If you had a box... now this box you can't open but you are told
there may or may not be a RED ball inside. Now some people lets
call them group A would have faith that there was indeed a RED ball
inside and that it was as simple as that.
Now you would have another group of people that would try to
measure the box , weigh it , pick it up and shake it, analyse what
the box is made from, perhaps even pick at the tape holding the box
together. Lets call them Group B.
A would declare that the mere attempt of scientifically studying
the box would undermine the "teachings" and very idea of the ball
in the box, and say that it shouldn't be done. B would of course
disagree and claim that only scientific knowledge can answer the
question of is there a ball in the box.
So why would both groups disagree with each other, after all you
can't open the box so it is very hard to proove whats inside, which
means nobody loses...... or do they. what happens if group B
prooves that there is nothing in the box using what ever manner...
what then?? does A simply ignore the evidence and carry on
believing or do they pack up and go find a wardrobe that may or may
not have a coat in it.
So you have the believers A and the non believers B you also have
another group that do believe there is somthing in the box but the
think it is a blue pyramid. group C shall we say.
What I am trying to say is until it is proved that that there is or
not somthing in the box whats the point in arguing and
fighting.
but maybe we already know why we fight and argue about a subject
such as religion... the only group with somthing to lose are those
that believe.
PS. if there is nothing in the box....Who made the box???
