Also surely god could just contact them no? Why does it have to be 'taught' to them if god would know fine well they'd never be aware of his existance.

Yeah, it's where I pop round to your house and rut your missus while you're at church.

you have no right to judge any one who has not committed a crime against humanity

So Kirkstaller. Hate to get personal but I have to ask the obvious question.

Given that it is a sin worthy of being smote down by God to cast thy seed upon the ground, do you abstain totally from non-procreational sexual activity (including when you're alone!)?
...and if so are the rest of us condemned to eternal damnation.

I only ask 'cos if recreational sex is a mortal and damnable sin I reckon you're gonna be pretty lonely beyond those pearly gates with only Isaac Newton, George Handel and Mohandas Gandhi for company.

Simple explanation for the existence of God.

Man, by his very nature, is inquisitive. We need to know stuff. There needs to be a rational explanation for everything, otherwise our minds have difficulty processing information from point to point. Being told “because that’s how it is” simply doesn’t cut it with most people.

God, or the existence of an almighty being, rationalises everything with no need for further explanation.

2000 years ago the was slightly less scientific exploration and the masses needed to know how the earth came into existence, or why people die, what happens after people die, etc. God became an indubitable answer to ALL questions, “… it is Gods will”. This then appeases man’s need to know stuff.

Simples.


...also - this thread really goes to show the disparity between the numbers Christian Rugby League supporters and those of us that are going to be spending our afterlife wishing we'd brought the factor 40 suncream.

I thought that God was a mix between Morgan Freeman, and Ricky Gervais. Freeman makes the role of God look so easy in Bruce Almighty, surely only the real true God could pull that off. He also changes shape, and no other man I know of can do that. Gervais has taken up inventing animals so he must also be part of the omnipotent crowd too.

Oh and Adultery, that's an easy one, just wikipedia it. No need to ask God at all.

Nope, god is James Mason, just Youtube Eddie Izzard for an explanation, "God and the dinosaurs".

Now that's what I call evidence!

Eh? How is that clear? Only just read the last few pages of this thread so apologies if you've already answered this.

But you can't just make a statement like that with no back-up argument or explanation. Why is Mohamed less credible than Jesus? Is Jewish Moses, another prophet in whom's teachings both believed, equally to be dismissed? Or David?

Whether any "prophet" is a reality at all is another argument, but why accept some and not others as fact as the only evidence for each is at worst subjective and at best based on texts so ancient we have no comprehension of how accurate they are?

Thankyou

Because that, in a nutshell, is what believing in a religion is all about - blind and unquestioning acceptance of statements presented as facts with no evidence.

Originally designed to control a population and milk them of assets, they now do a pretty similar job, a 1000 year scam and still going strong.

The problem is people like Kirkstaller don't [iwant[/i to see this, so won't see this. They prefer the 'peace of mind' in their superior sanctiomony.

Unfortunately enough of society still more generally continues to vindicate religion instead of exposing the varied inconsistent beliefs for the superstitious nonsense that it all is.

It got me when he said all non religous people people or athiests sinners,who are all lyars,thieves and adulterers.How dare he say that about people he has never met?but If Christianity is the way of the true god,then why did they feel the need to to take on all th Pagen feasts like Yuletide and Easter etc?

I was having an argument with a Christian and I told her to go away and look objectively at the evidence, and suggested that she wouldn't believe in God for very long if she did. Her reply was that she didn't want to look at the evidence because she didn't want to not believe in God. With attitudes like that, there's really no hope.

duplicate post