A few Dawkins quotes to think about. (page 17)

cofty

He is with you and if that means manifesting through atheism then so be it

How do you know he is with you Sab?

sabastious

To sit around speculating whether there is a god or not, and whether this IS the way things should be, or ought to be, is a complete waste of time.

Not true.

The nature of God has, and will be for a while, been a topic of infinite discussion spanning both space and time. It is important to us and what is important to us translates into our second by second lives.

-Sab

PSacramento

In a practical sense, what differences would there be between killing "God" and killing superstition? Please keep in mind the circumstances on the ground in some of the world's most atheist countries, when answering this question.

Atheist countries like France? (Assholes )

Or the former Soviet Union? Albania perhaps? or any country that was under the rule of an atheist regime?

I don't think that it's fair to make that comparison, what happend in those countries is revolting to atheists and believers alike.

But maybe that guy was right when he said that when you eliminate God, everything is permissible...

botchtowersociety

Including an inability to design a safer earth? What a puny god.

Well, you arse certainly entitled to your opinion, but that is the only God we have.

John Locke could not kill his father by his own hand no matter how much he deserved it. God, logically, could be bound by a similar perceivable force.

God is bound by his own nature. I believe he is also bound by logic, which is part of his nature.

Then he is not god

If he is the most optimal, maximal being that exists, then he is God by any reasonable definition.

sabastious

How do you know he is with you Sab?

Because I am. It truly doesn't go further than that.

-Sab

botchtowersociety

Various definitions of omnipotence (can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?):

1. Y is absolutely omnipotent means that Y "can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory," Y "is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."[9] This position is advanced by Descartes. It has the theological advantage of making God prior to the laws of logic, but the theological disadvantage of making God's promises suspect. On this account, the omnipotence paradox is a genuine paradox, but genuine paradoxes might nonetheless be so.

2. Y is omnipotent means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas.[11] This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this definition. Let X = "to make something that its maker cannot lift". As Mavrodes points out there is nothing logically contradictory about this; a man could, for example, make a boat which he could not lift.[12] It would be strange if humans could accomplish this feat, but an omnipotent being could not. Additionally, this definition has problems when X is morally or physically untenable for a being like God.

3. Y is omnipotent means "Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent. Here the idea is to exclude actions which would be inconsistent for Y to do but might be consistent for others. Again sometimes it looks as if Aquinas takes this position.[13] Here Mavrodes' worry about X= "to make something its maker cannot lift" will no longer be a problem because "God does X" is not logically consistent. However, this account may still have problems with moral issues like X = "tells a lie" or temporal issues like X = "brings it about that Rome was never founded."[9]

4. Y is omnipotent means whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true. This sense, also does not allow the paradox of omnipotence to arise, and unlike definition #3 avoids any temporal worries about whether or not an omnipotent being could change the past. However, Geach criticizes even this sense of omnipotence as misunderstanding the nature of God's promises.[9]

5. Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully.[9] In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent. On the other hand, Anselm of Canterbury seems to think that almightiness is one of the things that makes God count as omnipotent.[14]

PSacramento

Than earth.

Why do believers obfuscate so much? Oh yes I remember

You know of a place safer than Earth for us?

Come on, don't be so hard on old planet Earth, afterall, it got here strictly by chance !

;)

leavingwt

PSacramento: Please have a look at the geographic distributions on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Geographic_distribution

Can we conclude that many atheists are good neighbors?

sabastious

Various definitions of omnipotence (can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?):

I believe logic proves that God has rules that are self applied. The answer to the question is: Yes he can, but he'd never be able to lift it.

-Sab

sabastious

If anyone ever finds themselves questioning God's morality just remember that the "show must go on." I think that is one of the rules.

-Sab

A few Dawkins quotes to think about.

Share this