Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Rationalist Society
Options
Comments
-
-
Halla Basin wrote: »Maybe yez should just believe
Amen halla....this is my road to damascus moment..My divine epiphany...:D0 -
-
Dubhghaillix wrote: »Wow, I'm glad to see there's interest in this Society. We're talking about looking for signatures to sponsor us starting on Societies Day. We're still discussing the name, trying to find the best one. Sceptic Society is good (But I can easily foresee a situation where the acronym might be used against us) This is a society for Doubters, Sceptics, People who ask questions, for the Non-Believers, but not just non-believers in Religion, for people who don't believe in astrology, pseudo-sciences, "new-age" healing nonsense, or anything supernatural. If anyone has any savage ideas for names, sure post them up. I'm liking the Allied Atheist Alliance.
hi dubhghaillix & kevinmcinerney,
i'm not sure where you are at the moment regarding the creation of the society but i'd recommend you get in contact with Riona, the societies officer, at socsofficer@socs.nuigalway.ie as soon as possible.
if you discuss the society with her first then you can book a table for societies day, 23rd sept, here: http://www.socs.nuigalway.ie/
unfortunately the form link isn't working, now that i've checked it but i'll fix that tomorrow.
table booking deadline is 21st of september.
regards,
matt
socs office,
NUIG
oh and for the record, my vote would be for "The Allied Atheist Allegiance (AAA)"
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
DroneWorker wrote: »I believe there is a place for believers in an atheism/agnostic society so long as they abide by the rules of the society, the most fundamental of which would have to be rational inquiry, and not to resort to the ‘I have faith’ non-argument.
is there another argument? rational inquiry is anathema to religious faith, that's pretty much agreed. so sure, religous people could come along, but...what would be the point?DroneWorker wrote: »The Epicurian Society. Then people will come along looking for good food and be totally shocked...
there's no reason why we couldn't have food as well. god-bashing and gourmet, two of my favourite things
DroneWorker wrote: »Even scientists believe in things imposilbe to prove. Take string theory. No proof of it yet, but it is used in quantum mechanics. Though in fairness, while it cannot be proved, its effects are.
the crucial difference is that science tries over and over to either prove or disprove something. once it's proven, it's accepted as fact. if disproven, it's discarded and we move on. they couldn't prove the theory of relativity either, but it made extremely specific predictions which were later borne out, which would constitute proof. religiosity is almost the precise opposite of this.Christianity to this day is bringing far more positivity to the world than negativity in peoples spiritual relations and in the charitable aspect in our communities and in communities further afield.
without reiterating the points to the contrary made by DroneWorker, or bringing up all the other horrors going on under our noses in the name of god, this is unquantifiable. it's also beside the point. many people do many bad things and many good things in the name of religion, or otherwise.The arguments for God's existence are many ranging from cosmology, to the origin of morality, to design.
they are indeed many. but scientists and historians have managed to find the time to dismantle every single one of them.Christianity is a humanist ideology
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God." Deuteronomy 13:7-11.
please enlighten me as to which part of this is the humanist part? this is a direct quote from the bible - which the entire christian faith is based on, translated word for word - and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it's "open to interpretation". stoning someone to death for apostasy is pretty unambiguous."Rationalists" is a bit presumptuous. It implies that no theist whatsoever can be a rationalist, or that they are incapable of reason.
the problem here is that that is exactly what rationalists believe - that religious faith and rational thought are mutually exclusive. i don't think rationalists would have a problem with implying it. i still prefer the original posited name, the society for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers. or if it's going to be a general anti-mumbo-jumbo soc, you could do worse than the secular soc for science, reason & scepticism. might as well bash people over the head with our intentions
i suppose it's ultimately down to whoever gets off their ass and sets the society up. it'll be interesting to see if it ends up just an atheist-agnostic soc, or an umbrella sceptic soc. i'll be there on socs day either way, i hate "complementary and alternative therapies" as much as the next cynic.0 -
kevinmcinerney wrote: »Hello everyone.:)
For anyone who is interested in joining the proposed society, hereby named "The Enlightenment Soc", we are having our first general meeting at 3pm Thursday in Smokeys. I will be wearing a bright purple, pink and blue addidas zip up top if anyone is lost.
Mainly this is an opportunity for everyone to meet, have a few coffees, and of course get our much needed 15 signitures.
Hope you like the name. It took at least four weeks for Charles (Dubhghaillix) and i to agree on one so fingers crossed.
All are welcome,
Hopefully see you there.
I should be there.
A few coffees? If this was a religious soc there'd be soup and sandwiches for sure 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
is there another argument? rational inquiry is anathema to religious faith, that's pretty much agreed. so sure, religous people could come along, but...what would be the point?
This is highly subjective.
Reasoning is something that is unique to all human beings. What is reasoned upon depends on what empiricism one has. Empiricism being source data, what exists in the world around us, what material we have to think about. Reasoning is merely the act of processing what empirical knowledge we have to form a conclusion.
Atheists and theists both reason, using different sources of empiricism, thus coming to different conclusions.
Reason is a key part of many religious traditions from Judaism to modern Christianity, this is the reason why I think the "Rationalist Soc" as a name is merely haughty with little substance. Whereas if you said Skeptics that's far more telling of your actual position to those who disagree with you.there's no reason why we couldn't have food as well. god-bashing and gourmet, two of my favourite things
Isn't there more to atheism & agnosticism than "God-bashing"? This is the kind of stuff that causes me to question ones motives.the crucial difference is that science tries over and over to either prove or disprove something. once it's proven, it's accepted as fact. if disproven, it's discarded and we move on. they couldn't prove the theory of relativity either, but it made extremely specific predictions which were later borne out, which would constitute proof. religiosity is almost the precise opposite of this.
Funny considering how many people of faith are involved in science?
The rational basis for belief in God comes from how likely one regards His existence to be the case. To establish this, we bring forth indications to suggest why this is the case. This is pretty much what the field of Christian apologetics sets out to do in the case of the Judeo-Christian God.without reiterating the points to the contrary made by DroneWorker, or bringing up all the other horrors going on under our noses in the name of god, this is unquantifiable. it's also beside the point. many people do many bad things and many good things in the name of religion, or otherwise.
Are we ignoring the role of state atheist regimes in the 20th century? The facts are these, the abuse of any ideology is possible. This is why people need to be vigilant. Luckily, Christians have a standard for assessing what indeed is good, and what indeed is evil. The secular world has yet to come up with a standard that doesn't result in mere subjectivism such as moral relativism.they are indeed many. but scientists and historians have managed to find the time to dismantle every single one of them.
Really? I think this is mere dishonesty. There has been a debate in the field of Philosophy of Religion, but to claim that this has resulted in "dismantling" is absolutely absurd to the highest degree.
It is this overbearing confidence in ones conclusions that is an attempt to suggest that the God question isn't as open as it is. Realistically, the God question is as open as it ever was, and is indeed as vigorously debated as it ever was."If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God." Deuteronomy 13:7-11.
Indeed. Thankfully this is explicable in a Christian context.
All people are deserving of death for their sin (Romans 1:32)
We have all sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23, Psalms 14:3, Psalm 51:3)
Sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2)
To be reconciled with God, we need to separate ourselves from sin.
Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah was prophesied to take away the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:5, John 1:29).
In our place He died the death we deserved, and He rose to new life again (Romans 6:4). Making us a new Creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)
Thus, we have been saved by grace (Ephesians 2:5), and we are expected to have grace with others. Through Christ we have been given a new chance to put ourselves right with God.
This ^^ is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. The moral laws remain, the punishment differs.
Judaism: The punishment is on the individual.
Christianity: We have been saved by grace.
When we become Christians, we have already endured the death penalty to Christ, conquering sin (Romans 8:37), and we have become a new creation through Christ. This is the reason for the differing views on punishment.please enlighten me as to which part of this is the humanist part? this is a direct quote from the bible - which the entire christian faith is based on, translated word for word - and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it's "open to interpretation". stoning someone to death for apostasy is pretty unambiguous.
Which part of that quote or which part of the Bible? If it is the latter I could quite comprehensively go through this, actually, I could even do it in the book of Deuteronomy alone.
Indeed, stoning people to death for apostasy is pretty unambiguous, just as Jesus Christ dying so that we might be freed from the slavery of sin is unambiguous. We can all take verses out of context.the problem here is that that is exactly what rationalists believe - that religious faith and rational thought are mutually exclusive. i don't think rationalists would have a problem with implying it. i still prefer the original posited name, the society for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers. or if it's going to be a general anti-mumbo-jumbo soc, you could do worse than the secular soc for science, reason & scepticism. might as well bash people over the head with our intentions
What is a rationalist? See the first paragraph of my post for the difficulty with using the word rationalist. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas placed a huge emphasis on reason. How could Aquinas, while being a Christian employ reason to the extent he did in his philosophy?i suppose it's ultimately down to whoever gets off their ass and sets the society up. it'll be interesting to see if it ends up just an atheist-agnostic soc, or an umbrella sceptic soc. i'll be there on socs day either way, i hate "complementary and alternative therapies" as much as the next cynic.
Indeed, it's quite a shame that I'm not studying in Galway.0 -
-
-
"different sources of empiricism"? empiricism emphasises evidence and proof, especially experimental proof, taking into account all the knowledge that is available to us, i.e. that which can be positively observed. since so much science directly contradicts almost everything in the bible, surely that means you're just picking and choosing the "source data" that you use to draw your conclusions? which isn't empirical.
I would ask what science? I have an inkling that you have preconceptions about this that aren't shared by all Christians.
Secondly, empiricism is not restricted to any one field. Empiricism as a means of achieving knowledge in a philosophical sense is related to experience. Yes this is related to science, because one observes results and notes them down, but it isn't exclusively so.
The Christian basis of empiricism would be pretty much as follows, what we can discern from the universe and the world around us concerning how it came into being, what we can discern about human nature and how people act, what records we have concerning peoples interactions with the divine (the Biblical text), how these records hold up to criticism, and finally how we as people have experienced God today.
As I say, if you want me to recommend you any material that you can read that argues for God's existence in a cogent manner I certainly can, but it will ultimately depend on how open minded you are to the possibility that Christianity may well be truth rather than fiction.
You conclude discussing about Christians picking and choosing sources of empiricism. However, I do have to say that is rather ironic coming from someone who has admitted to having a hatred of religion. Hatred is actually an emotive response, rather than a rational one. I feel it is this hatred that is stopping you from considering the Biblical text as a source of empiricism. Can I ask how much of the Bible have you actually read?is it? where? i can only find strict instructions to believe what you're told and not question anything.
That's a rather limited view of Christianity. The point of Christianity is to accept that we cannot adhere to all of God's commandments by our own effort, but that we need grace and mercy so that we can walk with God, and gradually grow in the faith. Christianity doesn't say to people follow all of this now, but rather (basing this on New Testament epistles) says that faith is something that we grow in as time progresses. It will take time for one to be fully adherent.
Reason, has been a part of the Christian tradition with philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo amongst others. It has pretty much been a part of the faith ever since.
The Anglican Communion holds Reason, Faith and Tradition as the three pillars of it's assessment of the Christian faith.by all means questions my motives, but i'm quite open about them. i hate religion.
It's a dying shame then. It appears that ones mind is firmly closed rather than opened to giving Christianity a fair chance. That is a decision alright, but to say it is rational is something else altogether.i'm afraid i couldn't find any statistics on your website, but one of the most robust surveys of religiosity among scientists is held to be that conducted by Larson and Witham in 1998, reported in Nature journal. you need a subscription to read the original article, but the findings are widely available - non-belief in god among scientists is about 60%, much higher than the general population (note that this was conducted in the u.s.). furthermore, when they narrowed the pool to "great" scientists - more eminent or respected in their field - disbelief rose to 93%. that's a pretty strong correlation by anyone's standards.
The point wasn't about statistics, but that there are sizeable groups of Christians involved in science.
As for your survey. I need to know what is the defining factor of "scientist" for their research. It seems to be rather limited given the amount of Christians I know currently working in scientific research.
Can I ask you though, do you believe that atheists are more intelligent than Christians?no. i wrote "in the name of god, or otherwise." the "otherwise" alluding to anything that isn't god (political ideals, or whatever.) out of curiosity, what "atheist" regimes are you referring to?
Fair enough.
If you want to learn more about state atheism take a read here.the universal declaration of human rights is comprehensive, objective and few people have found fault with it. surely an ancient text which has to be interpreted (i'm boldly presuming that you don't go around stoning people) is shaky foundations for a moral standard? i've never met, or indeed heard of, a christian who follows the bible to the letter. what is that if not subjective?
How is it objective?
In Christian belief, God is the standard of morality because God will hold everyone accountable for what they do in this world. One cannot say that everyone will be held accountable for violating the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
I think the Biblical text is a lot firmer than anything the secular world has ever provided us concerning morality.the evidence for evolution, for the judeo-christian god's being a man-made invention, and for the bible's being not more than a collection of stories is beyond dispute and accepted by almost all respected scientists. it's only in question among a small enclave of religious apologists who can't accept hard evidence.
I had a feeling evolution would come up sooner rather than later. You do realise that evolution doesn't rule out God's existence in any meaningful way right?
Who has proven that the Judeo-Christian God is a man-made invention?
Scientists study science, they are not theologians. If the Bible was a science book I might actually understand where you are coming from. However, the Biblical text is a philosophical and religious text, which is based on whys rather than hows. Many Christians have written books on the subject of compatibility between science and faith, if one has any serious objections they should look for clarification first.
Francis Collins - former overseer of the Human Genome Project has a book published called "The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". I'd highly recommend it.
Again, I feel you are being deceptive and that you are twisting the facts here. Nobody has disproven Christianity in any way whatsoever. Many scientists do believe in God, despite your previous claims.
The New Testament is the most authentic among ancient texts, dating within the first century, and with over 40,000 manuscripts to check against corruption of sources. So as for what you say about it being mere "stories", this has not been established at all. Infact, there is better reason to believe it to be truth rather than falsehood based on authenticity.for some people. for others, it's never been open, and they want to have a society to talk about that.
One can only hold this position if one is not willing to debate. If you want to engage in pretence about the reality of the situation (I.E That there is no proof for or against God and that we have to indicate our position) that is your decision and your decision alone. However, please, do not lie aboutno, it's not. stoning someone to death is not explicable in any context.
Well, I've clarified the Christian position on it. Christianity doesn't advocate stonings to death because of Jesus taking our place for our sins. He also told us not to condemn others or else we too would be condemned. Our salvation is based on how readily we are to forgive others.i have no idea what you mean here. do you mean they have the same sins, but only the jews think people should be killed for them? how do you know that, when the bible clearly says to kill?
You mightn't be aware of this. However, these Bible develops chronologically. All that is morally sinful in the Old Testament remains wrong, but the punishment differs because of the arrival of the Messiah.
I.E Circumstances and situations change from the Israelites being nomads in the desert to Jesus offering us freedom from the slavery of sin.
All sinners are deserving of death in God's eyes. God being the Creator of the world creates life, and has the right to take it away. God in His grace has offered us the chance to repent of our sins and come to new life in Him through Jesus. This is the major difference between Judaism and Christianity. Mercy.
If you want to discuss Judaism that's another matter. I'm more interested in the defence of Christianity rather than Judaism.to me, this is dogma and i can't argue with it.there is no context in which killing someone for their beliefs is okay. relating it to jesus dying on a cross (or not) does not explain it away. it's wrong.
I've explained why Christianity doesn't encourage the death penalty and why it differs from it's Jewish or Islamic counterparts.
I believe that people are deserving of death for their sin, but because we have been offered mercy through Jesus, we are commanded to be merciful to others.ironically, this post has proven my original point - that atheists and religious people arguing about religion is doomed to go in circles, which is why an atheist/agnostic society should not waste time in perpetuating a pointless debate. also, this thread has gone totally off topic, so i'm bowing out now.
Well, it's really only pointless if one didn't want to discuss about Christianity in the first place. I've had a lot of great discussions with atheists about faith in the past, it generally depends on how willing people are to talk with one another.
Thanks for being a good sport though
I'll let you guys continue discussing your arrangements for the society.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Reading this part made me need to chime in.
The point isn't that evolution rules out gods existence, the point is it calls into serious question the validity of the bible. The genesis account of creation is clearly absurd, and like much else in the bible, contradicts testable scientific fact.
A first eye glance of it in English may well, the original Hebrew of the passage opens up more possibilities however:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html
I'm not 100% sure of how the world was created, I don't think anyone can be. What I do believe is that God was involved in this creation.Deleted User wrote: »It is impossible to disprove anything or prove a negative, that god does not exist. The onus should not be on us to disprove your fantastical and outrageous claims, it should be up to you to provide evidence and proof. You can't put forward a belief without evidence and expect it to be accepted as truth unless proved wrong. See Russels Teapot or the FSM for comparable examples.
Yes, but please read what the poster originally said:the evidence for evolution, for the judeo-christian god's being a man-made invention, and for the bible's being not more than a collection of stories is beyond dispute and accepted by almost all respected scientists. it's only in question among a small enclave of religious apologists who can't accept hard evidence.
If there is evidence to confirm:
1) The Judeo-Christian God is a man-made invention
2) The Bible is a collection of stories beyond dispute. (emphasis mine)
3) It is only in question (I.E it's only believed) by a small enclave of believers?
Is this honest or dishonest?Deleted User wrote: »The bible is not proof. The bible is right because god says so. Where does god say this? In the bible! Surely someone like yourself, who seems to be genuinely quite intelligent can see the circular logic here?
Yes, I can. I haven't argued that the Bible is a proof of the Bible. That would be quite absurd. This is where indication comes in. We have to ask ourselves, what implies that this is true in common existence today. Many authors have done this more succinctly than I could ever imagine myself doing it.
What I am merely saying is, there is much more room for argument on the existence of God than people ever make out.Deleted User wrote: »I'm sure the bible gets many things historically correct, but you cannot extrapolate out then that everything the bible says is correct. Sure it probably has some dates and events right, but that doesn't prove anything about the incredible claims it makes.
Not only does the Biblical text get things historically correct, and archaeologically correct. The New Testament itself has been shown to be the most authentic ancient text that we have in the world today due to the number of manuscripts we have in our possession.
Whether we dispute the Biblical claims or not, it is relatively clear that the New Testament accounts have remained free from corruption for up to 2,000 years.
To move on to discussing Biblical events and in your case the miracles that are involved, this will involve getting into actually assessing the Bible on it's merit. I think I best leave that for you to discuss with your Christian Union 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
kevinmcinerney wrote: »Well, the dates are arguable depending where you find the information. However, the bible is not the word of God. Its written several years after the events it describes. The different Gospels contradict one another historically in places. And many Gospels were suppressed because they were to absurd.
The dates I have provided you with are the ones accepted by most theologians on the issue.
As for the Gospels you are referring to. They weren't accepted at the Council of Nicea because they were not in usage from the first century onwards. I.E They couldn't be shown to be in any way authentic. The New Testament as we know it today, was in usage by the Church Fathers from the beginning of the church onwards. Hence why those were selected. It was mainly due to what evidence people had for the Scriptures having been used from the beginning to the point of that Council.
As for these Gospels, not many of them are even complete. I have a copy of some of these texts in a book "The Other Bible" by Willis Barnstone.
As for the Bible not being the word of God. You misinterpret what Christians actually mean when they say that. I personally see Jesus as the Word of God mainly. The view is that the Bible is the inspired word of God by the Holy Spirit.kevinmcinerney wrote: »Its accepted that the scientific community are generally more athesitic in general compared to the general population. In fact, a study by mensa showed a direct correlation to the level of a persons religiousity and their I.Q. These people probably are scientifically illeterate or else subscribe to the idea of non-overlapping-magisterias which says that science and religion cover different epistemological ground...I simply dont accept this..However, i think you are right. This is interesting and i am interested in why people believe things like religion or alternative medice or astrology. Im actually doing a module on Pseudoscience which deals with why people believe odd things...No offense...
There is no offence to be had, because from what I can see, Christians aren't by any means less intelligent than atheists. Infact in church congregations in the USA and in Australia it was found in a study that they had a higher level of educational attainment than the average.
Please cite what you found by Mensa, all I've seen is a Danish scientist who says that women as less intelligent than men, black people are less intelligent than white, and now that people of faith are less intelligent than atheists. I don't know how seriously I can regard that.
I take no offence, because I believe that you are outright wrong on thiskevinmcinerney wrote: »This is where we might agree on something....Even if i believe God doesn't exist, i still admit that his existence in a cultural sense is the most intriguing puzzle out their. But, dont be fooled... "no smoke without fire" does not neccessarily apply here. Religion and god could have been evolutionarily adaptive as a behavioural pattern which gave rise to advantagous behaviour. (Social contract, Community). There are lots of great theories out their on how and why religion could have come about without it being true! Meme theory, adaptive theory, others.........
Let's not get carried away here.
Meme theory isn't universally accepted by any means, first and foremost. Some have even referred to it as pseudo-science, which would mean that you might be studying yourself next year.
As for "social contract" in relation to morals. That is more a relativist notion than an objectivist one. Personally I am a moral objectivist.
By the by though, if such behaviour is advantageous, why do you seek to destroy such behaviour? Or do you?kevinmcinerney wrote: »hmm...well not quite...The reason i dont believe their is a God is because their is no apparent need for one or evidence. Its not that I dont believe in God so I dont look for the evidence..Their simply isnt any out their...And Cultural, philosphical, and cosmological evidence:D..Come on....Nothing more than people who are adept at seeming learned spouting a load of Carbage....
I'd advise you to go and read some books on the subject. For a start:
C.S Lewis - Mere Christianity
Lee Strobel - The Case for Faithkevinmcinerney wrote: »Do you really want to talk about Thomas Aquinas proofs...Because I think they are funnier than the Ministry of sily walks...absolute Tommycock!:rolleyes:..AND TO SAY SO DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PHILISTINE!
Considering there are many more philosophers than Thomas Aquinas in this world. I think I would say not solely. Many people since Thomas Aquinas have also argued for the existence of God even to the modern day with apologists such as William Lane Craig, Richard Swinbourne, and the late Herbert McCabe.0 -
-
I've been gone for too long. Far too many things to comment on!
Firstly, and I'm sorry I can't remember who said it though I think it was the stalwart Christian Jakkass, empiricism is the philosophy that "sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" (from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy). That is to say, very simply, if you can't see, touch or taste something then it doesn't exist. I am puzzelled by the notion of 'religious empiricism' as a proof for god as that is clearly an oxymoron. Maybe this point was elucidated in a later post, but I have not found it.
Secondly, again and again this debate is contorted. The concept of 'god' is mixed in with the reality of religion. The arguements against religion and other such dogmatic organisations are many (and in my opinion overwhelming) and can be argued for and against (as we have seen, thanks to all contributors on this page!), but I have to admit to argue against the non-existence of god is circular and never-ending. By contorting the two into one arguement is misleading.
I understand for the faithful 'god' and 'religion' are often synonymus but if we are to engage is a reasonable, rational debate they must be divided. For example, if one were to look at the government of a country and say 'democracy is a terrible thing' it would be terrifically incorrect. The government, the people who run it or designed it, its actions and inactions might be distasteful and hurtful but that is no fault of democracy, the people are at fault. God, if such a thing exists or not, has been a tool for vast levels of corruption and sin in the world which religion has condoned in one form or other. Shuffling paedophile priests around to hide them from the law, abusing women and stealing their children in Magdelane laundries, selling indulgences, denying the sale of condoms, refusing a woman's right to choose etc etc... If god exists I would believe he has turned away from his creation in shame of what it has done in his name. If I were a believer I would be waiting for another Flood. Hell, I'd be praying for one.
And the hubris of the faithful in the uniqueness of their revelation is interesting too. Maybe god is hindu, they outnumber Catholics many times over. Or maybe Luther was correct, maybe god chose him to reofrm the churhc. Maybe the Jews are the Chosen people, they seem pretty confident about it. Islam is the fast growing religion in the world, surely that is a sign of god's favour...0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement