that animal would be in heaven with you once you got there.

    Animals instinctively try to survive, so its not malice it's instinct.
    Animals take the provocation instinctively as an act of hostility, so to them they are defending themselves.

    Ah see I didn't agree with "the sky is blue" I confirmed it for the specific time and place of where I was. Meaning the sky Was blue when I read it and where I read it, and that is the precondition for me saying "so it is." Besides this makes his argument Null anyway because a generalization is not something that can be used in an argument of facts. Also animals (referring to non-human) don't believe period so it doesn't effect how religion exits or not.
     
  10. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    I'm not just talking about pets that I've owned, I'm talking about all of the animals out there that are always aiding mankind. They don't even complain about it. If anything deserves to have an eternal afterlife of pure happiness, then it's them, not us.
    If you grew up in a starving family, where there wasn't enough food to go around, and you killed your little brother or sister so that you were able to get more food, would that be taken as an act of malice or an act of survival?
    Also, if you've ever seen dogs running around at the park, you'll notice that sometimes two of the dogs will attack each other. They aren't competing for territory or food, or they'd attack every dog in the park. How can that be an instinctual act of survival if survival hasn't got anything to do with it.
    Generalizations do help a lot with discussions about facts. They determine what the outliers or exceptions are. They're manly just miscalculations or mistakes, which is exactly what I think of religions as being.
     
  11. don_bocci

    don_bocci New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    The animals you love dearly wouldn't be in heaven because it was good but rather because you loved it. Regardless of the animal it won't go to heaven on its own. What animals are you referring to that always help mankind?

    You see we as humans know that it would be wrong to cannibalize, for animals its instinct. So to do something like that may not take malice but it most definitely breaks a commandment and is therefore wrong.

    I have seen that to, and it has less to do with territory and more to do with being threatened. A dog may not view every dog in the park a threat but it might view a few of them as such. Thus their instinct rings in telling them to protect. So that still falls under instinct.

    Either way this generalization doesn't do anything for the argument since non-human animals don't believe and can't believe, they can not or at least should not be include when considering how many animals believe or not.
     
  12. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    First, I said I wasn't specifically referring to my pets. Second, you're saying that they won't be allowed in because there were loved? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
    Mainly dogs. There are seeing eye dogs, sniffer dogs, guard dogs, watch dogs, hearing dogs, sled dogs, sheep dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, military dogs, not to mentions pointers, retrievers, terriers and companions. Apart from dogs, horses are used to draw carts, monkeys are used for manual tasks, ferrets are used to run cables through small passages and pigeons are used to deliver messages. Also, have you heard of the bear named Wojtek?
    This isn't cannibalism, it's killing a younger or weaker sibling so that you will get a share of his or her rations. This is exactly what other animals do, except you say it's not a sin for them because there is no malice. There isn't any malice for humans either, it is done purely for survival.
    Also, you said earlier that animals cannot sin because they don't act on malice, but here, you've said that it's possible to sin without malice. If it's possible to sin without malice, and animals (supposedly) do not act on malice, then it's possible for animals to sin.
    You're saying that it is done for defense, but for there to be a defense, there has to be an attack. The threatening dog would have to do something to threaten the other, and then attack it. If a dog is threatened by another, it won't just run up and attack it as a form of defense. One of the dogs would have to make an initial attack.
    Who says that they aren't capable of believing? Anyway, that was the point of that statement. Humans are outliers in almost every way you look at them. You can't exclude everything except us and then say that's we're the mean. It doesn't work like that.
    Also, how can't inventing a religion be instinctual? If a group of people are scared of the unknown and do not know how a heck of a lot of things work, then logically they will invent a reason. The Egyptians did it, the Greeks did it, the Aboriginals did it and Christianity has done it.