Snow Dog wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: First off, here's a place to post about atheism, why it is your preferred religion, . Can we nip this crap in the bud now please?

 

Right on Snowie, this idiotic statement takes away the meaning of the thread.

 

 

 

Australian wrote:   The way I see it you can live with hope or you can live without hope.

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Sure (although I do not have that much time)

 

If God existed (in the way religions see God as a so-called good entity), we can be sure that he would hate being adored and prayed upon. And certainly he would hate those helping their cause by using cheating, deceiving, lying, converting, using violence and other means to enforces rules he obviously does not care for. Those 10 commendments existed well before Moses wrote them down (even those relating to gods), since they are the base of communal/societal life, that even monkeys uses (but have not written down).  It is the ABC of living together. The rest is crap added.

 

Now this "creator" of the universe (provided there is less than one chance in a zillion he exists), has created thousands of galaxies,suns and planets, where life probably exists in forms we do not even imagine (for all we know mineral life could exists in other places and the Uranium atom being the most common element in that form of life >> just try to imagine that there is more chance of this happening than a creator existing) light years appart. Do you actually think, this creator would care what happens on this planet, and certainly take time to talk to a few chosen ones?

 

Or are those claiming they talk to the creator simply not trying to mystify others and using this "fact" as a way to promote himself and up his profile to get advantages and imposes rules that make him the benefeciary or at least puthim in a central position and hand out advices that should be followed since he has the answers. This was the case from the early religions or shamanism days when the shamans said that volcanoes were gods being angry at the community because they were not obeying what the shaman was preaching, thus invoking fears. And the using of fears and superstitions from the phenomenons one does not understand is creating a power that the religious are all too quick to use. Andthose opposing a different view, were usually put to death or at least banned.

 

Thoose talking to god are generally highly suspicious to me (and not just in the "why them?" mode, but also in does the creator even have a capacity to communicate to his subjects), which does not mean that religious people are a threat in itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously though, atheist is a safe, logically "correct" way of life for people who have not understood the actual point of being religious. I am pretty tired of these discussions, but once again, religion isn't science, it can not be measured or observed as an existing phenomenon visible and felt by the senses. Obviously, the empiricists here are not supposed to find God, by their definition, but do have the respect and tolerance for those who have.

 

Sure, every man decides his path. I should have phrased this differently, but what I said is the most common case. I feel the biggest mistake atheists make is assume that God is a limitation for free spirited men, and religion is a way to keep people ignorant and stubborn (okay, I know enough religious people who fit in well in this stereotype), developing the "crowd effect" (not sure what it's called in English, just a quick own translation from my mother tongue) - and that is hardly the truth. Anyway, religion is a useless subject for conversation and should not be talked about. I am surprised we have threads full of many pages of responses, but has even one person changed his mind?

toolsofthetrade wrote: I wonder how long it will take for someone to bring up the whole `religion is the cause of all wars' argument

 

If you insist, I have no qualms being the first

 

 

 

 

toolsofthetrade wrote:   Could you please explain why it is you believe the existence of God to be so improbable? (like, one in a zillion). The rest of your argument deals with different interpretations of god, but does nothing to add weight to the argument there is no god.

 

 

 

Should there a be a god, in terms of monotheism or human pictures of gods or deities, you'd guess that he would have the peace and those usurping his words blasted from this lowly paradise or taken his life away.

 

In primitive religions, most deities were feminine, but once monotheism came in so-called god was given a male role, to better control half the human race (which almost voluntary submits since it yearns to be protected in its motherhood), and keep it from the real issues of life.

 

Religion is all about power and those not submitting to it are therefore seen as ennemies and to be discarded.

 

This is really the point. There is no point to being religious except submitting yourself to a set of beliefs that are enforced upon you and you being more or less receptive to them.

 

And thoise religious beliefs are nothing more than common societal life sense

 

Exactly! IMO Religion and subsequently Church is an institute of power, while Faith is the system of Believes. There is a big difference between The Believer and Religious person.

 

Nice pun.

 

Talking about who created God when we don't even know if there is a God? Hmmm...

 

And taking into account the widely-held belief that God is omni-present/potent, who can say what his motives are or what made him?

 

Who's to say nature couldn't have developed that way without the aid of a diety? Same goes with one's conscience.

 

Everyone does, based on their belief system.

 

Whether it really is right or wrong, we only know when it doesn't matter anymore.

 

While it may seem an unloving thing if it is the case, again trying to figure out the motives of a divine, all-powerful being, who can see a much grander picture of the universe than we, is futile. For all we know, he could have invented those things to make the humanity that would survive them over the course of thousands of years stronger. Don't you think we're stronger and better suited to survive the world now than 2,000 years ago? Chaulk it up to our ingenuity, but is our ingenuity the source of random occurance, or a divine plan? Who knows?

 

 

Did I say God, or just imply it?

 

Its not a need...unless you want it to be.