Coincidental Favourable Results

In response to Rachel - full post found here

I think it is important to remember that the mere result of an event that happened to be positive does not necessarily equate to a reason to believe that god exists. Similarly, bad results of an event is not necessarily a reason to believe that god does not exist. This is basically tautological but I'll say it anyway; things either will happen or they will not happen.

The universe is so largely complex that any event is far beyond the reach of a single cause. There is certainly no way of knowing that the event occurring in someone's favor or against their favor could have been caused by a single thing. Say I prayed to a transcendent milk that it rain on Tuesay. Whether it does, and I am made happy, or it doesn't, and I am made sad, has no clear correlation with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. If it does rain, there is no way of knowing if I could have received the same result had I prayed to a transcendent tea kettle. Similarly with negative results, had it not rained, there is no way of knowing that praying to something else could have made a difference. In these sort of situations, who you pray to seems almost coincidentally related to the result; though maybe there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being beyond our understanding. I do not know.

Creating Cults and Sects

In response to Ryan - full post here

I think that we can probably say that Jesus started a new religion. He didn't create it, per se, at least not intentionally, but he was the cause of this new religion. So, presumably, you could amass a large number of followers and create stories about your divinity; assuming people believe it, and they very well may, you could be the center of some religion. You could certainly start a cult of your own, like Marshall Applewhite, or not, he was a bit crazy. You could also do fairly well in creating a sect of a religion of your choice. Good luck to you, Dios.

Umbrellas and Sub-Groups

Christianity is like an umbrella, it covers many denominations. Christianity is to Catholicism as animal is to bird. Christianity is the larger group which contains the smaller group. Therefore we should not attribute any of the characteristics of the smaller group to all of the larger group; we would not, for instance, say that on the basis that birds fly, all other animals can; similarly, it is not appropriate to talk about birds as if they were the only animals, saying "animals like to fly." Additionally, it is inappropriate to assume that characteristics of one group cannot apply to another or all of the subgroups; this is akin to saying "because I am a human, I require oxygen." We should note that all living things need oxygen to survive.

As of recently, I have been encountering a large number of people who say things akin to "Christians listen to the Pope," or "as a Catholic, I believe in the Abrahamic god." I think that people should make an honest effort to clear this matter up for themselves, because otherwise they risk make sweeping generalizations or being too specific which leads to confusing and offending many other people.

I'll Pray For You Nanomites

Amongst some religious folk, there is an inclination to end a disagreement with a curt "I'll pray for you." This is not the proper way to argue. An argument should stand on its own merit; an argument can even be largely emotion, but it still stands on its own merit. When we break this ending statement down, we see a petition to a deity, hoping that the deity will proceed to intervene and make the opposition find the argument more agreeable. Most people, I think, can see that this is certainly a problem if we are attempting to argue rationally. I think that even those whom are initially convinced that this sort of argument holds would find themselves offended if it were used against them. Imagine discussing slavery with someone, where you are pro-abolition and they are pro-slavery. If the opposition throws, in your face, a mist of nanomites which rewire your brain to find their stance more agreeable, that does not actually lend merit to their argument. The point is that slavery is still wrong even if, by some miracle, you thought otherwise due to nanomites having had rewired your brain.

In response to Lauren on Dania's post - found here

Hmm... I am not sure that Jesus would view anyone as a true Catholic, because I don't think he would make that distinction between Christians. He seems not to make judgement claims, he simply openly accepts everybody; so there is no sense in calling someone a "good (enter specific denomination of specific religion here)." I think Jesus would probably recognize her as a 'good and highly motivated person.' Additionally, Jesus didn't know anything about the Catholics as he was a good practicing Jew, and didn't seek to start Catholicism. Even if he did know about the Catholics, I do not think that Jesus would find most of the Catechism, or the actions of the church (given the power structure of the ROMAN Catholic church) agreeable, though he would probably still accept them. I don't know, it seems a bit unjustified to suggest that Jesus would qualify someone's good actions like that.

Jesus Obeys the Old Testament

In response to Julia's post - found here

Actually, my last Q & A was related to how Jesus viewed the Old Testament.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says, or at least is made out to have said, that he has not come to destroy the law (of the Old Testament) and advises that we not break the commandments. However, I can see Jesus disagreeing with one of the laws in Exodus; Exodus 20:12 features the fifth commandment which states that you should honor your mother and father; Jesus seemed to be very vehemently against this commandment given his saying something akin to hate your mother and father.

Debt and Contracts

I think that parents bring obligation of taking care of children unto themselves. They would surely be awful people and parents if they forced an obligation upon themselves and then chose not to take care of that obligation. Parents have children most often of their own volition. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they could, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them, including their parents whom forced the child to begin living.

Even if a child does enjoy their life because their parent fulfilled the obligations that they gave themselves, children do not owe any debt to the parents for abiding by the parent's self constructed contract. This is not to say that individuals cannot choose to pay them back, but simply that doing so would be going well beyond what is necessary; which is to say, doing nothing at all. Debt is only incurred when both people initiated an agreement at the onset of a contract.