Sorry, I do not believe in religion and do not plan of joining
any. But I had to point a discourse:
I have read quite a few number of resident believers here, esp
their metaphors and incoherent comments and replies, clearly trying
to defend the indefensible of the flawed and paradoxes of the
creator concept.
- what is point is indefensible? this is only from 'your point
of view' hence is subjective, it may be generalisable but that
doesn't make it VALID. You have no monopoly over what is
defensible, what is not.
- what constituted as flawed? What criteria have you based it
from?
- How do you define the creator concept yourself? different
people define it differently.
- If the issue is open and empirical (people are joining
religion to this day), it can be argued, there are no permanent
right or wrong answers, or even right or wrong answers in the first
place.
I hope there are more coherent replies and good metaphors
provided and not these nonsensical and rubbish given for the sake
of arguing. if you are incapable of even doing that, then it just
go to proof that its hard defending the indefensible.
- What constitute as coherent? You want a straight answer, you
might not get any. Thinking otherwise is totally naive and
simplistic.
- Arguing provides evidences, you did provide some, some do
provide others, and what does it prove? It only prove on a CASE BY
CASE BASIS.
- Its always hard to defend opinions, after all each one is
entitled to his own.
If you want a totally anti-religious view, I suggest you read
Marx's Capital, I think thats the best critique of religion,
however even that may not be applicable now in
our unpredictable society.