Is God poison?

[sharkman]

Hmm, seems you completely ignore any reference to you earlier sentiments about lopping off tongues and mutilating hands. If this is what your thinking and analyzing gets you, change your reading and viewing habits.

[Drea]

I actually thought it was a tad harsh and was going to say so, but you keep bringing it up so I'll stand by the statement that religious fanatics who preach hatred should have their tongues removed and their hands mutilated.

Happy now?

LOL

[cybercoma]

... just as believing in Thor, Apollo or Zeus is thought to be insane.

"You are a disrespectful insulting ass!" *

* http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=24

Underrated post of the week award! haha

[betsy]

Deleted. I'm not gonna bother.

[scribblet]

I actually thought it was a tad harsh and was going to say so, but you keep bringing it up so I'll stand by the statement that religious fanatics who preach hatred should have their tongues removed and their hands mutilated.

Happy now?

LOL

All I can say is wow - you've got some of those radical Islamists beat

[Figleaf]

... just as believing in Thor, Apollo or Zeus is thought to be insane.

"You are a disrespectful insulting ass!" *

* http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=24

Underrated post of the week award! haha

Thanks, It's nice to know someone got it.

[White Doors]

I actually thought it was a tad harsh and was going to say so, but you keep bringing it up so I'll stand by the statement that religious fanatics who preach hatred should have their tongues removed and their hands mutilated.

Happy now?

LOL

Who's the zealot now?

haha

[Black Dog]

Some dood:

G.d isn't poison but the people who think its fun to deride the beliefs of others are poison and would force their secularist cultism on others.

Hey, when you spend all your time aborting babies, pushing homosexuality and marijuana on school kids, helping terrorists and generally undermining all that is good and pure in western Judeo-Chrsitian civilization, deriding the religious beliefs of others is a nice break. Kinda like a Kit-Kat.

[Drea]

Excellent BD!

From Wikipeda:

Zealotry was a movement in first century Judaism, described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים), means one who is jealous on behalf of God. The term is Greek in origin.

That's me jealous for mr. invisible entity dude -- yesiree!

[Slavik44]

Still waiting for someone to explain how God is real. I'm waiting for any kind of rational evidence to a God's existence.

I liked your post...but personally I have come to the realization that the question you are asking, does god exists...is irrelevant....

Put it this way....If I asked if you believed in "kjf;alkfj;alk"... most people's first instinct probably would not be proving the existence of "kjf;alkfj;alk"...it certainly wouldn't be drawing the battle lines picking friends and enemies and going to war over "kjf;alkfj;alk."

Chances are that the more logical thing to do would be to define "kjf;alkfj;alk"...find out what it is, or what it is supposed to be and then start to make a decision based on that.

Take God...theists favourite little scenario is "well I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't exist...so I will just believe he does."

At this point in time what have we established? Who is God? What does he do? Where does he live? Who does he like? What does he like? Does he have enemies? What does he want us to do?

The honest answer is that it hasn't been established, at this point god is the same thing as "kjf;alkfj;alk"... by the way I now define "kjf;alkfj;alk" as being some keys I hit on my keyboard...I could also define God the same way...god is three keys I hit on my keyboard....theoretically that is true....I just proved god exists...look I did it again, bow before me I created god.

I think the problem we have is that people based on the above reasoning of "I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't exist...so I will just believe he does"...based on that they will start to define who god is and what he does, but they will not hold up each part of the definition to scrutiny. They feel like they possess a carte blanche because you can't prove God doesn't exist.

A far more interesting question is to ask people who God is, to get people to describe God and provide someway for you to test these assumptions.

If I described god as being matter...well we can prove that exists...I could say I make this connection because as a collective matter possess all the knowledge of the world, it can be everywhere and anywhere

at any given time, and as far as we know it cannot be created or made...therefore everything in existence is so because of matter.

Most people would not accept such a suggestion because they like to see God as something more than that....generally speaking as a unified, intelligent, separate entity...i.e spiritual....but lets face it...dog shit ain't exactly spiritual....

And that’s what it is....this whole debate about whether or not God exists is big load of you know what. It is irrelevant. What is relevant, the real question is... who god is....and for me personally if he is that guy who recommended stoning your kids to death for drinking alcohol, or being disobedient....then F' him...why would I want to know someone like that? Why would I want to spend eternity with someone like that? To me that sounds like hell...

[M.Dancer]

I think the problem we have is that people based on the above reasoning of "I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't exist...so I will just believe he does"...based on that they will start to define who god is and what he does, but they will not hold up each part of the definition to scrutiny. They feel like they possess a carte blanche because you can't prove God doesn't exist.

A far more interesting question is to ask people who God is, to get people to describe God and provide someway for you to test these assumptions.

If I described god as being matter...well we can prove that exists...I could say I make this connection because as a collective matter possess all the knowledge of the world, it can be everywhere and anywhere

at any given time, and as far as we know it cannot be created or made...therefore everything in existence is so because of matter.

Most people would not accept such a suggestion because they like to see God as something more than that....generally speaking as a unified, intelligent, separate entity...i.e spiritual....but lets face it...dog shit ain't exactly spiritual....

And that’s what it is....this whole debate about whether or not God exists is big load of you know what. It is irrelevant. What is relevant, the real question is... who god is....and for me personally if he is that guy who recommended stoning your kids to death for drinking alcohol, or being disobedient....then F' him...why would I want to know someone like that? Why would I want to spend eternity with someone like that? To me that sounds like hell...

That was an interesting post.

Personally, I just feel that the exercise to prove the existence of god to be intellectually vain. I have heard the arguments of apologists and while they may be interesting i still can;t back away from the position that God doesn't wan t people to need proof.

I mean, positivism in all fine a dandy, but when it comes down to it the question of faith, what is faith, the answer is trust. You either trust or you don't and no amount of circumstantial evidence will convince you. Indeed, the trust would be poor if you could be convinced by scant evidence.

[White Doors]

Excellent BD!

From Wikipeda:

Zealotry was a movement in first century Judaism, described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים), means one who is jealous on behalf of God. The term is Greek in origin.

That's me jealous for mr. invisible entity dude -- yesiree!

You should use a real dictionary - could be one of your problems. I stress, one of your problems.

Main Entry: zeal·ot

Pronunciation: 'ze-l&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zElOtEs, from zElos

1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A.D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

You most definitely fit the part of a fanatical partisan.

[cybercoma]

Better to be fanatically opposed to real-world things like oppression, torture and murder; than fanatically believing in a supernatural being and doing those things because you think it meets "His" approval.

Damn peace keeping zealots.

[M.Dancer]

Better to be fanatically opposed to real-world things like oppression, torture and murder; than fanatically believing in a supernatural being and doing those things because you think it meets "His" approval.

Damn peace keeping zealots.

Interesting. You would be amazed the number of people who are fanatically motivated by the belief in a supernatural being to oppose murder, torture and oppression.....

...as Malcolm Muggeridge is quoted as saying.....secular humanists just don't open leprosariums

[White Doors]

Better to be fanatically opposed to real-world things like oppression, torture and murder; than fanatically believing in a communist manifesto and doing those things because you think it is more 'fair'.

Damn peace keeping zealots.

~fixed~

[cybercoma]

Better to be fanatically opposed to real-world things like oppression, torture and murder; than fanatically believing in a supernatural being and doing those things because you think it meets "His" approval.

Damn peace keeping zealots.

Interesting. You would be amazed the number of people who are fanatically motivated by the belief in a supernatural being to oppose murder, torture and oppression.....

...as Malcolm Muggeridge is quoted as saying.....secular humanists just don't open leprosariums

If one is only motivated to do good because of their church, synagogue, whatever, then those types of people would do evil things regardless. These are the same people that beat their wives then go to church on sunday. Morality exists in spite of religion and it progresses in spite of religion, not because of it.

[M.Dancer]

These are the same people that beat their wives then go to church on sunday.

Project much?

[Drea]

I do believe what Cyber means is that religion is full of hypocrites.

How many followers actually follow the laws as written (written by god no less!)?

pfft.

Call me what you want -- but you will never be able to call me a hypocrite.

[sharkman]

I do believe what Cyber means is that religion is full of hypocrites.

How many followers actually follow the laws as written (written by god no less!)?

pfft.

Call me what you want -- but you will never be able to call me a hypocrite.

You really have a short memory. I pointed out your hypocrisy a few weeks ago, when you made opposing views on two different threads.

Edit: It's coming back to me now, you spoke against religious practices on one thread and defended them on another. After I pointed this out, you claimed it was cultural, not religious. I then pointed out that the country in question had an 85% (give or take I can't remember exactly now) of Muslims, therefore it WAS religious. You never got back to me after that hypocritical outing.

[August1991]

Long thread. Here are some of my points.

Here are just a few of the myriad of evidences that the Universe didn't just happen by chance:

The carbon atom, necessary for life as we know it, should either not exist or be too rare for the existence of life. According to Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the world's leading astrophysicists, the complex series of atomic reactions necessary for the formation of carbon are so unlikely to have occurred by chance that when he calculated them his own atheism was greatly shaken.

...

This may be evidence of God - but it's not evidence of a Christian God.

Dominionism has only just popped up as a topic in the last few days. It's a very disconcerting philosophy/theology, in terms of it's implications for society and government if it should gain much sway.

Why? If humans have dominion over the earth, then surely we should want to protect it. Our environmental problems arise precisely because no one is defending the earth's interests.

Tough noogies. I will, for the remainder of my life on this beautiful place we call earth, try to wake people up to the fact that there is no invisible dude judging your every move, there is no invisble dude gonna grant you an afterlife, there is no invisible dude period.

You mix too much together her. God, judgment, afterlife. You skipped cosmology and the purpose of life.

Each of us has less than a century to live and we should concentrate on the here and now rather than some weird conspiracy theory that we get to go to heaven if we believe in the correct "god".

Concentrate?

So, the purpose of life is to concentrate on the here and now. I'm concentrating - now what do I do?

All the atrocities that occur because of church and faith are simply the reasons those who are religious need to stand up and show evidence of a God's existence,

If we abolished religion and managed to get everyone in the world to become atheists, there would still be atrocities in the world. Religion is not the cause of death and mayhem.

The closest we got to that was someone saying the complexity of the universe is too much to have been just a coincidence; however, that person is completely missing the fact that it's not coincidence that anything is here. There was a series of events that built upon each other and just because we don't have the answers to EVERYTHING yet, does not mean God is the answer. God is too complex to understand, according to theists, yet that doesn't mean there was a superior being that created God. Complexity and chance are not proof of a deity.

Where did the basic laws of the Universe come from? Who decided Newton's Second Law?

IOW, who started the Universe?

By demanding 'proof' you are missing the point. Having 'faith' is not a coincidence. In the absence of proof you have to have faith to believe anything, not just in a higher power.

In other words the absence of proof of a higher power is just as much of a logical fallacy argument as an Atheist asking for proof of a higher power.

I agree with White Doors. Everything we believe is based on faith.

But if I go one step further, religious faith is ultimately our faith in our fellow beings.

[Figleaf]

Dominionism has only just popped up as a topic in the last few days. It's a very disconcerting philosophy/theology, in terms of it's implications for society and government if it should gain much sway.

Why? If humans have dominion over the earth, then surely we should want to protect it. Our environmental problems arise precisely because no one is defending the earth's interests.

Why? Because Dominionists' beliefs are to prefer an apocalyptic vision of the End times, and inspires them to seek to bring it about. I'm not dealing with environmental matters in particular.

Religion is not the cause of death and mayhem.

You've never heard of the Crusades, the Arab conquests, the Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, independence riots in India, Sri Lanka today, Islamofascist terrorism, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, abortion doctor killings, and Northern Ireland?

[August1991]

The 20th century was NOT the bloodiest time on earth. On the contrary, it is the most peaceful human beings have ever been.

We can play around with statistics but I would take issue with that claim.

...it's the rotation of the planet and it's orbit around the sun which was discovered through logical science, despite blind faith.

I find this idea more interesting.

Has God (or religion) been a positive force in human history?

My answer to an evolutionist such as Richard Dawkins would be to say that if religion exists, it's because it is successful in allowing genes to replicate.

I find it odd, as Richard Dawkins points out, that we don't label our children as Liberal, Conservative, Communist, etc; however, it's perfectly acceptable to paint them with beliefs such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

Yet we "label" our children with names and "paint" them with language.

Some parents give their children a belief in a religion or a way to view life and the universe. Is that wrong? Is it possible to stop parents from doing this? Would we want to?

This makes me think of the frequent abuse of meaning that religions attempt. We see two frequent examples:

1-Faith and reason: these are contradictory in meaning. Anyone who pretends otherwise is using a private definition of one or the other.

2-Secular and religious: these too are mutually exclusive by definition. The purpose of the word secular is to distinguish that which is not religious. Religious apologists who pretend otherwise are arguing the impossible.

Figleaf, are these mutually exclusive?

A desire for clarity often leads to simplification and error.

Figleaf, you give too little credit to the wisdom of the religious people around you.

----

And Figleaf, can you put some faith in your formatting skills and fix your post above?

[M.Dancer]

Has God (or religion) been a positive force in human history?

My answer to an evolutionist such as Richard Dawkins would be to say that if religion exists, it's because it is successful in allowing genes to replicate.

As an evolutionist, Dawkins would correctly point out that evolutions are not always succesful, that often evolved traits have no bearing on reproductive success or failure.

Like earlobes.

Or the sabre tooth cats.

[M.Dancer]

Religion is not the cause of death and mayhem.

You've never heard of the Crusades, the Arab conquests, the Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, independence riots in India, Sri Lanka today, Islamofascist terrorism, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, abortion doctor killings, and Northern Ireland?

The cultural revolution, The great Ukrainian famine, Sino-Vietnamese war, pol pot......

that being said, religion was not the cause of the English civil war nor was it really the cause of the violence in northern ireland or sri lanka.

[M.Dancer]

Morality exists in spite of religion and it progresses in spite of religion, not because of it.

That's an intresting belief there.

Since there is no proof to back it up, it must be a non rational belief.