Is God poison?

[Figleaf]

I am also quite surprised that you blame religions for these actions, yet leave all other creeds out of it?

Interesting you choose the word 'creed'. Interesting because it's obviously part and parcel of the rightwing talking-point that argues secular views are somehow religious. (Which itself is an oxymoron the likes of which it usually takes a religious mindset to accomodate.)

Now I'm not interested in debating that point, which is too ludicrous to be bothered acknowledging argumentatively, but I wonder what the strategy is there. How does it help their(/your) position?

[White Doors]

I am also quite surprised that you blame religions for these actions, yet leave all other creeds out of it?

Interesting you choose the word 'creed'. Interesting because it's obviously part and parcel of the rightwing talking-point that argues secular views are somehow religious. (Which itself is an oxymoron the likes of which it usually takes a religious mindset to accomodate.)

Now I'm not interested in debating that point, which is too ludicrous to be bothered acknowledging argumentatively, but I wonder what the strategy is there. How does it help their(/your) position?

You are presuming to know what my position is.

You have no interest to debate because my points are not debateable by a rational person that has at least a slim grip on logic and debate.

If creed is putting your panties in a twist you can feel free to change it to 'belief' if you are so inclined.

Regardless, it is the fevered pitch to which any belief, logical or not, that can lead to atrocity.

The 20th century is, without a doubt, our bloddiest century of human existence.

It is also the century that marked the greatest loosening of religion on individual lives.

Kind of hard to make the argument that God is, indeed, poison in that context is it not?

[Drea]

Religious folk have a hard time wrapping their brains around the fact that those who do not believe in the existence of a god don't have "faith" in anything.

People USED to believe they needed to do "something" in order to make the sun rise.

So Whitedoors, going by your logic, they were CORRECT to beleieve that without their "prayers" or "sacrifices" the sun would not rise.

If this is the case, why are folks today not sacrificing to a sun god? Because we KNOW the reasons that the sun rises and sets. (It's the rotation of the planet and it's orbit around the sun which was discovered through logical science, not blind faith)

Today there is no need to speculate on a "sun god". We KNOW it was stupid to sacrifice human beings (or do you think they were doing the right thing? Cause, well yah just never know maybe the sun god is real and wants human blood -- yah think?)

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

I do not BELIEVE in anything. I KNOW that the earth is not flat -- I KNOW that the earth revolves around the sun -- I KNOW these things because they are scientifically proveable. Your notion of "god" is not.

[stignasty]

Because we KNOW the reasons that the sun rises and sets. (It's the rotation of the planet and it's orbit around the sun which was discovered through logical science, not blind faith)

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

[White Doors]

I did put forth any notion of God.

Clearly if you think the 20th Century was the most peaceful century in our existence then 'truth' in anything is not your strong point.

You can't even understand what it is I am saying.

Your post is not even responding to my points other than your laughable assertion about the 20th Century being one of peace and harmony.

[sharkman]

I am also quite surprised that you blame religions for these actions, yet leave all other creeds out of it?

Do you also hold secular humanism in equal, or worse, contempt?

What about politics? Do you hold politics in contempt?

You see, it is not the belief in God that is the problem, it is the actions of MAN that use violence to promote one ideology over another. This ALWAYS starts out as promoting one ideology over the other and showing contempt for the believers on the other side.

Do you see the irony yet?

I hope so.

Your posts provoke much thought and I agree with most of what you say. It is indeed the actions of man using violence to promote an ideology over another.

I think the 20th century was the most violent yet. 2 world wars, Stalin and others wiping out their own people, Viet Nam and Korea, plus dozens of regional conflicts. And, of course, the Middle East.

[White Doors]

Thanks Sharkman. Nice to know you can have reasoned debate around here still.

[Drea]

This is NOT the bloodiest time in human history. I am at work now, but over the weekend I will do some searching and prove it.

And yes, I agree that humans are repsonsible for bastardizing religions and the concept of "god".

Regardless, it still stands that the human race will be better off when people no longer believe in an invisbile entity that hands out judgement.

I am still confident that the human race (sans whitedoors) will grow up and shed the need for "gods".

And white... you have yet to tell me if people ought to still believe in a sun god, ought to be still sacrificing people to make sure the sun rises... or if these antiquated beliefs belong in the past.

Praying to "Ra" so the sun god rises is the same as praying to "Allah" or "G-d" or "Jehova" or "Jesus" -- equally useless, equally antiquated.

[cybercoma]

Yes, the human race is growing up, it's good to see.

However, being an Atheist takes just as much faith as believing in a higher power.

Regardless of which is correct, I don't know myself, it has been a life-long journey of questions and philosophical problems.. However to declare that Atheism is THE ONLY ANSWER and laugh at people who believe otherwise is remarkably similar to the practices of religious fanatics, do you not think?

In other words, if you were as grown up as the world is, you would not judge people for what they may or may not believe if it does not affect you.

Clearly you have not thought through your position for any length of time.

You are a 'lazy believer'.

shame.

This post is ridiculous.

Atheism requires no faith. It is not about faith, it is about reaching a conclusion. Atheism is not at all an ANSWER to any question, it is a rejection of the answer 'God'.

It takes no more faith to be an atheist of modern theism, than it does for modern theists to be atheists of ancient egyptian Gods and Goddesses.

We don't say to people who don't believe in ghosts, "wow, it takes an incredible amount of faith not to believe in ghosts." That's clearly nonsense, the onus is on the person who believes in ghosts to justify their belief and show proof of its existence.

As far as not affecting anyone...

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.

The fact that children adopt the religion of their parents goes to show the power of these superstitions and how unquestioned faith is the norm for all religion. It affects all by slowing understanding and scientific advancement. I mentioned Galileo earlier because that's the best example I can think of from the top of my head. A century from now the treatment of Darwin's findings in today's age will be a similar example.

So, not only is Drea affected, but every single person alive now and to be born in the future is affected.

[cybercoma]

No they are not. But neither are they proof that there is not one. 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.

Belief in ANYTHING in the absence of proof or evidence is completely idiotic.

And I found the rest of your post hilariously ironic.

[cybercoma]

In your lifetime I am confident you will look back upon yourself and your actions and marvel at how smug and arrogant you were acting.

Believing in things without evidence ISN'T smug and arrogant?

How about killing and torturing for things that you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant?

How about having no respect for anyone who doesn't believe what you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant?

[cybercoma]

Genghis Khan makes Hitler look like the Easter Bunny.

The 20th Century the bloodiest! Amazing.

End of thread.

[White Doors]

This is NOT the bloodiest time in human history. I am at work now, but over the weekend I will do some searching and prove it.

Well this is the 21st century, but whatever floats your boat.

Regardless, it still stands that the human race will be better off when people no longer believe in an invisbile entity that hands out judgement.

Why do you think that?

Communism killed many millions of people that didn't 'believe'. Don't you think that if religion were to go away that it would just be replaced with something else?

I am still confident that the human race (sans whitedoors) will grow up and shed the need for "gods".

Oh, personal insults. thank you. I have never professed any faith in 'gods'. I admire your presumptions.

And white... you have yet to tell me if people ought to still believe in a sun god, ought to be still sacrificing people to make sure the sun rises... or if these antiquated beliefs belong in the past.

Praying to "Ra" so the sun god rises is the same as praying to "Allah" or "G-d" or "Jehova" or "Jesus" -- equally useless, equally antiquated.

To you perhaps. Unfortunately you are not very educated in history, philosophy or debate skills as you have shown here. Your opinion is fortunately, not the last voice in the debate.

[White Doors]

This post is ridiculous.

thank you

Atheism requires no faith. It is not about faith, it is about reaching a conclusion. Atheism is not at all an ANSWER to any question, it is a rejection of the answer 'God'.

Wrong. Since no one knows if there is a God or not, Atheism DOES indeed require faith.

We don't know if there is intelligent life in the universe, but it does seem likely. If you believe for sure that there is, then you are relying on faith to believe that.

We don't say to people who don't believe in ghosts, "wow, it takes an incredible amount of faith not to believe in ghosts." That's clearly nonsense, the onus is on the person who believes in ghosts to justify their belief and show proof of its existence.

People who believe do not need 'proof'. That is the essence of any faith, religious or not. Clearly you are having a difficult time with the meaning of the word.

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.

I find it odd that people cannot expose someone to faith of any kind but let them make up their own minds as they go through life. By that argument we should not be sending people to school to gain an education as that would expose them to bias. Bias is everywhere. A properly raised child will be able to make up their own mind.

The fact that children adopt the religion of their parents goes to show the power of these superstitions and how unquestioned faith is the norm for all religion. It affects all by slowing understanding and scientific advancement. I mentioned Galileo earlier because that's the best example I can think of from the top of my head. A century from now the treatment of Darwin's findings in today's age will be a similar example.

Having an open or closed mind to things is not the exclusive domain of religion. Some of the best and brightest astromoners were in the employ of the papacy in the middle ages.

Look at David Suzuki. He has a closed mind about global warming. I don't think that is because of his religion. There are any number of other examples of this, including Richard Dawkins. Also, if all children adopted the faith of their parents, we wouldn;t be having this argument as we would all be religious wouldn't we?

[White Doors]

In your lifetime I am confident you will look back upon yourself and your actions and marvel at how smug and arrogant you were acting.

Believing in things without evidence ISN'T smug and arrogant?

How about killing and torturing for things that you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant?

How about having no respect for anyone who doesn't believe what you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant?

How would that be smug and arrogant? You believe. Faith is a deply spiritual and personal thing. As long as the person/religion doesn't force the conversion of others what is the harm? If they did force conversions or wanted to kill the non-believers I would be right there shouting from the rooftops that it is ridiculous.

If torturing and killing were the exclusive domain of religion then you would have an argument. Obviously they are not. Ergo, the problem is not with the religion or god, but in peoples contempt of others that do not think like they do.

Christianity used to do this and it was terrible. Islam still does to an extent and it is terrible.

Communism did this and it was terrible. Fascists did this and it was terrible.

The common theme is intolerance. Ironically the crusade against religion is very intolerant. I hope it does not go to the extreme like the other ideologies did in the past.

You should be looking yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you find it necessary to denegrate people who do not think as you do.

Certainly, if you were so sure in your position, you would have no need or interest in portraying your beliefe as the 'correct one' as you would know it to be true.

I think you are confused that there are others that do not think as you and in order to validate yuour belief system you need to tear theirs down. That is a common human theme in history. It is unfortunate and it the ultimate commonality to all atrocities.

You should think that over the next time you denigrate others that are causing you no harm at all.

[Drea]

F.F.S. we have been in THIS century for a whole seven years -- whatever.

Of COURSE I meant from 1900 to 1999 -- which were certainly NOT the bloodiest/cruelest years in human history.

Go on believing the invisible Daddy will save you from your "sins". LOL

You insult my debating style and everything EXCEPT for the fact that you CANNOT define the difference between a person praying to "G-d" and a person praying to "Ra".

Geez -- insult the messenger because you can't refute the message.

Cheers!

[scribblet]

What does F.F.S. mean ?

[cybercoma]

Why can't the religious advocates get it through their heads that atheism is NOT a belief system, it's the REJECTION OF BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE. How the hell is that a belief? The belief is the leap of faith made by the religious. To have unquestioned faith in something without evidence is the belief and it's incredibly stupid. There's no other word for it. To completely reject logic, evidence and reason is nothing more than moronic.

[Figleaf]

The onus is on the worshipper to prove the existence of an invisiblity entity (good luck with that).

Really? Why? Who says? An atheist?

Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs.

That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.'

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[cybercoma]

That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.'

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

"Noooo! You're an idiot! The point is they don't NEED proof!"

Don't forget that they're passing on the virtues of irrationality to their children and threatening them with all sorts of misery and torment if they don't comply.

[Figleaf]

That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.'

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

"Noooo! You're an idiot! The point is they don't NEED proof!"

Don't forget that they're passing on the virtues of irrationality to their children and threatening them with all sorts of misery and torment if they don't comply.

Hey, don't be so critical. All that misery and torment is part of the plan of the All-Loving God.

[M.Dancer]

The onus is on the worshipper to prove the existence of an invisiblity entity (good luck with that).

Really? Why? Who says? An atheist?

Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs.

That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.'

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

People who would say that are , to be frank, ignorant and most likely rude disrespectful bigots.

Would you they say to an existentialist or humanist, where is your material evidence? No physical proof?

Your beliefs are irrational/not rational...

No of course not. They don't have a hate hard on for philosophers..just christains, jews......etc, etc

[Figleaf]

The onus is on the worshipper to prove the existence of an invisiblity entity (good luck with that).

Really? Why? Who says? An atheist?

Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs.

That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.'

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

People who would say that are , to be frank, ignorant and most likely rude disrespectful bigots.

Spare me your angsty emo and juvie insults please. Try to deal with logic for a moment. A faith-based belief is non-rational by definition. There's nothing ignorant or disrespectful or bigotted about THE FACTS. 'Rationality' has a meaning, and 'Belief-based-on-faith' has a meaning, and they are mutually contradictory.

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.

Would you they say to an existentialist or humanist, where is your material evidence? No physical proof?

Your beliefs are irrational/not rational...

The content of their beliefs is not well known to me, but I am unaware of any of them using the concept of 'faith' or 'just is' or 'the book says' as an answer to analytical challenges of their views.

In fact, though, I certainly might call non-religious beliefs irrational if it seems applicable. I certainly challenge the supposed objective materialism of Marxist ideology.

[M.Dancer]

In otherwords, you prefer to target your insult and bigotry towards christians.....understood

[Drea]

In otherwords, you prefer to target your insult and bigotry towards christians.....understood

This thread (all all the posts within it) are not "targetting" christianity but the concept of an invisible entity -- doesn't matter what you call it (god, allah, buddah, jesus, vishnu).

There is no religion "better" than another.