My rationale behind why I don't like putting more than a few minutes at a time into any religious discussion (it's not a debate) can be summed up in a quote from House:
as mentioned earlier, I spent 7 years of my life under constant scrutiny by religious types including my family, peers, teachers, and even my girlfriend. I had to bring it all together to argue against religion, and I was unable to find a counterpoint that wasn't grounded in a logical fallacy or three, so I gave up. There is no debating religion with the religious because no amount of evidence that their religion is wrong or at least illogical or directly in opposition of established scientific truths will make them even go "Wait, maybe I've put too much stock in this belief system."
As far as the religious are concerned, they have the truth and no amount of arguing will make that persistence waver, even if you conclusively prove everything in the bible as wrong, scientifically impossible, and/or contradictory. as long as they have the "Well you can't possibly know there is no god" or "Something had to come before" arguments, they will never let go of this irrational thought process.
Or maybe they just are scared of the prospect of there not being an afterlife and NEED to buy into the entire deal if they want that sliver of hope.
Either way, unless you can prove God exists, prove that your religion is right, and prove that your interpretation of your religion is right, the entire doctrine should be treated as the theological mythology it is until proven otherwise. a great thing to discuss or even debate philisophically, but not something you should base your life around or take as absolute, infallible truth. At best, Religion is the structure we as a people can stand out hope and unity on, but as a defining theoretical origin story, it fails miserably.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
