mirgro said:
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. |
Let's try to keep this civil. Nobody needs to resort to name-calling.
Why do you keep bringing up statistics as if they matter? Why would statistics apply to anything outside of the known universe? Statistics prove absolutely nothing about the existence of God; any renowned scientist or mathematician would agree. I don't know why it keeps being brought up over and over. Using any argument involving statistics is proving absolutely nothing.
I can understand why a drug metaphor would make sense to you. But tell me... have you ever given Christianity a try? Have you ever attempted to have a personal relationship with God? If not, how can you know that such a metaphor is accurate? How can you know that it really is just a drug? Physical drugs can be proven to be "drugs" by their chemical composition. There is no such measuring stick for Christianity.
To say that an Axis-controlled world would change my views is a preposterous position. How could you possibly know? Let's not go there.
And how do you know who complained about Aztec practices and who didn't? How do you know how many people would side with Mao? You're assuming way too much in order to make your position sound attractive and convincing. Were the Jews being bigots for not agreeing with Nazism and respecting the beliefs of the Nazis? Moral relativism suggests that anybody can believe anything and be right... but nobody can actually justify such a notion. It's ridiculous. There's nothing conceited, close-minded, or bigoted about believing in moral absolutism; it's a perfectly legitimate stance. Suggesting that others who disagree with you are "profoundly stupid" is the most close-minded and condescending thing that has been uttered in the entirety of this debate.
You want to know just what sets Jesus apart from the rest? I'll tell you.
True Christianity isn't a religion at all - it's discovering and establishing a relationship with God. It's trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross for all of us, not on what we can do for ourselves. It's not about hierarchical structures, ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rules and rituals. It's all about Jesus and who He is. Either He's the Son of God who offers the only true hope for the world, or he's not.
