The god delusion... Religious debate

[Glaucus]

Power controlled by the preachers, the religious authority of the religions, those who are willing to act in the name of their god.

How many people does it take to set off a nuclear device? How many people does it take to fly planes into skyscrapers or bomb buses?
"

Most preachers do not have such power and those that do are not in it for religion or preaching religion.

You are an extremist and your thoughts are dangerous. How do you thing religion persecution came about. With thoughts as deranged as yours.

You are totally neglecting the case that these people do not need religion to commit these crimes and do not need it as a recruitment channel. it's just a good excuses to add weight. But so would kill the invaders of our country would work just as well.

We still don't know how the world works.

Also religion is not a physical thing, you can not get rid of it you can not destroy it.

Again total ignorance on your part.
Many religious people are scientist and still find it relevant.
Many people have converted to religion, despite not having a religious upbringing
Many people have changed religion or renounced religion as they grow older.

how many of the many non religiuse terrorist groups does it to kill people? Your argument about nukes and killing is stupid and pointless.

 

[Tefal]

How many people does it take to set off a nuclear device?

Couple of hundred scientists to build/design it (and a few decades)

few hundred people to design and build all the refining and scientific equipment that you cannot buy.

few hundred people to mine the resources

few hundred people to help get it into position

one guy to set it off

tens of thousands of troops to defend it at every stage from the inevitable retribution of the worlds current nuclear powers.

 

[lixxus]

surely if your an agnostic, you should follow pascal's wager. you have nothing to loose ?

 

[Tefal]

surely if your an agnostic, you should follow pascal's wager. you have nothing to loose ?

But then how do you choose which god to follow?

As an agnostic you merely annoy the god for not having faith, by choosing the wrong god you are instantly condemned to hell in most of the religions

 

[Hellsmk2]

I can't do anything but laugh at that statement. The ignorance is shocking. religion isn't the only thing used to do evil acts. Just look at recent wars. WMD. Or even look at Russia and the atheist past.

So much closed minded ignorance in this thread and the general population.

Oh come on - don't bring out the 'athiest' wars bull.

Stalin/ Hitler/ Pol Pot/ <insert crackpot dictator here> did not kill in the name of athiesm. The same can not be said when on the other foot.

 

[Dolph]

Oh come on - don't bring out the 'athiest' wars bull.

Stalin/ Hitler/ Pol Pot/ <insert crackpot dictator here> did not kill in the name of athiesm. The same can not be said when on the other foot.

No, but they killed based on religious groupings. There have been very few religious wars that have not actually been about land or power, exactly the same reason Stalin et al perscuted people based on their religious beliefs.

As such, they are definitely directly comparable.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Many religious people are scientist and still find it relevant.
Many people have converted to religion, despite not having a religious upbringing
Many people have changed religion or renounced religion as they grow older.

... and I'll quite happily state that all those people are mentally unbalanced.

If I woke up tomorrow and began telling everyone about my invisible mate Dave, people would think I was honestly crazy.

If I woke up tomorrow and started telling everyone about my invisible mate Jesus, people would not bat an eyelid.

There is no difference between the two...

[edit] Errm Dolph - they are not directly comparable as atheism was not what they killed in the name of. Who they killed and on what preference still has nothing at all to do with atheism.[/edit]

 

[oli collett]

Oli

out of curiousity what kind of evidence would you accept? that would establish to you the existence of God(s)

I think it would have to be something that right now would be impossible to describe without witnessing it with ones own eyes. If that makes any kind of sense. I'm talking along the lines of some bloke appearing in the sky and saying "you there, stop doing that, it's naughty, now pop along to the church and start praying for forgiveness"

At that point however I'd probably voluntarily check myself into a psych ward.

 

[Glaucus]

[edit] Errm Dolph - they are not directly comparable as atheism was not what they killed in the name of. Who they killed and on what preference still has nothing at all to do with atheism.[/edit]

Yes it is directly comparable. The killing is not due to or for religion. religion is the easy hide behind excuse for these people, but is easily substituted for anything else. It is the same for every war, there is an excuse. Be it political, WMD or anything else.

But when you look it these excuses are 95% of the time BS and is actually about land, resource or suchlike. This is teh imporatant bit the actuall aim of the war and when you look a it is no different.

 

[Dolph]

... and I'll quite happily state that all those people are mentally unbalanced.

If I woke up tomorrow and began telling everyone about my invisible mate Dave, people would think I was honestly crazy.

If I woke up tomorrow and started telling everyone about my invisible mate Jesus, people would not bat an eyelid.

There is no difference between the two...

Atheist fundamentalism... As bigoted and blinkered as any other type of faith based obsession... This argument is simply the atheist version of saying 'you're a sinner, you're going to hell' to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

[edit] Errm Dolph - they are not directly comparable as atheism was not what they killed in the name of. Who they killed and on what preference still has nothing at all to do with atheism.[/edit]

So when a religious person kills another religious person to take their land, but claims it is in the name of religion, that is somehow different to an atheist killing religious people in the name of the secular state? (Remember, Stalin specifically stated that religious were enemies of the revolution). Really? Is that not simply a massive double standard brought about by your own unverified faith in the validity of the atheist position?

 

[Uriel]

Atheist fundamentalism... As bigoted and blinkered as any other type of faith based obsession... This argument is simply the atheist version of saying 'you're a sinner, you're going to hell' to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

So when a religious person kills another religious person to take their land, but claims it is in the name of religion, that is somehow different to an atheist killing religious people in the name of the secular state? (Remember, Stalin specifically stated that religious were enemies of the revolution). Really? Is that not simply a massive double standard brought about by your own unverified faith in the validity of the atheist position?

Agreed, the number of times I've heard people use those arguments, you start to wonder if Atheists have some sort of liturgy that they repeat on the quiet.

 

[semi-pro waster]

surely if your an agnostic, you should follow pascal's wager. you have nothing to loose ?

I've got time to lose and plenty of it, if I were to follow religious observations every possible god that has been worshipped (and those yet to come) then I'd probably do nothing but worship. That also doesn't take much account of the fact that some religions (and religious practices) do contradict with each other so in such situations which do I follow?

Incidentally I started reading The Selfish Gene (New Edition published 1989) by Mr Dawkins recently and couldn't help but chuckle at one of the endnotes where he says "... Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar's distinction in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it." (P278 endnotes to chapter 4). I can't directly recall if this point has been put to him before but I would be very surprised if it has not be raised in various debates - I did however think it worth highlighting again.

why?

also agnostic is can't prove it/don't care

I'd say that an agnostic is one who says they can't prove it, those who don't care much either way(in which group I'd categorise myself) are a particular subset of agnostics correctly referred to as apathetic agnostics.

 

[Kohaashi]

I work with a born again christian. He takes great pride (sin) in having a reputation in not trying to convert.

He actually is a really nice bloke. BUT. He gets stuck at one point when I put this accross. I say to him, as a Christian you are bound to certain rules, which of most of them are pretty much common sense but when I say "me as an athesit, I surely have a better moral compass than you, as I do not fear hell, I do good things because I am a good person, but he obviously does it out of fear.

I ask you, who is the better person. The man who realises we are worm food but does good deeds, or the man who thinks he wont get into heaven if he doesn't?

My understanding is that that argument will not apply because God can see your soul and your true intention.

As a true Christian you are tought to love God and hate what God hates and thus you would not be doing good purley out of fear of being punished, but because this is what God wants and you want to please him. It's about love.

 

[ShaolinDreams]

My understanding is that that argument will not apply because God can see your soul and your true intention.

As a true Christian you are tought to love God and hate what God hates and thus you would not be doing good purley out of fear of being punished, but because this is what God wants and you want to please him. It's about love.

isnt love meant to be unconditional?

 

[Kohaashi]

isnt love meant to be unconditional?

I didn’t say it was conditional. We are taught that God is a loving God.

The only unforgivable sin is to be blasphemous, and it is mentioned that after Judgement day only the meek will inherit the Earth.
After which, If you continue to follow the ways of the Devil, you accept the consequences.

 

[Uriel]

The only unforgivable sin is to be blasphemous, and it is mentioned that after Judgement day only the meek will inherit the Earth.
After which, If you continue to follow the ways of the Devil, you accept the consequences.

Sorry to be pedantic. The only unforgivable sin is specifically blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I must admit I'm not entirely clear what that means.

Jesus wasn't recorded as saying that only the meek will inherit the earth. Subtle but important difference.