| bimmylee said: Hmm. Asking why a fictional story full of 100%-fictitious characters isn't more plausible than the life story of a real person in history is like asking why the plot of "Harry Potter" isn't more plausible than the plot of "The Pursuit of Happyness". There's a quite a difference between looking to a drug for a temporary escape (that may kill you) and looking to God to actually guide every aspect of your entire life. I fail to see how these two things are in any way on the same playing field. Looking at Dictionary.com, the top two definitions of "faith" are: 1) confidence or trust in a person of thing 2) belief that is not based on proof Go ahead and try and prove that God doesn't exist. Millions of people have tried to do so and have utterly failed, because it's not possible. You can't prove or disprove the existence of something that exists outside of the known universe. So both beliefs require faith. End of story. Just because human rights are being ignored doesn't mean that they don't exist. Does the fact that the Nazi's thought it was okay to slaughter the Jews make it right? Does the fact that Mao thought it was okay to starve millions of his own people during the "Great Leap Forward" make it right? Does the fact that the Aztecs thought they were justified in sacrificing their own people make it right? There are certain things that everyone knows are wrong; that is why completely separate and distant cultures are able to both come to the consensus that things like murder and stealing are wrong. To even suggest that human rights are totally relative (which is exactly what you are doing) is what is truly laughable. Lastly, you should really examine the person and life of Jesus Christ before you assume that I am as gullible as you say. Have at it... disprove anything about the life of Jesus that the Bible teaches and get back to me when you do. I'll be eagerly awaiting you. |
I won't deny that Jesus exist, but saying that the Bible is not a work of fiction is just laughable in itself. The ideas of the bible are just as fictional as the ideas in the story above, and just as plausible. I am not gonna deny that the people existed, but saying that the events are fiction is just wrong.
Many people are guided by drugs their entire lives and are not just looking for a temporary escape. I'm also very sorry, but what exactly is God if not an escape from reality? Good thing you pointed the another similarity to the list, both are used to escape reality. The only reason that drugs and religions aren't on the same playing field is because religions have killed billions while drugs have killed only a few million, they are on a whole other level of destruction.
So now you are reverting to semantics? Really? Religion is based on complete, blind faith. Why do you think I have to be faithful to propose that an idea is probably wrong? I am not putting my faith in it, I am putting simple statistics to it. As for why that isn't faith, it can easily be proven that the probability of your Jesus being right is as equal as Muhammad which is as equal as Sidhartha which is as equal as the Hindi prophets. So you see, it is very easily provable that Jesus is only a probability and not a certainty, and it requires zero faith to do believe so. Also the statistics on it have far more other options, and infinite amount in fact, of probabilities other than the ones I listed above, and as of yet they are all more or less equally likely, making the probability of Jesus being remotely right equal to 1 divided by infinity, or in other terms, zero.
To address your human rights argument. I am willing to bet you would be singing a very different tune if the Axis had dominated world. Right now you'd think that slaughtering Jews was just a-ok. You can also ask millions of people about Mao's actions, and they will tell you that what he did was absolutely amazing. As far as the Aztecs, they believed it was right, so they did it, do you think all that many complained about it? Did you know that in Aztec religion the only way to go to heaven was to be sacrificed, or to go to a watery heaven you would have to die of lightning, the plague, or by drowning? If none of those conditions were met, that is the watery associated death or sacrifice, then the person went to hell. Their gods, which are as equally likely to be the right supernatural beings as is your Jesus, demanded that. So their human rights were just as right as yours.
By your last line about not realizing that human rights are relative, you just showed me how astoundingly conceited and close-minded you really are, spoken like a true fanatical christian. Therefore I will stop this argument here because I have had it many times with people like you and the result is always the same, I get amazed and pissed off at the profound stupidity of humanity. As such, I don't see why you should answer this post, however if someone else that's more open minded wants to pick up the argument, I would greatly appreciate it. I am always down for a good argument.
Edit:
Too much embedding.
