By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Religious Children Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Aura7541 on 02 September 2014
padib said:
Soriku said:
padib said:

Him being a pink unicorn is not believeable. God is not cheesy and sappy if he created the whole universe. I expect some kind of unimaginable flame of unfathomable depth.

Yes, the pink unicorn having a creation story would make it more valid.


So god is some kind of fireball? Cool. Since we know nothing about him (although in Exodus, revealed as Yahweh, he's described as a great warrior, so maybe he has a big sword) then this is just as acceptable as any other description. Pink unicorn included.

You're being facetious, and it's obvious why the people who came up with God chose God. To ridicule the pink unicorn.

It's for those same reasons, the mythical God, that it is less believable given the non-flashy nature of the universe.

Same as before. It can easily go both ways. You're not really being anymore convincing...



Around the Network
Aura7541 on 02 September 2014
padib said:
Aura7541 said:

Same as before. It can easily go both ways. You're not really being anymore convincing...

At least with the pink unicorn there is a chance that he is real. With God, it's quite obvious it's a parody.

I beg to differ ^^



Aura7541 on 02 September 2014
padib said:
Aura7541 said:

I beg to differ ^^

Pray, explain. Not only are we certain that the pink unicorn is a parody, I'd like to hear why a unicorn is more believeable than the God as described in the bible.

Because you can't disprove it, the pink unicorn is real. Therefore, you're wrong.



McGilliguts on 02 September 2014
padib said:
Aura7541 said:
padib said:
Aura7541 said:

Same as before. It can easily go both ways. You're not really being anymore convincing...

At least with the pink unicorn there is a chance that he is real. With God, it's quite obvious it's a parody.

I beg to differ ^^

Pray, explain. Not only are we certain that the pink unicorn is a parody, I'd like to hear why a unicorn is more believeable than the God as described in the bible.

The bible is not credible. It's just a collection of ancient superstitions that are obviously false.



Hynad on 02 September 2014

So, basically, what we can all get from this "article" is that most people on VGC are religious.



Around the Network
McGilliguts on 02 September 2014
padib said:

 

@McGilliguts. Could you at least offer a reason instead of just a general opinion like that? I'm not sure why you saying the bible is obviously false would make your claim credible.


The bibles claims are demonstrably false, eg 

The Red Sea parting

The great flood

water into wine

walking on water

rising from dead etc.

since we know these things are all impossible, the bible must be false.



McGilliguts on 02 September 2014
padib said:
McGilliguts said:


The bibles claims are demonstrably false, eg 

The Red Sea parting

water into wine

walking on water

rising from dead etc.

since we know these things are all impossible, the bible must be false.

You don't know they are impossible. You are presuming. If we don't know where the universe came from, then miracles being supernatural, in my opinion, isn't a valid counter-argument.

In order to believe those things happened there must be evidence. Of course, there is none.  The fact that some things are currently uknown to science does not mean that any hypothesis is valid.



McGilliguts on 02 September 2014
padib said:
McGilliguts said:

In order to believe those things happened there must be evidence. Of course, there is none.  The fact that some things are currently uknown to science does not mean that any hypothesis is valid.

Nor can we say they are invalid.

As I said earlier ITT, given the existence of our world, the burden of proof exists. I don't believe science is able to explain it (the origin of the universe), and so I personally need an explanation. Whether you consider it valid or not does not remove the need for an answer.

Therefore, to me, given that void in answers, there is room for what we doesn't currently exist in our universe to be in the realm of possibilities. ergo miracles.

The reality is that we don't know the answers to those existential questions, and may never know them. The answers offered up by religion are extremely unconvincing due to a complete lack of evidence.



McGilliguts on 02 September 2014
padib said:
McGilliguts said:

The reality is that we don't know the answers to those existential questions, and may never know them. The answers offered up by religion are extremely unconvincing due to a complete lack of evidence.

I strongly disagree. The answers offered up by religion are satisfying from a moral and an existential point of view.

Naturalism is the opposite. It is satisfying on neither front and its foundation is evidence which is inadequate to address existential questions where the origin of existence itself is in study. It seems like we're at a cross-roads yes or no?


I suppose so, yes. At least it was over quickly ;)



VanceIX on 02 September 2014

Yup. My belief is still that people should let their children make their own decisions for religion, instead of preaching it at such a young age where the child will believe just about anything.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC