It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Religion shouldn't exist

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: JonU2

Here we go again... I find it ironic how "atheists" are always claiming "religious people want to ram their belief down people's throat," when more often it is the atheists who "want to ram down everyone's throat their own belief in religions..."

Your title shows exactly what's wrong with atheists. You all think you should be able to decide for everyone else what people should, or shouldn't belief.

In the 20th and 21st century the belief that has murdered and imprisoned more people "because of belief (whether religious or political) has been...atheism...

This is not counting the repression of religions in countries like Cuba, where religions were banned for decades because of the "socialist/communist revolution."

As a matter of fact Karl Marx wanted to get rid of religion, and that's what "socialism and communism" first set out to do. Those same "atheists" are responsible for the deaths of more than 110 million+ people without counting the deaths in battles...

"Atheists" have murdered more people than all world wars, major and minor conflicts and wars together in the 20th and 21st century...

In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.


And the above is not counting the murders of other "left-wingers" who were/are "atheists" such as the "red Terror events" in countries like Spain.

So go figure that once again "atheists" think "religions should be banned/shouldn't exist..."

Perhaps you should go live in China...the "atheists" there will love you there and perhaps you will love to clamp down on all religious people like "atheists" love to do in China...

edit on 13-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 07:29 PM
a reply to: pthena
I think you’ve really misunderstood virtually all of my post. First, let me clarify about socialism and the Pope. It is clear that Pope Francis is a socialist. Socialism and communism are based on godless ideologies that hate religion. Marxists Infiltrated the Church to subvert it. The Vatican is an example of the abuse of the Church for World control and power. The Roman Empire created the Roman Catholic Church to build the power of Rome. The Communist Revolution has sought to oppress religion to oppress and control the people. Many churches today including members of the World Council of Churches are a watered down version of the true church and Teachings of Christ. Atheists are not interested in the true understanding of Christ and therefore see the abuses of the Church as an example of what religion does which is evil. Atheism is more or less secular. Secular Humanism believes in man in place of God and this sees man as not needing God or His Laws. The Humanist Manifesto reads much like the Communist Manifesto.
Did that clear up your misunderstanding of what I posted ?

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 07:47 PM

originally posted by: pthena

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Um yah, no, it’s not reflecting what’s ahead in the coming Solar Minimum. I’m guessing you’re not aware of it.

I did see some smarter than me people discussing it on a more science based subforum a while back.

At the bottom of the page that you linked to was a link to an update There Probably Won't Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years Evidently, the story writer contacted the astronomer scientist for clarification.

Since our article yesterday about how reduced solar activity could lead to the next little ice age, IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate.
. . .
However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

Have you noticed that neither one of those I F#cking Love Science stories is dated? When the heck were they written? Four years ago? Five, 10?

I take undated religious texts with a grain of salt.
We are not having global warming. We ate on a period of global cooling. I’m guessing that little blurb was more of a disclaimer than anything else but no the sun is what impacts our climate not suvs and cow farts. Even NASA is predicting the Solar Minimum. Here’s an article on the Solar Minimum I found on Theodore Whites fb page worth s read and he also cites Zarkhova sHTr_vCb13Kc
edit on 13-4-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:22 PM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JonU2

It seems to me religion is hardwired into our being , it's man who decides the direction that need for belief takes which is where things seem to break down , I don't think we can be separated from the need to believe as it must serve a purpose in our psychi.

Hardwired? nah. It is indoctrinated. Plain and simple.

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:32 PM
a reply to: JonU2

I dont have a problem with it. Ya religion was created just to sway the masses, but so were many a other things if not everything, anything ideals and isms and every group think that humans create, its all juts self serving for whichever group created it.

Besides the reason you state above are not the only reason why religion exists. And now a days, it serves no real purpose, but hey whatever people can believe in anything they want.

If they get to pushy. Then I would say get rid of them, as most are just a waste of time.

And besides, if we get rid of all religions, the world would be a more duller place, have you seen some of the stuff and things that were done in the name of religions? Its like watching a monthy python marathon, the world would be a much less funnier place without religions.

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:33 PM
Anyone can believe whatever it is they want to believe, go right ahead. Be my guest. The only issue I have with religion is when people never want to take credit for something happening to them or their family. Something good happens, they thank god, if something bad happens they say god gives and god taketh away. Someone gets the job they applied for and that they interviewed for and spent a lot of effort trying to get and then they thank god for the blessing....Geez, just take the credit for your self. It just bothers me how people use religion as a scapegoat when problems happen and then never want to take credit for their own hard work in achieving something beneficial in life.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 01:54 AM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Atheism is more or less secular.

Probably. The antonym for secular would be sacred. That word "sacred" does not appear in the Humanist Manifesto III

Secular Humanism believes in man in place of God and this sees man as not needing God or His Laws. The Humanist Manifesto reads much like the Communist Manifesto.

It's been a long time since I've read the Communist Manifesto, don't remember it much, but it seemed to be a whole book; whereas the Humanist Manifesto fits on one page.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

American Christians say they revere the U.S. Constitution. Some Christian extremists, the kind that claim Jesus was an anti-taxation capitalist, who taught his followers to amass great fortunes on Earth through wise use of lobbying, pass through LLCs, tax dodges, price gouging, and low employee wages, claim that socialists and atheists threaten the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

God is not in the Constitution. Article 1 does not say Congress shall consult God through mystic means, such as Urim and Thummim, or casting lots, or trial by combat, or bibliomancy, or waiting for a finger to write on a wall. No, humans get together and pass laws. I'm fairly certain that some of them pray to one or another deity, but it's the human who votes, not one of the deities. At least I hope that's the way it works.

edit on 14-4-2019 by pthena because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 10:50 AM
Without religion, atheism would not exist. Neither would higher education or scientific advancements or western civilization, which is based off Judeo-Christian values. Neither would many great literary works and movie franchises like: Star Wars, The Matrix & Lord of the Rings, whose stories are based off religious stories.

Plato was a religious philosopher, who recognized & studied the differences between good & evil. The 1st form of higher education comes from religious monasteries, which evolved into the universities which we have today. The Vatican has vast libraries full of knowledge & operates some of the most scientifically advanced telescopes in the world.

Religion gave us the Golden rule (treat others the way you like to be treated). Religion informs us about the 7 deadly sins (pride, greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth) & informs us about virtues (humility, prudence, justice, temperance, faith, hope and charity). Religion also teaches us not to lie, cheat or steal & teaches us about religious sacraments like: Baptism (communal introduction to Christianity), Confirmation (affirmation that Jesus's spirit is always with us), Eucharist (symbolizes Jesus sacrificing his physical body for our sins), Reconciliation of Penance (confession), Annointing of the Sick (praying for & helping the sick), Holy Orders (reaffirming one's belief in Jesus with one another) & Matrimony (the marriage between a man & women in order to be one through love & creating new life).

The U.S. constitution is based off Judeo-Christian values, which helps protect our God given natural privacy/property rights (shall not steal), a supposed free market (FYI, it hasn't been free since the Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913), free speech, the right to protect ourselves, due-process & a Republican form of government. See the Declaration of independence to understand our God given natural rights. The Federalist papers are also a good read if you truly want to know what the founding fathers intended for America.

Imo, God is everything from A to Z, the Alpha & the Omega, Good/Evil, Hate/Love Life/Death, Light/Dark, Negative/Positve, etc.. Its our individual choice which path we follow because of our original sin which gave us our free will.
edit on 14-4-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 11:14 AM
Religion is a colossal waste of time, money and energy. The end.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Without religion, higher education wouldn't exist, in turn western civilization wouldn't exist, in turn America wouldn't exist, in turn computers wouldn't exist, in turn the internet wouldn't exist, in turn your post wouldn't exist. Without God you wouldn't exist.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: JonU2

Even if God is only a tulpa, it still exists and is very powerful & has influenced society to become what we are today.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: JBIZZ
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Without religion, higher education wouldn't exist, in turn western civilization wouldn't exist, in turn America wouldn't exist, in turn computers wouldn't exist, in turn the internet wouldn't exist, in turn your post wouldn't exist. Without God you wouldn't exist.

That's entirely debatable (and I'm not going to debate about it because debating religious people is about as useless as trying to throw a tire across a lake.) At any rate, that is immaterial to the fact that at this point in time, Religion is a complete and utter waste of time for the average person. It is just a giant void into which people dump resources they could be using on myriad other things that would be better for them and everyone else.

And that's on top of the fact that religion is BS in the first place and turns everything into a pointless argument about what a nonexistent deity thinks about everything. Frankly, I think people who don't live in the real world shouldn't be trying to run the real world. But that's just me. If the average person dumped religion tomorrow the only thing that would change would be that they would suddenly find that they have way more time for everything and could actually think about things without trying to shoehorn whatever they're thinking about into their religious delusions.
edit on 14-4-2019 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 01:52 AM

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: JonU2

What I think is funny it's the atheist's who whine and complain how they are smarter then those who follow a religion,all that shows is they want to be special,has nothing to do with intelligence,otherwise they would keep mouth shut and show results,just like a Vegan,how do you know if someone is a Vegan? they will tell you

LOL!! I hope you're not inferring that religious people do not have TV programs, do not knock on people's doors, do not try and preach to people in the streets etc etc etc
Oh my, how do you know if someone is religious - they'll usually tell you!

posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 02:01 AM

originally posted by: JonU2
a reply to: GreenGunther

Throughout the world, I cannot understand why so many people cling onto these beliefs.

You do not understand because Satan doesn't exist in your worldview so you do not consider him in your thinking. His main tool of indoctrination, brainwashing and misleading people being false religion. He has thousands of years of experience with misleading humanity and he's gotten quite good at it. So there's no big surprise that people cling to false beliefs and false religions and it is quite understandable when one considers Satan's abilities and activities (along with his motive and experience at it for example).

None of anything you said negates the evidence/proof of God's existence though (you said something about there being none, although phrased differently).

Belief in God is entirely reasonable. It conforms to the proven fact that life cannot come into existence by itself. No valid evidence exists to support the idea that life could spontaneously come from nonliving matter. Fancy storylines that are designed to sound more plausible in the eye (ear?) of the biased beholder who wants to believe it happened by chance or necessity (the word "inevitable" has also been used by researchers into the origin of life), spontaneously or "by itself", are not valid evidence. Since we're talking here about biomolecular machinery and technnology, the logical conclusion by induction that fits the facts (is supported by the evidence we can observe or study) is Creation (and thus a minimum of 1 Creator who knew what he/she/it was doing, i.e. has the required intelligence, knowledge and technological know-how that corresponds with the technology and machinery in question).

You not liking the argument of induction regarding this subject and being unwilling to come to the same conclusion (by induction) again doesn't negate or invalidate it. Neither does having a counterargument repeated mantra- or meme-style in popular media. As Isaac Newton put it:

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. [whereislogic: or convenient dismissals without even offering an alternative causal explanation, perhaps throwing up one's hands and appealing to the willfull ignorance of the meme/mantra: 'we don't know yet'; when many people, including scientists, do know and have a perfectly reasonable and valid causal explanation for it that follows Rules I and IV]

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

One writer in the 60's put it this way: “If we start with an open mind, ready to believe or not believe according to the evidence, it is quite probable that we shall discover that it is easier to believe in God than to decide that plants, animals and man himself, body and mind, had their origin as the product of blind, purposeless chance. It is perhaps fitting to add that many persons do not wish to believe in God. They realize that it would rebuke their past and change their future to an unpleasant degree if they did.” (Modern Discovery and the Bible, A. Rendle Short, page 79.)

What do you think about the origin of the universe itself? Was it pure chance, just an accident, a combination of many fortuitous events? Or are there indications that conscious thought is responsible for it? that it was designed by an intelligent creator?

Are the orderly laws that extend from the light-year expanse of the starry heavens to the tiny atoms that compose all matter just an accident? Are the exact motions of the heavenly bodies that form the standard for our timepieces an accident? Did accidents produce earth and man and all living creation—not just one such accidental occurrence, but a whole series of thousands of millions of them that marvelously combined, without other accidental happenings occurring that would destroy it all?

Is a power greater than chance involved in the universe’s origin? Scientist Arthur H. Compton said of the parts of the tiny atom: “If the simple yet prolific set of pushes and pulls to which the electrons are subject result from pure chance, then chance is more ingenious than the most clever of our scientists.” (Man’s Destiny in Eternity, page 9.)

Not only do the origin of matter and the order in the universe present problems for those who deny the existence of a Creator, but there is the far greater problem of the origin of life itself. There was a time when spontaneous generation (called abiogenesis, meaning origin from nonlife) was believed to produce life. Worms developed out of putrid flesh, lice from dirt, frogs from the mud of pools, etc. But Pasteur’s experiments of nearly a hundred years demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. It is not a scientific argument, since it would not be based upon observation and experiment, but rather upon blind assertions that can neither be observed nor proved. Dr. J. Gray, a leading experimental zoologist, explained: “The spontaneous origin of living from inanimate matter must be regarded as a highly improbable event, and as such can be assumed not to have occurred.” (Modern Discovery and the Bible, page 43.)

So what do some people do? They just quickly deny that spontaneous generation is the same as abiogenesis (or even associated to that term), but I'm not going to get into a debate about that. The question is simple: Did matter, order, the marvelous universe and the unexplainable* miracle of life occur purely through the outworkings of chance, or were they produced through the design of a great Creator? The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in this materialistic philosophy than it does to believe in God. It remains true that “the heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above* [Or “expanse”] proclaim the work of his hands”—Ps. 19:1; Job 9:8; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 10:12.

*: unexplainable from a purely materialistic perspective, trying to fit it into the 'nature did it'-scenario, or 'nature found a way'-, 'life found a way'-scenarios or storylines; which all boil down to the cause being 'by chance' or 'by accident', 'by itself', 'by supposed necessity', etc. there are multiple ways of phrasing that materialistic idea/philosophy that adheres to philosophical naturalism rather than a proper and proven effective scientific method such as using inductive reasoning as explained by Newton for example.

edit on 15-4-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 03:32 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic

The question is simple: Did matter, order, the marvelous universe and the unexplainable* miracle of life occur purely through the outworkings of chance, or were they produced through the design of a great Creator? The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in this materialistic philosophy than it does to believe in God. It remains true that “the heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above* [Or “expanse”] proclaim the work of his hands”—Ps. 19:1; Job 9:8; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 10:12.

*: unexplainable from a purely materialistic perspective, ...

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009

Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”

No reason to appeal to the phrase 'life as we know it' and appeal to imaginary lifeforms that are not made up of atoms and are even more far-fetched than the usual aliens depicted in Science-Fiction movies. Let's try following the evidence where it leads instead, considering the facts we are aware of rather than things a biased person looking for ways to evade any argument of induction that leads to a conclusion of a Creator can imagine (with some wishful thinking, imagining these things to be plausible in their eyes).

The electromagnetic force attracts electrons to protons, allowing molecules to form. If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, and no molecules could form. If, on the other hand, this force were much stronger, electrons would be stuck to the nucleus of an atom. In that case, chemical reactions and life would simply be impossible.

A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and the solar energy that reaches our earth. Such a difference could easily make photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. So the precise strength of the electromagnetic force determines whether life on earth is possible or not.

The book Science & Christianity​—Four Views has an interesting way of illustrating the delicacy of the balance of forces and elements in the cosmos. The writer asked his readers to visualize an explorer’s visit to an imaginary “control room for the whole universe.” There, the explorer observes rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and he learns that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible. One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on. As the explorer examines these numerous dials, he sees that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to him, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist. Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should the visitor deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?

Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ [whereislogic: the 'by necessity'-scenario or argument I mentioned earlier] Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

Sorry if it's too much, just felt like I shouldn't cut it off earlier. Initially I merely wanted to quote astronomer George Greenstein regarding “the evidence” and “scientific proof” he's talking about as an addition to my response to the implication that there was no evidence for God's existence, and the attached implication that therefore believing/thinking that God exists is irrational and akin to blind faith/belief, believing something without evidence, credulity, etc. It seemed a bit limited in informational value without some details about what evidence he was talking about. It was also a hint in case someone was wondering why I sometimes used “Creation(r)” and sometimes used “creation(r)” instead in my previous comment, which is not that important though.
edit on 15-4-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"Religion is a complete and utter waste of time for the average person. It is just a giant void into which people dump resources they could be using on myriad other things that would be better for them and everyone else."

I feel the same way about government as you do about religion.

posted on Apr, 16 2019 @ 04:03 PM
a reply to: JonU2

I read an article that a teaching found from the point of view of Atheist that religion is part of the process of evolution of man, hence why religions exist.

posted on Apr, 16 2019 @ 05:14 PM
I am sorta in my spiritual infantcy because didn't go to church parents didn't talk or expose us to those things. In AA or NA they talk about a power greater than yourself. It could be anything they don't specify .

I don't know if God is my best friend hears everyone's prayers and sends signs? There are seven billion people, some is chaos. Like maybe most Christians believe, I don't know.

I had to take my sister's dogs for a walk before writing this. Watch them move, their instinct s . Somehow they got movement s and habits hard wired. Nature? Evolution had to start somewhere from single cell organisms. Be sorta blind without some sort of God. If you wanna think about it survival and ecosystems over millions of years.

In my first post sorta said try to take it easy on religious. Then all these atheists show up and it's like South Park let's kill God. Why are we here, what's the meaning of life, 70 years 3D world a universe and others.

What's your guys answer? South Park - your the offspring of some retarted fish who had butt sex with a retarted monkey then they made you ??? I know it might be the híp thing to do to say you don't believe but think of all the religious , you think they wanna know how bad you are and you calculated pie and have all the answers?

posted on Apr, 16 2019 @ 11:25 PM
a reply to: Firebrand1105volunteer

Jedi Sith fight?

I'm not an atheist, at least I don't think so. I could be wrong though.

One day the air in front of me opened up like a portal, and I saw a man. Two people actually, but only one of them was looking at me. I thought he was Jesus because that's the miraculous person I heard about in church. Now I don't know, because every body else who says they saw Jesus describes who they saw completely different. And I didn't think at the time to ask him what his name was. So I can't talk about that as any kind of proof for anything.

Any way, one day I was a church elder, even preached sermons. My college Calculus teacher heard from somebody else that I was an elder. She called me into her office and told me a story about why she was an atheist. It was because of what a priest had done. I told her that I wasn't a priest so she shouldn't have to worry about me turning out bad. She seemed skeptical.

But the truth is, I did all the things priests do like saying the words of institution for Eucharist and last rites. But I never baptized anyone. Then I got scared that I might do something wrong and hurt someone so I quit.

I needed some money one time so I tutored a high school boy in Algebra. His mother said that his teacher was going to flunk him. But he didn't flunk. He got a C, so he passed.

I don't know if I am Jedi or Sith. I probably should not fight then.

posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 10:51 AM
I just meant thei is this big Jedi Sith fight over here. Religion and the opposite of religion. If people look at the cup half empty or full can say a lot about a person. The Sith who choose science as their God and Satan get red lightsabers. For they are angry and destroy things, especially when no one asked their opinion in the first place.

Most people are generally good I guess and as a society we have religion in our history. Give rights to women and African Americans and a lot outta peace and love many a thing has been done because. Then we have these atheist people show up who are probably young and juvenile. Just don't care.

It goes back a ways , you have to have some respect for tradition. They just try to poke holes into things.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in