Question about Christianity and Social Media

Again: Religion =/= God

But religion created God...

No. Humans created religions in an attempt to understand why there were floods and droughts and forest fires and crop failures. Consider it an early form of science.

Man created God in his own image, not the other way around.

I'm repeatedly amazed at the insistence that there's no room for agnostics in the atheists' worldview. Even some religionists will allow us to be left alone. Atheists dismiss us as neither hot nor cold, thus to be vomited out of your mouths.

Exactly.

That's why "religion =/= God", sounds to me like "telescopes =/= stars".
Like, yeah, no shit, but I need the damned telescope to see a lot of the stars.
Religion is the instrument through which the God hypothesis sprung into the world.
Yeah, you can "liberate", God from religion, and you get rid of all the things that make religion a pain in the ass...but at a practical level, you've shrunk him down to a rabbit's foot in your pocket.
You can make him as big as the multiverse in your head, but without the tribal "oomph", of an organized religion, you're not gonna get far with that.
So...I don't see the point.
You're getting the same results as atheism.
I went through this leaving my Deist phase.
Like "why am I hanging onto it at this point, except to maybe be a hipster?".

You realize you're contradicting yourself.

Explain.
I think I know where you're going, but I'm not gonna assume.

Yeah, telescopes are a bad analogy.
Cuz, here's how it really goes down between the two...

Astronomy-

Astronomer- I can see stars we couldn't see before!

Average guy- Can I see them too?

Astronomer- Sure! *Lets him look in the telescope*

Religion-

Prophet- I saw God!

Average guy- Can I see him too?

Prophet- NO!! Here's a book instead.

You said it yourself - telescopes are a bad analogy. It's as if you were saying the stars wouldn't exist if you didn't have a telescope.

The rest of that post is the usual binary "Yer either a religionist or an atheist."

No middle ground. No room for skepticism. No possibility for a fallible human to say "I really don't know."

That's as doctrinaire as any fundamentalist. The only difference is you're not slitting anyone's throat over it.

Nope, that's putting words in my mouth.

Intellectually, you can be agnostic.

Just as a matter of personal opinion, I don't see what is gained though.

You don't see what's gained by saying "I don't know"? Then let's toss out every human advance from the first bonfire to the present.

Depends what you're saying "I don't know", about.
A Deist God, or a Theist one?
The revealed books of Theist God's make testable truth claims.
That fail.
The Earth isn't 6000 years old.
Life evolved.
Bam, done.
A Deist God?
It could be out there.
I've given my personal reasons for why I don't find it compelling.
I'm not afraid to be proven wrong though.
But I need the proof.

I tossed out the Theist God when I was 13. Still had to go to church until I broke free of the Parental Unit, but I could sit there and zone out.

@Diacanu, would it smooth your ruffled feathers if I called myself a deist instead of an agnostic? Is there room in your worldview for that?

Whether or not man created God is irrelevant. Maybe we did. Maybe we didn’t. But my BELIEF is that there is a ... purpose(?) beyond this life. My belief is that there was an external force which created the Heavens and the Earth.
But, I can’t explain it nor can I prove it. THAT is what faith is.
So, who knows, maybe humans did create the idea of God.
The very definition of faith/belief is that whatever you believe, there MUST be the possibility AND acceptance that you might be wrong.
ETA: and that is why laws should never be based on one’s beliefs.

My feathers aren't ruffled.
My only peeve is when people argue for a Deist God, and then pull "...therefore Jesus!".
Whoa, whoa, simmer down, you didn't earn that at all.
After a steady diet of that, it's my impulse to corner off the ring just to be sure.

When have you ever heard anyone go from deism to "therefore Jesus"?

The Dawkins boards when apologists would come to troll.
Its been a while, but I still have the muscle memory.

Hokay, so they're trolls. Hardly makes your case that there are real people out there who would make such an "argument."

Nope, we had guys who made a living off of religion and had their own little books to plug show up.
Whether THEY believe their own bullshit, or are in on a racket, that's a whole other debate.
Con-artists or not, their followers listen, and in turn parrot their crap.

Then that's where your battle lies, not here. The only "you're going to Hell if you don't beleeeeve!" type we have here is TLS, and nobody pays attention to him, anyway.

I don't believe the Bible ever states the Earth is 6000 years old.

Mmm...no, I can't let bad arguments go.
What's the point of Red Room then?

That got derived from adding up the generations after Adam, and accounting for the extended lifespans of the first generations.

The Bible authors should have just said "several generations later...", but they had to get all meticulous with the fucking "begat" to make things seem official.

So you get to decide what a "bad" argument is.

*Long sigh*

Come on.
Really?

I'll bring that line up next time you're slapping the taste out of Jenee's mouth.

We all make judgement calls, or we couldn't function.

Confirmation bias.