If your going to talk like that, who or what created purpose? What is purpose? What is life? Is God life?
As most of us are North American or European, Christianity is the main religion in these parts. Besides, religion wise, Islam and Christianity aren't too different, as far as I know. Both have a single god, a prophet and a holy book. Disprove one, and you essentially disprove the other. I also don't know too much about Buddhism or Zionism, or Hinduism, Shintoism etc., so I can't disprove anything these religions claim. Also, I can't think of any crazy statements these religion or some of its members claim. I've heard enough nonsense from Christians and Muslims, especially those in higher offices of the religion. I mean, condoms spread aids? Women wearing bikinis cause earthquakes? Maybe we can't disprove religion, but you're not helping yourself by claiming such things. If you're a Christian, and you've convinced yourself atheism is false, you have yet to prove religion. Both these statements are false. If you believe, or even are convinced of an idea, you don't have to prove or disprove anything. It's what you believe. This is especially true when both sides cannot prove or disprove anything. Religion can't prove it's right, and science can only go as far to reconstruct religious events and find a scientific explanation. That's the same for any religion. How are you sure Hellenism is false? Maybe Zeus is still watching us, and has been all those years.
This is one of the most stupid statements I have ever read. We can detect atoms, and we can use technology to capture their image. We have proof that atoms exist. The burden of proof is on religion. If I say that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, you would demand proof, right? When someone makes a claim, the default is to disbelieve the claim until proper evidence is presented. In this case you claim (insert religious beliefs here), I demand proof, of which there is none( that is reliable).
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
I'm an atheist because I don't think Religion is not as 'divine' as it is made out to be (ea: man-made).
I can see what you mean about Monotheism. And I suppose the things about those Asian Religions blend into that about the mostly European/North American base. Which is also similar for the "crazy statements" things. If some Buddhist Monk says something ridiculous you wont hear about it all the way in London. But if a Calvinist Priest says it you have a much better chance. It is quite the dilemma. But even then, there are still specific scientific anomalies (no I'm not saying they're acts of God or something) that we have yet to prove (think Deep Space events), but we still know they're there. You might think of religion that way. Yes, which could be used as a reason why even if one believes a religion or no religions is right that they should still maintain an open mind
You may have missed the more idea of my ironic "parody", if you will, of the anti-religious thing. Luckily since we don't live in the stone age we can know that Atoms do exist, and blah blab blah. However the main point is not proving it, but while deep inlets are used for atheism, we hardly use much referencing of the Bible. Not to mention we pick out the most extreme pro-religious views while we do not for extreme pro-atheist views.
Why am I a pessimist because I see clear signs that Religion is man-made? For obvious reasons people in the BC's and the better part of the AD's had to believe in something better no? I mean, working 16 hours a day and then dying at the age of 40 must've s*cked?! So you create a magical world in which you'll end up after all that hard labour. Because, hey! You're not gonna get it in this one. Or for instance to give a meaning to stuff you don't understand... Lighting? Just some dude on a chariot pulled by 2 goats smashing his hammer around. Walking on water? hey, I can do that when it's low tide. More solid reasons: the Bible, someone wrote it and that someone was most definitely human. So if I start a Religion tomorrow and write in my Hubnum (yes that's what I'll call it, phonetic hb-nm [silent u's]) I'll say: "EVERY WENSDAY SPAGHETTI AND EVERY FRIDAY JUNKFOOD OR HELL FOR YOOOOUUU!!". And my will be done, or you'll be suicide bombed.
Lol, this what made me first think about being agnostic; hardcore athiests (or athiests that get on the TV) always seem really arrogant - they seem to think that anyone who does have a religion is somehow stupid, and they treat them as such. Either that, or some patronising 'opium for the masses' train of thought. Actually yeah, they often act like god has been disproved conclusively, and treat religious people in the same sort of way Neo-Liberals treat Marxists. Science hasn't yet disproved a god/s conclusively, which as a historian/history student (or a scientist - actually I really should have continued with it), means that I must remain unconvinced. Not that i'm too keen on organised religion (or even unorganised religion - every time my brother says he has a faith and not a religion, it really infuruates me :x )
Don't forget that the burden is on the religious to back up their claims with evidence. Until it is proven true, having blind faith is a weird thing to hold. There's no doubt that some atheists can be arrogant just like the religious. It is the rational versus the irrational, and inevitably when someone is being irrational it is hard to treat them with the same respect. Are you telling me that people on the religious side wouldn't sneer at a new age spiritualist? I think the religious are the most arrogant of all. We are all born without a god, but the religious choose their god and tell everyone that those with different gods or with no gods are wrong.
Yes, I walk around all day doing that. Name one religious person that does such a thing. And don't talk about Mormons etc. because they talk bullshit. Also, if you talk about Christianity against Islam most theologists would say that is stupidity as it is not the God that they dislike but the peoples belief which, incidently, is why alot of religious people feel like they need to "spread the faith", that or because they believe that the people who do not believe will "burn in hell" and it is a sin upon their part to not try to help to stop you from "burning in hell".
I'd like to say this of the last two comments 1.New Age is more of a culture/lifestyle than a religion 2.It's a common misconception to think hell is a place of flames, or physical pain of any sort. It's a place away from God and thus cold and dark, if we are to assign physical attributes.
Lol, I don't actually know what a Mormon is, but I love the way they 'talk bullshit' and therefore have no part in this discussion. Still, it should certainly be remembered that 'religious' vs 'athiest' is probably too simplistic an argument. Saying that, I think the polytheists/'pagans' (who again, are not one homogenous group) have probably lost their part of the debate
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Hindus, Taoists, Wiccans, etc. Polytheism has never died out. I certainly don't find much stock in it though.
Maybe it'd have been more accurate for me to say they've frozen out of the western debate. Apart from right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even come up (Taoists got a mention somwhere I think though)
1. Yes. 2. Yes, the Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, but you forgot omnipresent. 3. God is perfectly good, but he does not prevent all evils, or any evil. 4. God knows every single sin, because he has the foreknowledge of every sin that will come into existence. I cannot speak as well as others are able to speak, so I will allow them to do so. To properly discuss this I will start with Cassiodorus when he says, "Sins are hidden from God because he does not know them, that is, he does not approve them" (Cassiodorus, In Psalterium, on ps. 74,7). God does not truly know of Evil in the same way he knows good. Augustine comments in the sense that evil is hidden far from the light of God in Epistola. "If you refer to knowledge, God is not ignorant of anyone or anything; and yet at the Judgement, he shall say to some: I know you not; but this expression indicates disapproval of them" (Augustine, Epistola 169 (Ad Evodium), c1 n2). Then it is to be said that both good and evil things are in God, but good is near to him, and evil is far (as it is hidden). He knows both good and evil things through knowledge, but he also knows good through enjoyment and approbation; he knows them in a way that also pleases him, because he is their author. 5. From here on in you have made a false statement about God so the rest of the argument is silly, but I will entertain it. In addition your idea of evil is contradictory to the way the Christianity thinks of it. Evil in Christian mythos (mythos as stories that people congregate around, not lies) and theology is an absence. When you tell a lie, it is the absence of truth. When you commit evil it is an act in the absence of God. Evil does not exist. Evil is by definition, nothing. 6. You cannot prevent what does not exist can you? Evil acts done by humans are done by our own free human will, and God gave us that ability to sin that he does not possess. However, having the power not to sin is equal to or even greater than the power to sin, because the power to sin is not a power to create, but a power of absence. Since God is eternal, (as you said) perfectly good and never absent, he cannot sin. Because humans sin—and God knows they sin from his foreknowledge of every human life—from our free will we understand that it is our choice. 7. This is a correct statement. Evil does not exist. 8. You are right, that is a contradiction: Evil is an absence, it does not exist. You are discussing theology without any foreknowledge of it. It would not be proper go to a Physics panel and talk about the motion of things in theological terms. You are making arguments in an illogical way, more precisely in a non sequitor. Proper theologians have learnt the tradition of Christianity and where it came from. You do not understand the religion in any meaning or way of it. Please read at least Peter of Lombards The Sentences books 1 to 4 before you continue arguing against Christianity; it has been recently translated into English so all the folks who do not read Latin may enjoy it.
I was thinking about this omnipotent thing some time ago, and if I understand correctly, it means God can do pretty much anything, right? So, then is God capable of creating something he could not lift, for instance? I guess that fits into the category of the question "Is the answer to this question "no"?" With "yes" and "no" being the only answers... Anyway, you say he made a false statement about God. But could you explain that a bit more? It seems pretty valid to me to say that if God was omnipotent, he should be able to prevent people from going down the wrong path. Yet, he seems to have created humans that don't listen to him, or are disobedient. Also, if God created man and such, how come it took them quite a while to adopt and accept Christianity? How come there are other religions?
This is a non-question. The existence of omnipotence would be negated by the concept. Granting free will to people will by its nature grant humans the ability to do "wrong." But the existence of certain wrongs is obviously necessary if we accept God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I believe the way that most sects answer this question is that in the time before Jesus everyone was expected to worship their own gods; that the religious belief constituted faith in God. I forget how us Catholics deal with the issue, but I believe it's similar to that response. Not entirely sure, though. On a more personal level, I believe God (being omnibenevolent) would never 'damn' someone for not doing something that was essentially impossible for them. People tend to view God as an obtuse and very "stupid" figure, when in reality He's omniscient. He would know exactly what you went through, and would feel for you. Even if omnibenevolence wasn't one the innate characteristics that define God, it would be part of Him nonetheless. The more intelligent you are, the more compassion and empathy you tend to (like 99.99% of the time; only usually negated when people are radicalized by an ideology—thinking for the 'Greater Good.' God knows everyone on a personal level, so I don't think this would make much sense. Plus radicalism isn't exactly possibly for a being that knows everything) feel for sentients, after all. Scale that up to infinity, and you've got a ridiculously compassionate being.
