atheists refuted

[Quahom1]

lol, not meant to be a paradise!! It IS a paradise. And what an abdication of responsibility for your present role in its stewardship you proclaim! The big monotheisms really get off on this selling of some future paradise so we will tolerate the barbarity, cruelty and inequality of our political and religious leaderships. Like it is meant to be that way as "gods" plan!! What an utter load of sh1te.

Does evil exist? Or is there simply an absence of God?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."


It's a good story, and it points out an obvious issue. Just because one says something doesn't exist, doesn't make it so. There is always an explanation for why something is. We just have to be patient and reason it out.

 

[greymare]

wow, good story, and i can understand that kind of logic.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Does evil exist? Or is there simply an absence of God?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."


It's a good story, and it points out an obvious issue. Just because one says something doesn't exist, doesn't make it so. There is always an explanation for why something is. We just have to be patient and reason it out.

Parables may be good at leading one down a pseudo-logical path to an ultimate conclusion and this is why religions are so bent on using them. Does being a believer prevent a person from being profoundly bad ?, (evil is an emotive here that has no real meaning). So very many examples throughout the course of human history show that being a believer does nothing at all to prevent badness, and is often used as justification for it. This parable, like the thread starter, is not a search for truth but a piece of perverted logic designed not to make people think, but to lead them up one path predetermined by the author.

 

[c0de]

@ NewDawn

The big monotheisms really get off on this selling of some future paradise so we will tolerate the barbarity, cruelty and inequality of our political and religious leaderships.

It is because people do not follow religious precepts,
that this barbarity and cruelty exists.

And what an abdication of responsibility for your present role in its stewardship you proclaim!

You have avoided the entire argument.
Can technology cure things like envy and greed?

 

[Resigned]

Technology is not a replacement for faith. As it only
deals with the problems of the material. The fact is that
man's tools have evolved faster then him. We have been
given the keys to solve all our material problems, but since
we have rejected spiritual development, those tools have
become weapons, our wealth has fueled greed, and the power
has incited envy. Technology does not solve such problems,
religion does.

As to your comment: “our wealth has fueled greed, and the power
has incited envy, I can only remind you of the wars of aggression that have been fueled by the religious perceptions and which continue today. I note that within a historical context and continuing to the present day, among of the most terrible purveyors of conquest and death were the religious entities. The legacy of assault, rapine and murder is undeniable. The religious wars of aggression were largely about expansion of the religion and the material rewards of conquest. The religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to these acts, I incorporate them and do so fairly. These religious cultures had religion and it didn't stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated them.

The institutionalized religious sects have always been the problem,
I admit. But this is no argument against religion itself. Because this
was always God's plan. If He wanted to turn this world into heaven,
He could have. But this world was never meant to be a paradise...

Well yeah, this world is not a paradise. So yes, babies die in uncontrollable agony, (that is but one definition of “a just and merciful god”), which these all-merciful gods deem necessary. Unless you redefine mercy to mean something completely outside of human understanding (and thus impossible to know), allowing innocent babies to die slow excruciating deaths is not an act of a merciful God. But certainly, the gods could remedy this with a snap of their eternal digits. They just don’t. I wonder why?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]People (perhaps you, perhaps not), are determined to interpret what god is at every level. Personally, I see inconsistency in the god model, but I'm playing devil's advocate here (how ironic). But people further the inconsistency themselves when they do somersaults to push god into a mode that gives them a comfort zone with such admonitions as a loving and merciful god who has a plan for us.

What, god condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease? Yet these same theists don't blink an eye when they insist that a god of love and mercy created a flood that drowned the world, and obviously drowned many innocent Johnnies and Bonnies who were drowned wholesale.

This is also one conception of god who commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies to kill every man, woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).

Yahweh is not a god of love. He never was, he never will be. He's a jealous and self righteous god who is often willing to destroy the unrighteous and the righteous if it suits his needs.

 

[c0de]

Greetings Resigned

I can only remind you of the wars of aggression that have been fueled by the religious perceptions and which continue today.

This argument was refuted once before on this forum.
The idea that religion was the cause behind those wars
does not stand.

Take the crusades for example, were they really fueled
by religion? Or the internal political situation of Europe?

Take any such war whose superficial cause was cited
as religion. These struggles for power have materialistic origins.
The very thing which religion fights against... sadly, when religion
is institutionalized in materialistic orders, it furthers materialistic
struggles... But like I stated before, this is no argument against
religion, only materialism.

I note that within a historical context and continuing to the present day, among of the most terrible purveyors of conquest and death were the religious entities.

This is historically inaccurate. The greatest acts of genocide
were committed by an atheist, known as Joseph Stalin.

The religious wars of aggression were largely about expansion of the religion and the material rewards of conquest.

Religion was used by these imperial powers for materialistic purposes,
that is the difference.

The religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior,

Not at all.

be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc.

Only if you believe that religion is a man made creation.
This argument does not hold if you consider that religious
precepts go against the materialistic endeavors of man.

No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to these acts,

I can, and do. The underlying causes of suffering have
been materialistic. Wars, aggression, hate.. these are
products of greed, envy, etc. The very human traits
religion is here to warn against.

I incorporate them and do so fairly. These religious cultures had religion and it didn't stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated them.

Religion did not motivate them. Their own materialistic desires did.

Unless you redefine mercy to mean something completely outside of human understanding (and thus impossible to know), allowing innocent babies to die slow excruciating deaths is not an act of a merciful God.

I define it as thus: Infinite reward, in return for finite pain.

That is God's mercy, and it is incalculable.

But certainly, the gods could remedy this with a snap of their eternal digits. They just don’t. I wonder why?

Because nothing finite can compare with anything infinite.
If this is the way God wanted it, who are we to complain?
We will recieve our due, in due time. Until then, we are
asked only to withstand the evil that is in this world to
prove our mettle. Is that really so unreasonable?

Personally, I see inconsistency in the god model, but I'm playing devil's advocate here (how ironic). But people further the inconsistency themselves when they do somersaults to push god into a mode that gives them a comfort zone with such admonitions as a loving and merciful god who has a plan for us.

Even if we leave aside revelation for a moment,
the idea that an infinitely wise God might just have a plan,
is not unreasonable.

What, god condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease?

A God who wants the world to recognize the frailty of life
so that man may turn his attention to the afterlife.

That child will be given his due.

I simply do not understand how anyone can bear
the thought that this child will just die, and become dust...
having come into this world, just to experience a few moments of pain?
What sort of wretched existence would this be? How could you bear to
have any part in it yourself?

This is also one conception of god who commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies to kill every man, woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).

Maybe the Christians and Jews would want to comment on this.
I am a Muslim and follow the Quran. No such crimes were committed by
any Prophets of God, according to the Quran.

p.s. It is made clear in the Quran that whenever a nation is destroyed by God,
it is not just because they reject God. It is because their acts of corruption
have become so infectious that if they were not destroyed, they would infect
everyone they come into contact with. This is the result of rejecting the precepts
of religion.

 

[Nick_A]

cOde

I simply do not understand how anyone can bear
the thought that this child will just die, and become dust...
having come into this world, just to experience a few moments of pain?
What sort of wretched existence would this be? How could you bear to
have any part in it yourself?

This wretched existence is called "nature's way." You'd be surprised at how many young animals are eaten shortly after birth. Man is in nature so many of its young suffer the same fate.

We find many ways to bear it. You appear to do it through arguing. It is easier then dealing with it which requires becoming less of a reactive animal. But this of course would require self knowledge which is repulsive to you.

 

[c0de]

cOde

This wretched existence is called "nature's way." You'd be surprised at how many young animals are eaten shortly after birth. Man is in nature so many of its young suffer the same fate.

"man is in nature" ??? ... that doesn't answer anything.

(still trying to sound all profound eh Nick?)

We find many ways to bear it. You appear to do it through arguing. It is easier then dealing with it which requires becoming less of a reactive animal. But this of course would require self knowledge which is repulsive to you.

thank you for your very insightful analysis of me...

I am enlightened...

 

[Paladin]

A God who wants the world to recognize the frailty of life
so that man may turn his attention to the afterlife.

That child will be given his due.

I simply do not understand how anyone can bear
the thought that this child will just die, and become dust...
having come into this world, just to experience a few moments of pain?
What sort of wretched existence would this be? How could you bear to
have any part in it yourself?

The problem with an argument like this, is that it isn't experiential. Anyone who has been through this knows that the petty arguments simply fall away like dead leaves in a cold wind.
Watching a child die a little bit every day, every month, every year is hard enough, but the final event, when they are taken away leaves a hole so big no religion will fill it.
Ask me how I know.

There is a fire of transformation in anyone who has been through this, a fire that burns away anything you thought you knew was true.
If you are very lucky, many years later you may come to understand the role that precious one really had in your life and the lives of others so touched.

The perennial "why?" is on the lips and in the mind for a very long time, it burns the heart and leaves its brand. But eventually the why does give way to something else, something deeper, something outpouring.

 

[c0de]

The problem with an argument like this, is that it isn't experiential. Anyone who has been through this knows that the petty arguments simply fall away like dead leaves in a cold wind.
Watching a child die a little bit every day, every month, every year is hard enough, but the final event, when they are taken away leaves a hole so big no religion will fill it.
Ask me how I know.

There is a fire of transformation in anyone who has been through this, a fire that burns away anything you thought you knew was true.
If you are very lucky, many years later you may come to understand the role that precious one really had in your life and the lives of others so touched.

The perennial "why?" is on the lips and in the mind for a very long time, it burns the heart and leaves its brand. But eventually the why does give way to something else, something deeper, something outpouring.

I can not even pretend to know the pain a parent must feel when
they lose their child... so for me to comment on the experience would
be an exercise in sheer insensitivity... I hope you did not feel that I
was trying to define the experience, because I wasn't at all. I apologize
if I even gave that impression...

I do not know if you will feel comfortable sharing, so I do not want to
put you on the spot by asking... However, I do hope that you will...

 

[Resigned]

Greetings Resigned

Thank you. This will be a two part response as my incessant blathering has exceeded the character limit.

This argument was refuted once before on this forum.
The idea that religion was the cause behind those wars
does not stand.

Take the crusades for example, were they really fueled
by religion? Or the internal political situation of Europe?

Take any such war whose superficial cause was cited
as religion. These struggles for power have materialistic origins.
The very thing which religion fights against... sadly, when religion
is institutionalized in materialistic orders, it furthers materialistic
struggles... But like I stated before, this is no argument against
religion, only materialism.

I disagree with that. Jihad is definitely about striving, but the striving is to make Islam supreme everywhere on Earth. To make all of mankind to submit to Allah's law and to nothing else. It's in the Qur'an and it's in the hadith. Many Islamic scholars and clerics consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam (beside faith, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and Hajj to Mecca), and indeed the pinnacle of Islam.


Expansion of the religion is not a materialistic proscription, it’s a religious one.
Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Koran 9:29

Historically speaking, today's examples serve as well. The conflict in the Middle East is about land and power and wealth but also its source is that it is of a divine nature that calls to die and kill for the ongoing survival of the warring nations. The events of 9/11 didn't make a nation richer, nor did it gain land for the perpetrators, nor did it garner them more power-- in fact, al-Qaeda lost all three.

The general populace as a rule is not likely to die or kill for the idea that they may get more land or power or wealth-- but if they believe their gods are at stake, they gladly go into the swirling flames of perdition.

This is historically inaccurate. The greatest acts of genocide
were committed by an atheist, known as Joseph Stalin.

Not true. Firstly, Stalin was a Communist. You’re not identifying that Stalin used his political ideology in furtherance of his mass murders. I will note that Marxist-Leninist systems are also political Ideologies. As far as true godless atheism is concerned, no one can deny the excesses of the communistic regimes, and I deplore them. I also note that they one by one have failed, and while China has experienced a resurgence of power since Tiananmen Square, I am sure that system cannot last either (though it's a sham system anyway-- they are as capitalist as anyone). Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy; in fact, it doesn't address issues of good or bad in and of itself.
Of course. The worst genocide in history was during the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. The mountains of Afghanistan are still called the “Hindu Kush,” (Slaughter of the Hindus) in memory of the brutality of that conquest.

It is estimated that some 80 million Hindus were massacred during the centuries of Muslim domination of India. It stands as the single greatest genocide in human history.

There are many other examples (the Armenians, the Jews of Caesarea, the Christians and Jews of Spain under the Almoravids and the Almohads), but the Hindus got the worst of it.

Religion was used by these imperial powers for materialistic purposes,
that is the difference.

"Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Don’t take this as an ad hominum. Read on. I’ll beat up on the Christians a bit later.

Not at all.

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is nogod but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

Only if you believe that religion is a man made creation.
This argument does not hold if you consider that religious
precepts go against the materialistic endeavors of man.

I believe that religion definitely is a man-made creation. What I find vastly more destructive and dangerous are religionists who play god(s). The sheiks, ayatollahs, Priests, Reverends, etc., all claim to be learned about the gods yet they clash constantly over doctrine and dogma. Even the various sects and sub-sects of moslems will clash badly with other moslems, (Oh, did I say "Even"? I meant "Especially"). All religionists claim to be truly tuned in to what the gods really mean and really want. Why is it my fault that the gods are such poor communicators?

I find it odd that you accept a litany of human-based descriptions of god, add a "super" in front of them, and then accuse me of critiquing the philosophies that you admit are beyond your comprehension. I’m alluding to (and I am of course very much aware of) the difference between the varying lists of attributes of the proffered gods. I am also very much aware that to list attributes at all is to limit that which you are trying to define, which either creates limits for your infinite, omni-everything gods (a contradiction) or simply contradicts your gods. On the one hand, you want an unlimited being, and on the other hand, you want a being with specific attributes, most notably with loving and merciful qualities (for oneself; generally the assertion is anger and justice for others). Therefore god either has characteristics and is limited (therefore cannot be gods) or gods have no characteristics and thus are indistinguishable from nothingness. This is all anthropomorphic arrogance plain and simple. Everyone's concept of god comes from various books written by men. It's so convenient that god displays all these attributes of humanity in texts we know are written by humans (the source being the part of the debate).

I can, and do. The underlying causes of suffering have
been materialistic. Wars, aggression, hate.. these are
products of greed, envy, etc. The very human traits
religion is here to warn against.

Why would humans not possess human traits?

Religion did not motivate them. Their own materialistic desires did.

Have you read the verses from the Koran that delineate otherwise? I’m not intending to specifically criticize your religion, I can offer verses from most any religion that will excuse various indiscretions in furtherance of the ideology.

I define it as thus: Infinite reward, in return for finite pain.

That is God's mercy, and it is incalculable.

God’s mercy is demonstrated by causing pain and suffering to make you feel good?
There is this curious idea that all of this evil exists only to teach us how to be better, but then -at least in the Christian paradigm- "better" can only come through Jesus and no matter how much evil is there to "perfect us" (!) we will always fail miserably.

So it's useless to argue that the bad exists to make us good. Of what purpose then are there "natural evils"? How many fires wiping out cities have we needed to learn to "be good" to one another? Do we really need mudslides eradicating villages and snuffing out the lives of children just so we can rescue some of them and "be good"?

And so the next argument is, "Well, this is the way existence is!" Except that argument has no reply against: "Yes, but why does god create it "the way it is" when he just as easily could create it different?" And back to the same answer: Evil exists to make us good-- a wonder to behold!

Except... we didn't create evil, god did with Lucifer, long before Man was created... <LOOP= IF 10=Y GOTO 1>

I see people generally treating one another nicely all day long, every day. The evil monsters are really the exception, not the rule. During your day today, note how many people shoot at you or anyone you know -- note how many people rob you. How many people rape you or beat you? Run you over? Blast away at McDonalds? And how many people that you know does any of this happen to? None? For years and years and years at a time? Maybe one in decades?


to be continued...

 

[Resigned]

continued from previous page...

Because nothing finite can compare with anything infinite.

That pretty much goes without saying.

If this is the way God wanted it, who are we to complain?
We will recieve our due, in due time. Until then, we are
asked only to withstand the evil that is in this world to
prove our mettle. Is that really so unreasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable. It requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any god who rewards fear over reason is not worthy of worship.
Ok, your testimony is that god has a plan for us. let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your appeals to gods we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

Even if we leave aside revelation for a moment,
the idea that an infinitely wise God might just have a plan,
is not unreasonable.

It’s just unlikely. Here, as promised – I’ll beat up on the Christians for a bit.
A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...

OR


Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.

A God who wants the world to recognize the frailty of life
so that man may turn his attention to the afterlife.

Ah, I see. So floods, tornadoes, disease, etc., are a lesson to teach us the frailty of life?
We simply don't need "evil" to be good. We are generally good, far more often than we are evil. But evil perplexes us-- why should there be tornadoes and natural disasters that take our loved ones and neighbors? And so, we invent gods in the sky, and get into subtle feedback loops that really make no sense except they calm our emotional requirement to have something to hang the blame on-- even if we create something "perfect", claim it created everything, but then cringe that it might have created evil, so loop back that responsibility on ourselves.

That child will be given his due.

… because I say so!

I simply do not understand how anyone can bear
the thought that this child will just die, and become dust...
having come into this world, just to experience a few moments of pain?
What sort of wretched existence would this be? How could you bear to
have any part in it yourself?

You’re the one needing the escapism of religious belief, not me.
Billions of people make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, and cling to them for comfort when they die. Nothing difficult in that.

No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that most people, who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without their sense of proportions getting violated.

It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler is pretty much beyond suffering for his cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it doesn't. how it works.

For a limited time only, of course.

Maybe the Christians and Jews would want to comment on this.
I am a Muslim and follow the Quran. No such crimes were committed by
any Prophets of God, according to the Quran.

p.s. It is made clear in the Quran that whenever a nation is destroyed by God,
it is not just because they reject God. It is because their acts of corruption
have become so infectious that if they were not destroyed, they would infect
everyone they come into contact with. This is the result of rejecting the precepts
of religion.

I maintain the motto “Dear god – please protect me from those who follow you”.

 

[Quahom1]

The problem with an argument like this, is that it isn't experiential. Anyone who has been through this knows that the petty arguments simply fall away like dead leaves in a cold wind.
Watching a child die a little bit every day, every month, every year is hard enough, but the final event, when they are taken away leaves a hole so big no religion will fill it.
Ask me how I know.

There is a fire of transformation in anyone who has been through this, a fire that burns away anything you thought you knew was true.
If you are very lucky, many years later you may come to understand the role that precious one really had in your life and the lives of others so touched.

The perennial "why?" is on the lips and in the mind for a very long time, it burns the heart and leaves its brand. But eventually the why does give way to something else, something deeper, something outpouring.

Oh no. Paladin, I'm so sorry. I remember.

 

[c0de]

@ Resigned

Thank you. This will be a two part response as my incessant blathering has exceeded the character limit.

lol, no worries

I disagree with that. Jihad is definitely about striving, but the striving is to make Islam supreme everywhere on Earth.

This is the perfect example of this misconception.
Jihad are of two types, inner and external. The external
war, can only be defensive (this is in the Quran, see below)

All the Muslim clerics who say otherwise are part of the
materialistic institutionalization of religion.

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Koran 9:29

The Quran has limited war as a defensive endeavor:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you,
but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. "

Chapter 2, Surah Al Baqarah: Verse 190

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is nogod but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

The mission of the Prophet has been clearly outlined in the Quran:
To recite the Quran, and deliver it to the people. That is it.
It is only the political machinations of the institutions who use
fabricated texts such as this to brainwash Muslims into supporting
their militant claims of world domination.

What I find vastly more destructive and dangerous are religionists who play god(s). The sheiks, ayatollahs, Priests, Reverends, etc., all claim to be learned about the gods yet they clash constantly over doctrine and dogma.

I am not even trying to defend people such as these.

Not true. Firstly, Stalin was a Communist.

He was also an atheist. You said that religionists committed the
worst massacres in history... this is not true. An Atheist did.

It is estimated that some 80 million Hindus were massacred during the centuries of Muslim domination of India. It stands as the single greatest genocide in human history.

I am not an apologist for any imperialist dynasty, Muslim or otherwise.
Yet, since I am South Asian (Pakistani) I know that this figure you
quote is very inaccurate.

I find it odd that you accept a litany of human-based descriptions of god, add a "super" in front of them, and then accuse me of critiquing the philosophies that you admit are beyond your comprehension. I’m alluding to (and I am of course very much aware of) the difference between the varying lists of attributes of the proffered gods. I am also very much aware that to list attributes at all is to limit that which you are trying to define, which either creates limits for your infinite, omni-everything gods (a contradiction) or simply contradicts your gods. On the one hand, you want an unlimited being, and on the other hand, you want a being with specific attributes, most notably with loving and merciful qualities (for oneself; generally the assertion is anger and justice for others). Therefore god either has characteristics and is limited (therefore cannot be gods) or gods have no characteristics and thus are indistinguishable from nothingness. This is all anthropomorphic arrogance plain and simple. Everyone's concept of god comes from various books written by men. It's so convenient that god displays all these attributes of humanity in texts we know are written by humans (the source being the part of the debate).

The problem with this approach is that you are assuming that
qualities and characteristics are limiting God's power, but you are
forgetting that these limitations and qualities were created by God.

God has a will, and He wills to be merciful, so that is not a limitation
but a characteristic that He chooses for Himself. The reason why it is not
a limitation is because if He so chooses he can remove this characteristic
and adopt another. We Muslims believe in an absolutely transcendent
God, who is above all limitations. The fact that God has chosen to be
merciful to man, says something about the Creator, as He could have
equally have chosen to be otherwise.

Have you read the verses from the Koran that delineate otherwise? I’m not intending to specifically criticize your religion, I can offer verses from most any religion that will excuse various indiscretions in furtherance of the ideology.

Yes I have read the Quran. If you want to debate this issue, I am willing.
Because it is very easy for me to prove the anti-materialistic message
of the Quran.

God’s mercy is demonstrated by causing pain and suffering to make you feel good?

Finite pain, is nothing compared to infinite reward.

Yes, it is unreasonable. It requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any god who rewards fear over reason is not worthy of worship.

Recognizing the importance of what it means to be created,
and wanting to know the Creator, and developing a relationship
with Him, this is not a fear based motivation for worship.

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

According to science, you do not. This is a deterministic universe
according to classical physics. So your destiny is written for you
in any case. You will have a very tough time trying to prove free will.
So it does not serve well for your argument.

Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy,

What was the "pattern" that initiated the Big Bang?
Who set the initial conditions? Did they just set themselves?

Ah, I see. So floods, tornadoes, disease, etc., are a lesson to teach us the frailty of life?
We simply don't need "evil" to be good. We are generally good, far more often than we are evil. But evil perplexes us-- why should there be tornadoes and natural disasters that take our loved ones and neighbors? And so, we invent gods in the sky, and get into subtle feedback loops that really make no sense except they calm our emotional requirement to have something to hang the blame on-- even if we create something "perfect", claim it created everything, but then cringe that it might have created evil, so loop back that responsibility on ourselves.

I disagree...

(Reference: all of human history)

You’re the one needing the escapism of religious belief, not me.

But your the one who brought the example of the dying child, not me.
I gave you my answer, and then I asked you how you could bear that
child not getting any reward for his pain? You do not want escapism... why?
Your the one who thinks that child will die and become nothing.... this is
the wretched existence in which you believe in. I asked you, how could you
bear to be part of it?

t's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler is pretty much beyond suffering for his cruelties. But it's the truth.

I would have blown my head off with a 12 guage a long time ago
if I believed I lived in a world like that.

 

[Resigned]

@ Resigned


lol, no worries


This is the perfect example of this misconception.
Jihad are of two types, inner and external. The external
war, can only be defensive (this is in the Quran, see below)

All the Muslim clerics who say otherwise are part of the
materialistic institutionalization of religion.


The Quran has limited war as a defensive endeavor:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you,
but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. "

Chapter 2, Surah Al Baqarah: Verse 190



The mission of the Prophet has been clearly outlined in the Quran:
To recite the Quran, and deliver it to the people. That is it.
It is only the political machinations of the institutions who use
fabricated texts such as this to brainwash Muslims into supporting
their militant claims of world domination.

Hi c0de. I thought I would answer the first parts of your post in a more general fashion.

Now, this will likely be a two-parter like last time. Think of it as a punishment from god - listerning to me rattle on for two pages.

I hope you can appreciate that your interpretations are seemingly diametrically opposed to the so-called “learned voices” of the sheiks and oft self appointed spokesman for Islam. When it involves coming to conclusions about all religious ideologies, I do make judgments. I make assessments about the internal components of the ideology which has an external result that affects many. I do judge, it's necessary and required to do so in order to discern how to proceed with both things and people.

He was also an atheist. You said that religionists committed the
worst massacres in history... this is not true. An Atheist did.

Yes, Stalin was an atheist. These details are ultimately incidental, because communism/Stalinism/Leninism are all ideologies dedicated to destroying individuality and to coerce conformance to the State ideology..

But it’s important to remember that Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs or “philosophies.” Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

The problem with this approach is that you are assuming that
qualities and characteristics are limiting God's power, but you are
forgetting that these limitations and qualities were created by God.

Which God?As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each must show why their source material (Bible, Koran) establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

God has a will, and He wills to be merciful, so that is not a limitation
but a characteristic that He chooses for Himself. The reason why it is not
a limitation is because if He so chooses he can remove this characteristic
and adopt another. We Muslims believe in an absolutely transcendent
God, who is above all limitations. The fact that God has chosen to be
merciful to man, says something about the Creator, as He could have
equally have chosen to be otherwise.

Well, “he” did choose otherwise. Stalin murdered how may? I can only suggest that god must have been busy with his administrative duties while Stalin was busy with his. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Finite pain, is nothing compared to infinite reward.

That’s a really dangerous worldview.

Consider this historically accurate and defendable argument:

Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be also with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are moslems so reactionary? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Moslems defame the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

Recognizing the importance of what it means to be created,
and wanting to know the Creator, and developing a relationship
with Him, this is not a fear based motivation for worship.

It is when the result of not adhering to the proscription of the ideology is eternal damnation. I cannot logically resolve a vengeful, vicious god. “His” message comes with an underlying threat that is repulsive. He can wash away all sins if he wants to. He doesn't want to. Thus he permits the eternal condemnation of most of his children. If his concern was truly safety, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces safety.

If I were "infinitely merciful" there would be no act that could possibly circumvent my infinite mercy. The comparisons to humans don’t ever work, even as an illustration, because theists insist on a perfect and ultimate and unlimited god. Infinite love and mercy should be what it is-- infinite love and mercy. Eternal damnation is a contradiction to those attributes, and there is no way to reconcile a god who establishes amorality as morality.

The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the Christian based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.

According to science, you do not. This is a deterministic universe
according to classical physics. So your destiny is written for you
in any case. You will have a very tough time trying to prove free will.
So it does not serve well for your argument.

You’re presenting a philosophical argument that works in your favor but is not defendable. Philosophy (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief) is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of religion. It delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

next page please...

 

[Resigned]

What was the "pattern" that initiated the Big Bang?
Who set the initial conditions? Did they just set themselves?

I don’t know. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Although, you and I both know that some obscure hadith or Bible verse would eventually be discovered as describing the event. Ah, see, science “proving” the religious text. Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What theists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.

In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. "An answer" is by no means synonymous with "the answer." Even when a solution has been demonstrated, the uniqueness of the solution is often a far more difficult proposition. This is natural enough, as there are quite often multiple distinct solutions in nature.

C0de, you speak (and I’m paraphrasing what I derive from your posts), of "the" Koran as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "God." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.

"The Koran" ... There are many interpretations of Korans, many hadiths and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.

"The Story" ... There are as many stories as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them?

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"God" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's broke it, you've done with that God we gave you whole!"

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of anything will always lead to “differentiatiable” aspects. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So how are we to discover those aspects, if any, which hold universally?

We can't. We're not big enough. We lack the proper tools. Or, more likely, they’re not true.

But your the one who brought the example of the dying child, not me.
I gave you my answer, and then I asked you how you could bear that
child not getting any reward for his pain? You do not want escapism... why?
Your the one who thinks that child will die and become nothing.... this is
the wretched existence in which you believe in. I asked you, how could you
bear to be part of it?

… takes deep breath… Ya’ got me started, so look out.


I guess the notion of justice / injustice defeats the purpose of the eternal sacrifice... that sacrifice is for sins against God (as per Christian theology) but what about man against man??? Who pays the price and who gets rewards??

That was the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority.

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

If one tries to live according to strict Biblical/Koranic law (and if one believes that the Judeo-Christian God is in fact God, then one **must** obey these laws), modern society would imprison you for life, if not out and out sentence you to death (interesting irony: the holy texts are used to support the death penalty, but if one follows to the letter what the holy texts say you must do as God's law, you would incur the very penalty these holy texts are used to support!).

So we can see that people select those ethics that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support any ethical foundations.

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

The rational man must reject such discourse. The worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

In "Mein Kampf" Adolf Hitler lays out his entire plan for world conquest. He even goes so far as to explain the concept of concentration camps, and warns, "Those who don't come with me are against me, and they will die". In Hitler's world, death, even the most protracted of deaths with the most horrendous of tortures, is finite. It ends with the death of the person. In Jesus' model, not only does death occur, but then there is **eternal** death afterward-- replete with vicious tortures and devils, etc.

I abhor what Hitler did, but compared to what Jehovah/Jesus promise, Hitler's Nazi Empire was a walk in the park. If we reject Hitler's deeply disturbed plan, then why do we accept Jesus'? There is in fact no difference between them: Do As I Command and Be Rewarded. Don't Do As I Command and Suffer.

Next--
The idea that "we die and all rot in the ground" somehow translates into "we shouldn't strive for excellence and happiness in life" is somewhat puzzling to me. I don't see the need to postulate an eternal afterlife or any gods in order to give life meaning. Life, in and of itself, **is** meaning. Atheism is not a bitter, closeted philosophy of anger and disbelief, it's a courageous life-view that requires one to stand up, accept reality as it is, for what it is, and take responsibility for enjoying life and helping to make life better.

Why? Because if we live in a world that we purposely make miserable, we each share in that misery. If we have children, and we love them, we want a better world so maybe they have less of a burden of pain to experience, and more pleasure and happiness.

We are entities that have a complex array of feelings and emotions, many good, some troublesome; and we are part of a functioning whole that is existence. Why deny it? I don't fear my mortality; in fact, I respect it-- it is a keen motivator. I have a finite time to accomplish things that will make me personally happy and better those around me. I experience pleasure when I volunteer to help a friend and lighten another's burden. I need to be promised a reward of eternal bliss in order to do these things? I find that self-centered and weakens the act of kindness. I do good deeds because to do them is good, not to earn a reward.

I would have blown my head off with a 12 guage a long time ago
if I believed I lived in a world like that.

Don't do it, you won't get a reward.

 

[c0de]

@ Resigned


Hey man

I hope you can appreciate that your interpretations are seemingly diametrically opposed to the so-called “learned voices” of the sheiks and oft self appointed spokesman for Islam.

If they weren't, I'd be worried.

It is when the result of not adhering to the proscription of the ideology is eternal damnation.

There is no eternal damnation in Islam. Contrary to what even many
Muslims believe... Hell is not eternal, this is written in the Quran.

Which God?As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each must show why their source material (Bible, Koran) establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

The Quran does establish its claims.
Go ahead... try and refute any.

You’re presenting a philosophical argument that works in your favor but is not defendable. Philosophy (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief) is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of religion. It delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

Actually dude, I cited Science, not philosophy... You were the one who
cited "free will" to support your argument, which is a philosophical claim.
I said that this claim can not be proven scientifically.

I don’t know. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.

Well, when you find it.. be sure to let me know.

When it involves coming to conclusions about all religious ideologies, I do make judgments. I make assessments about the internal components of the ideology which has an external result that affects many. I do judge, it's necessary and required to do so in order to discern how to proceed with both things and people.

I appreciate this completely. There is nothing more annoying then
having a discussion with someone who actually believes they are
unbiased and non-judgmental. We all have our own biases, and
if we do not recognize this, we are blind.

Yes, Stalin was an atheist. These details are ultimately incidental,

Yes, I know. The reason I brought it up was because you
gave the impression that religionists have a monopoly on
crazy genocidal acts.

That’s a really dangerous worldview.

Consider this historically accurate and defendable argument:

Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Dude, you are forgetting that I consider God to be the author of
human history... So for you to make the claim that history will eventually
erase my God... doesnt scare me.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are moslems so reactionary? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Moslems defame the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

There is nothing new about this... most of mankind has always rejected
religious precepts. Same old story, different millennium... Just because
religion became mainstream for a while, doesnt mean that people actually
became religious... if it had, this finite world would actually have resembled
paradise... which I know can never be.

If one tries to live according to strict Biblical/Koranic law (and if one believes that the Judeo-Christian God is in fact God, then one **must** obey these laws), modern society would imprison you for life, if not out and out sentence you to death (interesting irony: the holy texts are used to support the death penalty, but if one follows to the letter what the holy texts say you must do as God's law, you would incur the very penalty these holy texts are used to support!).

I dont want to comment on Judaic/Christian legal systems, but
real Islamic law doesnt punish people for committing crimes that
are against God's law. It is not like the Taliban's shariah.

"There is no compulsion in religion"...
you might have heard this.
It is from the Quran...

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

Obedience is a central tenet of the Abrahamic faiths because
human rationality is COMPLETELY flawed. If you don't believe me,
go and ask David Hume, they say he was an atheist too, (bonus!)

The idea that "we die and all rot in the ground" somehow translates into "we shouldn't strive for excellence and happiness in life" is somewhat puzzling to me. I don't see the need to postulate an eternal afterlife or any gods in order to give life meaning. Life, in and of itself, **is** meaning. Atheism is not a bitter, closeted philosophy of anger and disbelief, it's a courageous life-view that requires one to stand up, accept reality as it is, for what it is, and take responsibility for enjoying life and helping to make life better.

Why? Because if we live in a world that we purposely make miserable, we each share in that misery. If we have children, and we love them, we want a better world so maybe they have less of a burden of pain to experience, and more pleasure and happiness.

We are entities that have a complex array of feelings and emotions, many good, some troublesome; and we are part of a functioning whole that is existence. Why deny it? I don't fear my mortality; in fact, I respect it-- it is a keen motivator. I have a finite time to accomplish things that will make me personally happy and better those around me. I experience pleasure when I volunteer to help a friend and lighten another's burden. I need to be promised a reward of eternal bliss in order to do these things? I find that self-centered and weakens the act of kindness. I do good deeds because to do them is good, not to earn a reward.

Go tell that to the orphan kids in Kurdistan roaming around in the minefields...

Tell them that you "share in their misery"...

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

What you consider a reality, I see as an illusion.
If you want to cling to this fading existence and hold it
as precious and beautiful, then you need to raise your standards dude...

Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Your assuming that my faith has no basis in reason...
To me, atheism is much more unreasonable then faith can ever be.
Even though I know that faith is beyond rationality to begin with...
It is still more reasonable then atheism on every level.

 

[Tao_Equus]

To me, atheism is much more unreasonable then faith can ever be.

pfft

 

[c0de]

pfft

Thank you for this very valuable addition to the conversation.

 

[farhan]

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Koran 9:29

You should look into the context of this verse.

The events of 9/11 didn't make a nation richer, nor did it gain land for the perpetrators, nor did it garner them more power

It did make a nation poorer.

The mountains of Afghanistan are still called the “Hindu Kush,” (Slaughter of the Hindus) in memory of the brutality of that conquest.

Hindukush means abode of indians, it can also mean the indian inhabited regions of Kush empire. The word hindu was initially supposed to mean "people living east of Indus", not "the followers of vedic dharma".

It is estimated that some 80 million Hindus were massacred during the centuries of Muslim domination of India. It stands as the single greatest genocide in human history.

And what about the 80 trillion muslims killed by hindus. Dont ask me about my sources, because I am not asking yours. Adding zeros to the left of any non-zero digit is so easy.

I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is nogod but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.

Context ?

I can offer verses from most any religion that will excuse various indiscretions in furtherance of the ideology.

Dont you think you should study a little bit deeper rather than starting a verse-fight?

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it?

Does it? Try applying your hypothesis to any 20th century war.

not a single paradox.

Kewl, solve this.

Mass-murderers creating mercenaries to destroy the evil empire, & whining when those mercenaries turn back against their creators realizing that they are the really evil ones. And then, the very same mass-murderers calling themselves peacekeepers, killing innocent people behind the masquerade of mercenary-hunting, in the name of freedom, while they continue to sponsor those mercenaries, and others, all over the world.

We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time

Did you choose your time/place of birth, the most important event of your life? You could have been Kublai Khan if you chose correctly.

Existence is natural

What about non-existance? Isnt it natural too? What if I say, isnt he natural too?

We simply don't need "evil" to be good. We are generally good, far more often than we are evil.

We have both evil & goodness within us. Ad then we evolve towards one side. Faith helps a lot in chosing the right road of evolution. We arnt generally good. We are greedy, injust & always scared.

why should there be tornadoes and natural disasters that take our loved ones and neighbors?

Why shouldnt? You comeup with your hypothesis of "natural existence" & then you base an argument on love? What exactly is love other than a bunch of neurotransmitters? Evolutionary junk I would say. And humans have to die, just like all other animals, one way or other

And so, we invent gods in the sky,

Well, atleast your theory proves that inventing God is natural. Just like existance.

It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler is pretty much beyond suffering for his cruelties.

Well, everything has a reason. I wouldnt like a world without Hitler.

I maintain the motto “Dear god – please protect me from those who follow you”.

My motto is a little bit different. protect me from the tyranny of men, whether religious or otherwise.

your interpretations are seemingly diametrically opposed to the so-called “learned voices” of the sheiks and oft self appointed spokesman for Islam.

How many of "learned voices" have you learned from?

Which God?

You are confusing existence with attributes.

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Empricism is good, its not flawless.

Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

To be replaced with a new one.

Why are moslems so reactionary?

Only muslims?

Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism.

Another god?

Moslems defame the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless

Americans labelled communists as godless. Muslims only followed.

because as time goes on we do grow more godless.

no. We substitute one god-ness with other. We stop searching for him up there, & we create one down here. And then we end, to be replaced by somebody else.

That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.

As far as Islam is concerned, creation on earth isnt unique.

What theists are doing to establish their suppositions

Theism or athiesm has got nothing to do with science.

If one tries to live according to strict Biblical/Koranic law (and if one believes that the Judeo-Christian God is in fact God, then one **must** obey these laws), modern society would imprison you for life, if not out and out sentence you to death (interesting irony: the holy texts are used to support the death penalty, but if one follows to the letter what the holy texts say you must do as God's law, you would incur the very penalty these holy texts are used to support!).

This whole paragraph is based upon one word, modern. Can you prove every "modern" is good? Can you prove modern ideals arnt stupid? Did you ever learned from learned men about Koranic law? BTW learned doesnt mean the one getting most of the air-time.

The rational man must reject such discourse.

Isnt it the rational man destroying the world for the last 4 centuries?

I do good deeds

What is the definition of good?