I hope this isn't you implying that I am the arrogant one.
Hardly, Dezzie. No need to take it personally unless, of course, you place yourself in the camp of the religious.
Well... maybe to some people they are not viewed in the same way... they still speak of many of the same stories and people. Yes... man wrote the text in these books. Supposedly God told them these things. Technically, that would make many of the stories, words of God. Maybe these men were only a bunch of crazies... How are any of us to tell? Maybe there isn't just ONE true religion... maybe they all stemmed from the same place... maybe various types of people went separate ways, taking their interpretations with them. Only History has the answers. It's too bad that we are only from this day and age. I'm sure we could learn a whole lot if we could travel back in time. We could probably learn the truth to this matter.
I hear what you are saying. The point is that it is
because we cannot tell, that we should take these works with more than a few grains of salt. I'm not saying we should toss them on the scrapheap, but I am suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, that many are reading far more into these texts than is healthy. In my short 53 years on the planet, I have not noticed that reading these texts gives any mortal a "leg up" on their fellow human animal. Rather, more often than not, these texts are utilized to foster unproductive prejudices and add to the perception that one needs protection from a hostile universe that is out to get them. Brotherly love is quite sadly, almost an afterthought.
Ah... notice... I never said the evidence wasn't flimsy.
You must have missed that.
No, I didn't miss it. My comment was meant in spite of your assertion actually.
The evidence of God being real IS extremely flimsy in this day and age. Perhaps back then when the books were written, the evidence was not. One of the things I always wished we had were the extremely old libraries that got burnt to the ground. I am sure those History books were quite insightful.
The thing is,
mooning over what may have been isn't terribly productive, as you are still left with books that are like patches of weeds that have choked off any remaining flowers to be found therein.
Again... I never said religion was an essential quality of life either. If I felt that way, I would have said those words. I am definitely not an extremely religious person TRUST ME. I don't go day-by-day worshiping like many other people do...
I recognize that, hence I used the qualifier "you make it seem".
I'm only trying to make both sides of the story noticeable and truthful.
Why is that? It is equally possible that both books are quite wrong, in fact, in all probability they are.
No one can really say whether or not God is real... BUT... no one can say that God is 100% fake either.
Actually, people can say and do say whatever they like. It's proving what they say that is the difficulty. Evidence abounds in this very thread of what I am talking about. In this thread, Muslims have repeatedly demonstrated how far they are prepared to go to validate their faith. Though their arguments do prove that they have faith, they rarely prove anything else. One would expect that the righteous would have better ammunition to use against non-believers - if the object of their belief was, in fact, true. Perhaps I am missing something though.
I guess if God wanted to prove Himself to us, He would make himself known and come down before us. I mainly believe in a God because of all the wonderful things that have happened to me in my life. I would rather thank "something" if He is not in existence, than NOT to thank God when He is actually there.
I understand, but don't you think an all knowing being would be more than inclined to cut you some slack? In all seriousness, people are so hung up on appearing to be ingrates for the wonders that "god" has supposedly showered them with, all the while not recognizing that those very things are far more likely to be the results of their own actions. Why is it so wrong for people to thank themselves and accept responsibility for their actions?
What does this mean exactly
It doesn't seem like a nice way to put a statement. One thing I never understood is why Religion needs to create hatred in the world. How and why could these problems arise?
Well, if you are not amoung the religious the statement does not apply to you. Religion creates hatred because it assumes to have the answers to questions that do not have any verifiable answers. Religion also does not generally exhort the believer to find their own answers. A twist on this is within Islam in that Muhammad told his followers to seek knowledge. The problem was that that knowledge could never go beyond what he himself told them or what had been revealed in the Qur'an. Anything that is at variance is deemed to be misguided and untrue.
Nice... so apparently my head is in the sand. More like mud over here though... there's not too much free sand to stick my head into. I hate rain. haha I do agree with you though. If God wanted to be noticed, He would show us the real Him... especially in times of need.
Well, I am sorry if I come across a tad bit harsh. You did present a rather compelling target. The thing is that I think that people fall into a very deep hole when they compare Islam to any other religion. It simply gives Islam more credit than it is due for starters. If anything, Islam is a personality cult revolving around Muhammad, as there is no other source that directly supports his version of events.