It's good to be in touch with your feelings.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ex-Christian here.
- Thread starter Ethos88
- Start date
Ethos88
Member
No, I would not take the middle ground in an Easter bunny scenario. The origins of the universe are of a different magnitude. This "something" that I believe in doesn't need to have any god like attributes to it, if that's what your thinking. Just that there must of been some sort of catalyst to get us where we are, via the big bang, ect.
Last edited:
Ethos88
Member
It is isn't it?
Welcome to the RF
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The real difference between the Easter Bunny and God is that adults take the latter seriously, but it is no more logical to reject belief in the Easter Bunny on grounds of unpopularity than it is to accept belief in God on the grounds of popularity. The teleological argument, as with most arguments in favor of an omnimax God, ultimately falls victim to its own premises. If anything can be uncaused (i.e. "God"), then so can godless reality.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Good points in which makes it even more puzzling as to why God belief remains so persistent as it is.
Perhaps because it's addressed in way of an establishment clause, of which it permits any belief in God to remain acceptable enough for consideration unlike that of the poor Easter Bunny or Santa for that matter, in that it remains unacceptable for consideration by using the same kind of veracity that God belief is pursued.
-NM-
Last edited:
That's only true if only one religion is correct.
You mean just because a character doesn't literally exist means it shouldn't be taken seriously?
Ethos88
Member
Right, There in lies the problem. How do you determine a correct religion? Or one that is infallible for that matter?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Of course not, and that is especially so for characters that are extremely implausible.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
You examine the evidence for it. For example, if people believe that prayer influences God to intervene on their behalf, you can measure the success by which their prayers tend to get fulfilled. You can use the prayers of believers in alternative deities as a control group. There are other empirical criteria that one might use to evaluate the likelihood of belief in a deity, yet people are quick to claim that their gods are beyond the reach of empirical investigation. That claim, I believe, is driven by a fear that honest investigation would lead to disappointment.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
LOL! That reminded me of the scene from one of the Mummy movies with Brendan Fraiser where the guy pulls out one amulet and prayers, and when that fails he goes to the next until the Star of David and a Hebrew prayer worked.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Then the fictional Brendan Fraser character can reasonably infer that he has evidence in favor of the Jewish religion. The movie audience cannot make the same inference.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Originally Posted by Nowhere Man
I agree that science is the best tool that we have to help objectively explain and articulate the things we don't yet fully understand ...
Devil's in the details as the saying goes Mr. Soule. I'll slip up soon enough.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Actually, it wasn't really the prayer that worked...it was the Hebrew language that was recognized as the "language of the slaves" that spared Benny. If he would have said "Twinkle twinkle little bat how I wonder where you're at" in Hebrew he would have gotten the same response.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Just because a character doesn't literally exist in this realm doesn't mean that the story of that character doesn't hold great wisdom and knowledge that should be honored and respected, and therefore, taken seriously. Allegory is not meant to be chucked out the window simply because it's not literal. It's meaning and message that is often more important than the reality of whether someone lived or not. Allegory is a great method to transfer non-physical knowledge over the years. Which is why these myths continue. They hold wisdom.
Since the teleological argument is not "an argument in favor of an omnimax God," one wonders whether your drivel is willful distortion or woeful ignorance.
Why does there have to be one?
Well, as a storyteller, and a fan of fantasy and mythology, as well as a person who believes stories are meant to teach lessons, I will disagree.
Even fictional characters, no matter how silly, need to be taken seriously, either as role models, or as examples of what not to do. This is the purpose of most childrens' stories, and I don't see why adult-oriented stories have to be different.