God is not great

[Cypress]

Religion is for stupid people.

There are a lot of stupid Christians, stupid atheists, stupid agnostics.

I'm not a Lutheran myself, but I participate in some of the Lutheran Christian fellowship activities here. These fellowships includes groups that read about and discuss quantum physics, discuss Taoist philosophy, read and discuss the Tao Te Ching, and discuss books.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more intelligent set of people if you just randomly grabbed people off the street.

I am confident in saying these Lutheran fellowships are more intelligent and amicable than the level of discussion you see here on Just Plain Politics

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No I'm being technically correct.

^^^
The story of Perry's sad life; he's "technically correct".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why? I don't know if God exists.

I suspect that if a God exists, it is not omniscient, omnipotent, and all-knowing.

I can't prove that, either.

Me neither. No one does. This is why Bible-thumpers and militant atheists are opposite sides of the same coin. They each believe they are correct without the facts to back up their beliefs.

Whatever is behind the creation of the universe seems to be more powerful than anything inside of it.

Me neither. No one can. What fascinates me are those, like the militant atheists, who believe they "know".

 

[Cypress]

Idiocy. It takes belief to exercise a lack of it. Sheesh.

Remember that your outcome with God will be 'maybe' at the Pearly Gates.

My attitude is "whatever."

The typical message board atheist wants the convenience of being able to complain about Jesus and the Old Testament, while being shielded from having to answer any questions about the logic of their own atheistic materialist worldview.

 

[gmark77]

Remember that your outcome with God will be 'maybe' at the Pearly Gates.

Ahhh, the usual "My God is a big bully and he'll punish you if you don't believe in him" gambit.

You must be a stellar "Christian" or whatever your version of "belief" is.

 

[gmark77]

I suspect that if a God exists, it is not omniscient, omnipotent, and all-knowing.

Wow. A non-ominipotent God. That's a new one. Not really a God then, eh?

I can't prove that, either.

I can easily prove there are about 8 billion non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-all-knowing beings.

Funny you can't.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Ahhh, the usual "My God is a big bully and he'll punish you if you don't believe in him" gambit.

You must be a stellar "Christian" or whatever your version of "belief" is.

Those are your opinions, not mine.

I have no idea really what we are in for if their is a god.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Wow. A non-ominipotent God. That's a new one. Not really a God then, eh?

I can easily prove there are about 8 billion non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-all-knowing beings.

Funny you can't.

You have proved in your are in the very lowest percentile.

 

[Cypress]

Me neither. No one can. What fascinates me are those, like the militant atheists, who believe they "know".

To a man, they have all claimed at some point that believing in a deity is the same as believing in a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible leprechaun.

That in effect is a declaration that they believe no gods exist, and it's preposterous for anyone to believe they do.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You have proved in your are in the very lowest percentile.

Perry PhD has "issues".

 

[Cypress]

Hitchens begins by describing his early scepticism toward religion and argues that faith persists due to human fear of mortality. He claims religion imposes itself on others and frequently incites violence.

It's a valid point. Although communism and capitalism have probably caused more death than religion. Science would even give religion a run for the money in terms of the amount of violent deaths.

Hitchens posited that organized religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children"

Valid points, but collectively a sweeping statement which doesn't even attempt to provide a balanced view

He critiques religious interference in public health, referring to the Catholic Church's stance on condoms in Africa, resistance to vaccines in some Islamic groups, religious circumcision and religious female genital mutilation.

A valid point, but it totally ignores that hospitals and orphanages were creations of the Church, and they simply did not exist in the pagan Roman world.

He argues that religious metaphysics are false and that advances in science make leaps of faith increasingly redundant.

Science has nothing to say about religion. The esteemed paleontologist Steven Gould said about half his science colleagues were religious, and he refused to believe they were idiots.

Hitchens contends that all reported miracles are unverified and that belief in them relies on fabricated or unreliable testimony. He argues that many religions originated in fraud or delusion.

Miracles by definition are not repeatable, and therefore not generally subject to empirical scientific investigation.

 

[Cypress]

^^^
The story of Perry's sad life; he's "technically correct".

Technically he has a geochem PhD

 

[gmark77]

You have proved in your are in the very lowest percentile.

I love it when you miss the insult aimed at you.

 

[gmark77]

To a man, they have all claimed at some point that believing in a deity is the same as believing in a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible leprechaun.

Because it is.

All are claims made without evidence or evidence that is in no way objective to any degree sufficient to convince.

That in effect is a declaration that they believe no gods exist, and it's preposterous for anyone to believe they do.

God is a claim you make without sufficient evidence which I am under zero obligation to believe.


You have shown yourself to have failed logic class if you think the lack of belief is equivalent to disbelief.


But we already knew you were a fake.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[Cypress]

Because it is

No Perry, that's not how it works.

When you chuckle that believing in some diety is equivalent to believing in the flying spaghetti monster, you are saying you know and believe dieties do not exist

Because the flying spaghetti monster is not real, then dieties cannot be real.

Your claim that you just have seen no evidence for God and are just in a suspended and uncommitted state of disbelief is a bunch of b.s.

 

[domer76]

Neither atheism nor theism can be proved, for they are faith matters.

Not really. Faith is belief without evidence. Atheists are merely waiting for someone to present evidence.

Odd how none of the world’s religions that claim a deity have never been able to produce one.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Domer, it takes belief to believe there is no God.

It is more honest by far to be agnostic: who knows?

 

[domer76]

No Perry, that's not how it works.

When you chuckle that believing in some diety is equivalent to believing in the flying spaghetti monster, you are saying you know and believe dieties do not exist

Because the flying spaghetti monster is not real, then dieties cannot be real.

Your claim that you just have seen no evidence for God and are just in a suspended and uncommitted state of disbelief is a bunch of b.s.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster must be real. All the stars, planets, and moons are shaped like meatballs.

 

[domer76]

Domer, it takes belief to believe there is no God.

It is more honest by far to be agnostic: who knows?

Nope. It merely requires evidence. When anyone can present that evidence, I and many other atheists will jump ship immediately. Theists, even without any evidence, are unable to do so.

The fact that all gods remain hidden should tell you something.