religion. what is the point?

Status
Not open for further replies.


If I was going to believe in any of the made up religions id go for Zeus and his marras.

In other words the Indo European god Dyeus, also known as Dyaus in India, the Sky Father. There are not as many made up deities as you would think and most from Europe through the Middle East to India are all from the same original pantheon of the nomadic Indo Europeans from around 5,000 BCE. The Indian creator god Brahma is older though and Shakti the goddess of sex and fertility. She sounds cool and still worshipped today.

Personally I find Manu (Man) the most interesting. Also known as Manu in India he was the progenitor of mankind.
 
Last edited:
People have been showing how it doesn't make sense - basically it is full of contradictions, very bad morals and logical fallacies, yet you think critics of the bible are somehow scared that they may find out it "makes sense". What you are saying makes as much sense as the bible.
No they haven't, they've interpreted a passage of the bible from thousands of years ago in the way they want to see it, something.g which Christians are criticised for all the time, and it think this desire for the bible to be evil is borne out of fear
 
Where would we be without Manu.

We would not be able to worship the other gods or to be able to appreciate this gift of life. His twin brother was Yemo or Yama in India, the god of death.
 
No they haven't, they've interpreted a passage of the bible from thousands of years ago in the way they want to see it, something.g which Christians are criticised for all the time, and it think this desire for the bible to be evil is borne out of fear

The Torah is contradictory though because it is compiled from several texts. The two primary texts were Elohist and Yahwist.
 
"You can't prove anything about what exists outside of our universe, however I've got my reasons for believing in God."

We don't know if there is anything "outside our Universe" not that I even know why you bring that point up, except possibly to divert attention that you have no proof of your gods existence. As for your reasons, I have already said that I don't care what you believe, I care what you can prove. If you can't prove that your god exists we have no real dialogue. You might as well tell me about the Harry Potter books.

"Again that's absolute bollocks, this isn't God's world we're living in I promise you that much!

And your promises are meaningless without proof to back them up. I promise you I will give you a million pounds tomorrow in used fivers. Good luck.
Well since god exists outside of the universe I'd say the fact that we don't really no anything about it is quite important, and there's no sense to saying the onus is only on me to prove my beliefs, which is have, to myself by reading the bible, anyway you seem to think an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it isn't.
 
Well since god exists outside of the universe I'd say the fact that we don't really no anything about it is quite important, and there's no sense to saying the onus is only on me to prove my beliefs, which is have, to myself by reading the bible, anyway you seem to think an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it isn't.
But what are your beliefs?
 
Wrong.

I'm interested in knowing what you actually believe, but you won't tell us.

I wonder why.
Because it would involve talking about my religion and I don't want to, if we met for a pint I'd tell you, I'm not worried you'll blow my beliefs out of the water mate, as @Running Man can testify to ;)

The Torah is contradictory though because it is compiled from several texts. The two primary texts were Elohist and Yahwist.
Meaning what

But what are your beliefs?
Worst paxman attempt ever
 
In other words the Indo European god Dyeus, also known as Dyaus in India, the Sky Father. There are not as many made up deities as you would think and most from Europe through the Middle East to India are all from the same original pantheon of the nomadic Indo Europeans from around 5,000 BCE. The Indian creator god Brahma is older though and Shakti the goddess of sex and fertility. She sounds cool and still worshipped today.

Personally I find Manu (Man) the most interesting. Also known as Manu in India he was the progenitor of mankind.
The sky father sounds like my sort of deity.
 
Meaning what

The infinite nothingness filled with light is Elohist. The universe was an emanation. This is the Canaanite god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

With Moses Yahweh became god. The universe became a creation and he reside in heaven with a heavenly host.

Not sure what happened but Egypt and Atenism was between Joseph and Moses.

Not sure who Jesus was referring to when he said that god was within.
 
Well since god exists outside of the universe I'd say the fact that we don't really no anything about it is quite important, and there's no sense to saying the onus is only on me to prove my beliefs, which is have, to myself by reading the bible, anyway you seem to think an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it isn't.

"Well since god exists outside of the universe"

I don't believe you. Prove it by demonstration, not simply a story in an old book or one of your "promises" :lol:

"I'd say the fact that we don't really no anything about it is quite important"

FFS. I am sure you are winding us up. You assert that "god exists outside of the Universe" while agreeing that we don't even know whether there is anything outside the Universe ?

"there's no sense to saying the onus is only on me to prove my beliefs"

Pay attention at the back of the class. I don't give a flying fuck if you, yourself, personally, believe there is an Invisible Man In The Sky. If you want me to believe that too you need to prove the Invisible Man's existence to me by a physical manifestation. That onus is directly on you whether you like it or not, because I demand proof.

"which is have, to myself by reading the bible, anyway you seem to think an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it isn't"

Meaningless words.
 
No they haven't, they've interpreted a passage of the bible from thousands of years ago in the way they want to see it, something.g which Christians are criticised for all the time, and it think this desire for the bible to be evil is borne out of fear

Just one passage? :lol:

How does someone 'interpret' it anyway, after the original interpretation into English? Are you saying the original interpenetration was totally wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top