Friendly discussion and thought exercise to religious people

Now we're cooking! Good point, Petrus. The absolute truth we all share is that we exist, the knowledge that I am. And, ironically enough, although this is the absolute truth we all share, it is at the same time, the most intimate and personal knowledge there is. Paradox found, eh?

Each one of us see 'relative truth'. This is understandable.

But ABSOLUTE TRUTH is needed in order to harmonize ALL relative truths. If we live in a certain country, do we not share the same Law of the land?

If we look out in space, do we not see the same stars and galaxies?

Last Edited by Petrus on 06/26/2018 09:17 PM

Thanks for your answer!

But fact check: the countries with higher number of atheists are the most developed ones in many aspects.

Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64 percent nonbelievers), Denmark (48 percent), France (44 percent) and Germany (42 percent). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1 percent.

[link to www.psychologytoday.com (secure)]

Sparky turn your foolish attentions upon the muslim koran and see what happens since you have hobbled Christians by not allowing bible quotes thus it is YOU reluctant searching for answers you have rejected.

What is the point of this discussion then?
By the way, what's the point of any discussion if it`s true?

See your phrase for example. Is it a truth or is it not?
In order for it to support itself it needs AT LEAST ONE ABSOLUTE.

There may be no absolute truth (this is only accessible to a mind that is omniscient and knows all the contingencies of the Universe) but this does not prevent us from taking knowledge of certain truths.

For example. I do not need to know the chemical formula of water to know that water is water. I just go to the refrigerator, get the bottle, pour the liquid into the glass and drink.

You are making confusion between opinion and truth. The point of view is in the observer, the truth is contained in the object.

If I from a point of view see a ball on a wall and you see someone's head, it does not change what the object on the wall really is. The difference here is in the point of view.

That depends upon definition.
If we agree that we are alive--
We can agree that we sense the world by our 5 senses (or less)

We can agree that we need certain things to survive--food, water, shelter, air; and that without these things we will/may die.

Most of us can agree that we experience the states of being as I described earlier.

See? Reluctant! Can't you simply answer the proposed question?

I agree. Trust, test, taste. Trust in order to test in order to verify if the results (taste) are replicated by the test.

But I ask again, what if that same method of inquiry could be used to investigate the true nature of existence? What if it indeed had been reliably and consistently?

First, however much these countries currently have a majority of atheists, development has been provided on the basis of a Christian morality.

Moreover their lack of belief is what will allow them to get fucked by Islam.

I'm refering to science when I say there is no absolute truth. Of course there will always be common ground in many aspects of many things. But the term "absolute truth" is not an "exact fit" if you will.

OP, can we agree that religion is a mechanism to explain the meaning of life and why we exist?

So let's take 'religion' out of it and call it "the persuit of TRUTH", even if it means there might be a Higher consciousness which exists and that created it all?

Last Edited by Petrus on 06/26/2018 09:30 PM

I would wonder why nobody said that Jesus didn’t really exist. I’d wonder why 500 witnesses attested to seeing the risen Christ. I’d wonder how insane liars came up with the philosophy that has shaped the life of billions and caused amazing changes for the better in people I know personally. I’d wonder why millions of martyrs died for their faith throughout the ages, including the 12 apostles of Christ, 11 of whom were martyred while one survived being thrown in hot oil and lived the rest of his life in excruciating pain.

It can be used and it is being used for such purpose.

Are you stating that as an absolute truth or merely a relative truth?


Seriously, though, there is indeed an absolute truth: I am. This is true for you, this is true for me, this is true for everyone.

If it all turned out to be a lie, I would have no regrets.

I don't regret working to become a better person.

It is a mechanism indeed. But I can't agree it is meant to explain anything. So I ask you, what if life has no meaning in the sense you're refering to. What if life is just a mere biological existence and ditto?

So there could be multiple "right" gods? I mean we come from somewhere and yet the Bible and any other religious text were all written by humans and probably also translated/mistranslated numerous times so they're going to be flawed.

Maybe the better way to put it is what is spiritual truth?

I don't think you abstracted faith in your answer. It sounds religious biased.

So total oblivion after death, don't mind the thought

I for one, would say there are no "right" gods.

This is why Op denies ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Because Jesus actually claimed that Title, along with 'The Way" and "the Life".

Organized Christian religions sometimes do this, although they would not find grounds to do so in the teachings of Christ. Judaism and Islam are profoundly supremacist religions (even worse with the atheistic Judaism). The Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule show how a true Christian should respond to others.

Religions which impose the necessity of control or domination of others should be considered ideologies, not true religion--at least in my mind's eye.

Thank you for your answer!

This isn’t a “discussion”, as you already provided constricted parameters that go against MANY religions.

As a Christian, I never say “I can’t”. If I did, I would consult Jesus, as He CAN, therefore I can.

The thread discussion you’ve proposed falls into a line of deception, to request people to question and doubt the very faith their life and salvation is grounded. Not a very successful way to get people to ‘see’ YOUR way of thinking.

Pontius Pilate to Jesus: What is truth?

Jesus: For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who hears the truth hears my voice.

Pilate: I find no fault in this man.

John 18

I might be mistaken, but one of the very basic principles of christianity is to spread the word so everyone would know Christ. That only in Christ can mankind be good. This also sounds supremacist to me.

Undoubtedly, but when I first mentioned it, you didn't seem aware of it and had said "At first, I would be skeptic and would no doubt inquire about it. Its a big claim and big claims require big evidence. But if verified, I would for sure go into this "new reality".

To that, I would say, jump in! It sure beats the nihilism of the brain in a vat.

I and those millions of martyrs believe that God became incarnate, paid the penalty for the sins of all men for all time on the cross, and conquered death, leaving us the gift of his Spirit to strengthen us on our quest to live a selfless life that helps us become the people God made us to be and worthy of being in the presence of God eternally in Heaven. I think believing that a guy rose from the dead involves faith.

A faith that can be shaken with questioning itself, is not strong or firm. Is like asking you: "Are you a good person?" or "Do you love your mother?" and you be reluctant to answer "yes", and by doing so you see for yourself that you are not a good person, in this analogy.

Yes, positive now that your answer is religion biased. Thanks anyway!