sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote:
Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.
Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.
Because it is a con job of horrific proportions. Religion is the single biggest business in the world. By far. If you accounted all the money that religious institutions have managed to con off people, you would be dumbfounded. I know of a single temple in India which is worth 10 billion dollars. And there are probably a million temples in India.
I was subliminally directing this post to you sthitapragya, and others.
I was hoping you would look at WHY you, in particular, actually persist in talking about things that are obviously completely false, to you.
sthitapragya wrote: Then there are people like you who want to reject reason.
When AND where have I ever shown anything that led you to jump to this conclusion?
Bring out and paste the quote, then we can look deeper into what I actually said and meant.
sthitapragya wrote:There are others who want to teach Intelligent design in schools. You guys have no respect for evidence or scientific thought.
Was the word 'you' in 'you guys' in any reference at all to Me or ken? If so, we really do have a long way to go here.
sthitapragya wrote: Religion has been and will always be an impediment to science. Religion, after global warming, is the single biggest threat to humanity. That is why we bother.
"One-day" the equal importance of "religion" and "science" together will be dis-covered. They both compliment each other. For one of countless examples religion will prove evolution and science will prove creation. This has happened for Me already, anyway.
sthitapragya wrote:However, while we understand what a big pollutant religion is, most religious people are too caught up in it to understand. So out of respect for their belief, we refer to their god as God with a capital 'G'. It is not out of any respect for the God. We have none for we are sure he does not exist.
So you write capital G for god not out of respect for something that you are
sure does not exist, (and which you are now calling a "he" for some unknown reason to me), but out of respect
in a belief of the that non-exist "male". Your views are appearing more and more confusing to others, i think, the more I delve deeper.
sthitapragya wrote:It is out of respect for the person who believes very firmly in that God and has emotional attachments to Him. It is out of consideration for a fellow human being.
Does your logic work for ALL human beings and ALL of their beliefs?
For example if a person who
believes very firmly in a god and has emotional attachments to "him" that are so strong that then allows them to let us say kill other people who firmly believe in other things besides "that" god, then do you still say that out of consideration for a fellow human being you would act the same way?
I will not go into the fact that probably just as many "christian" followers want "others" dead as much as "muslim" followers want "others" dead. Or will I mention any of the other multitude of absolutely ridiculous things
beliefs can cause, here.
I do not have respect for any belief, other than a belief in the ability of Self to create and achieve anything that It truly wants, without harming nor hurting anything.
I certainly do not have respect nor any consideration in beliefs that are in non-existant things and beliefs that will cause any harm and damage to anything. Actually, all beliefs described will prevent people from learning so they all cause harm and damage in some way or another.
