Opinion peice on Athiests (page 14)

stillajwexelder

In theory the USA is the most technologically advanced nation -and yet where religion is concerned it is ------ I dare not fill this part in.!!

steve2

In theory the USA is the most technologically advanced nation -and yet where religion is concerned it is ------ I dare not fill this part in.!!

Then please let me fill in that part: The USA is the most technologically advanced nation -and yet where religion is concerned it is riddled with Old Testament-inspired murderous rage. Dawkins says in The God Delusion that the most venomous, hateful mail he has ever received comes from fundamentalist Christians in the USA. At least, the British Christians have the decency to temper their denouncements with a bit of compassion.

BurnTheShips

SickOfLies, I strongly disagree with this statement:

......most of history people have had no choice but to turn to the churches for help in times of need, of course this is no accident and not because of any special caring on the part of the religious. The motives were purely selfish as most still are today.......

The history of Christianity is full of examples of selfless individuals that dedicated their lives to the service of others because of their faith. Would you like me to compile a small list for you?

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:14-17

The Christian religion was founded by a person that sacrificed his own life for the sake of others - certainly the supreme charitable act.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

You wrote:

secular or state sponsored charity not only contributes vastly larger sums of money to the poor and needy.........

To forcibly take from some to give to others is not is not state-sponsored "charity". It is not charity at all! Charity is a voluntary act on behalf of a giver posessed of free will and intent. Forcible taxation and forcible wealth redistribution on behalf of an entity such as the government (because the government essentially has a monopoly on force and violence) is not charity at all.

.........they also do a better and more fair job distributing it.

That is a very, very arguable point. Here in my home country many of us are of precisely the opposite suasion regardless of our religious affiliation. To receive charity posesses a negative stigma for those who receive it--the recipients know they are living off of the kindness of others--while welfare distributions on the part of a faceless and impersonal bureaucracy rapidly become an entitlement. The one encourages industry on the part of the recipient, the other sloth.

Now back to the insane copy pasta and embeded pages.

Why don't you engage these arguments I have posted instead of reducing yourself to ad hominems?

Have fun!

I am!

Cheers!

Burn

BurnTheShips

Yesterday's Thor is today's Almighty God and tomorrow's Universal Quantum God.

I hate to nitpick HS, but Thor was never considered an infinite being. So to compare a god like Thor to the monotheistic concept of "God" is like comparing apples and oranges. However you can name the idea of "God", we are essentially speaking of the same thing.

Have you actually studied the history of religion?

I have. Of course there is always more to learn. The book you mention sounds interesting. But first I want to pick up and read this one.

...this tome, the history of religious though is traced and its common theme outlined. As Funky Derek noted, all modern religion stems from primitive and common sources.

The universality of belief in even the most primitive that you seem to allude to constitutes further evidence for the existance of God, and not as you seem to be saying, the opposite. It demonstrates that belief in God is axiomatic and can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God.

you must present some sort of evidence as to why you do not view a "lower case god" as divine and why you view an "upper case God" as divine.

Can you do this?

I do not need to. I am not arguing over the divinity of Thor, or Zeus, or the angels or whatever.

I am speaking of the Ultimate Being, the Uncaused Cause, from which (or whom), if such a property as divinity exists (and can be posessed by a putative deity such as Thor), it must logically derive.

Cheers,

Burn

BurnTheShips

You've been rather evasive about the nature and identity of that entity, by the way.

That is only because in this thread I have only been trying to argue that such an entity merely exists. There is little point in trying to prove the nature and identity of the tooth fairy, it would be a waste of time.

Burn

BurnTheShips

That's a matter of FAITH.

Indeed,

Burn.

nvrgnbk

You've been rather evasive about the nature and identity of that entity, by the way.
That is only because in this thread I have only been trying to argue that such an entity merely exists. There is little point in trying to prove the nature and identity of the tooth fairy, it would be a waste of time.
Burn

Isn't knowledge of the the nature and identity of the entity essential to proving its existence?

Otherwise you're just trying to convince people that there is something.

There is little point in trying to prove the nature and identity of the tooth fairy, it would be a waste of time.

Many would say the same of an all-knowing all-powerful personal deity.

hillary_step

Burn,

Yesterday's Thor is today's Almighty God and tomorrow's Universal Quantum God.

I hate to nitpick HS, but Thor was never considered an infinite being. So to compare a god like Thor to the monotheistic concept of "God" is like comparing apples and oranges. However you can name the idea of "God", we are essentially speaking of the same thing.

You are not nitpicking, you are just missing the point at most, or at the very least trying to evade it.

My intoning of the God Thor, the God Vishnu, and the Almighty God was to try to get you to understand that any concept of "god" is an historical reflection of the time of "gods" creation. The ideology may change, but the underlying concept does not. To the small world that the primitives inhabited, their Thor was Almighty.

To primitive man, the sun rising and giving life to the wheat, warming bodies and bringing a sense of hope to their brutal was their God. They imbued their God with all the attributes that you give to your "almighty" God. The Gods of Norse mythology were likewise imbued with similar supernatural attributes. You plead the cause as the "Almighty God". Tomorrow if could be, as I have noted, The Universal Quantum God of the Infinite to whom all these attributes are imbued.

All these notions have one thing in common from the most primitive ideology to the most complex, and that is that no EVIDENCE exists that can verify the existence of these supernatural beings. Read Funky Derek's post more carefully. This is what he was stating.

The best, and most honest position that you can take is this one: I cannot prove the existence of the supernatural (the Almighty God), but I FEEL she/he/it exists. This of course, is unscientific and philosophically indefensible, but it is at least honest.

I do not need to. I am not arguing over the divinity of Thor, or Zeus, or the angels or whatever. I am speaking of the Ultimate Being, the Uncaused Cause, from which (or whom), if such a property as divinity exists (and can be posessed by a putative deity such as Thor), it must logically derive.

No, you are speaking of the supernatural as I have noted above. I could as easily say to you that Thor IS my Almighty God. He created everything, wrote a book about it and lives in a place called Heaven. These are exactly the same attributes that Christian religionists apply to their Almighty God. There is no logical derivation that is in existence that suggests that the ancients in stumping up belief in their numerous gods had in mind were motivated at all by the search for an "Almighty God". They were merely trying to find reasons for their existence and the "supernatural" was the tool that they used.

You speak of the "ultimate being". Why not call she/he/it Thor as it makes no difference to the issue. What you lack, and have not even attempted to provide, is any evidence for your "ultimate being" actually existing.

Are you prepared to do this? Why do you believe in an "Ultimate" being?

HS

BurnTheShips

You speak of the "ultimate being". Why not call she/he/it Thor as it makes no difference to the issue. What you lack, and have not even attempted to provide, is any evidence for your "ultimate being" actually existing.

Look around you. Look inside you. Not enough? What evidence would possibly satisfy you?

Are you prepared to do this? Why do you believe in an "Ultimate" being?

There are many reasons, faith not the least but here is a common one I suspect you are familiar with:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

I call that cause "God".

Burn

Caedes

Is that cause natural or supernatural?

What evidence would satisfy me? Enough empirical evidence for it to be no longer supernatural.

Opinion peice on Athiests

Share this