Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's similar to the way I think. I would look at an atheist human being who thinks he understands the universe, in the same way I would look at my pet rabbit. Two mammals.
My guess is that the rabbit is not as smart as he thinks he is. If he has any ideas about how the universe works, I'm guessing that a lot of Mr Bunny's ideas are probably way off.
The same with the atheist human.
There is something to be said for humility.
The Imperial Roman Catholic Church adopted wholesale the teachings of Aristotle, which included an Earth-centric view of the Universe and that disease was caused by an imbalance of colored biles.
For more than 1,000 years, anyone who disagreed was branded a heretic and tortured, and often murdered.
The teachings of the church, and those in the bible about the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet and our biology have all proven to be to be totally wrong.
We now know that disease has many causes, including virus, bacteria, chemical substances and and genetic flaws and that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth.
Religion has no answers, and in fact, religion stifles growth and learning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
You haven't provided evidence that the universe just popped out of nowhere for no reason.
The present inability to explain the origin of the Universe is neither proof nor evidence of a god.
It was spite of religion, that people came to understand the true cause of disease, and all that we've discovered about our Universe, and it will be in spite of religion that we eventually understand the origin of the Universe.
Even if you could prove the existence of a supreme being who created the Universe, such a being has no interest in you personally, or anyone else, and there's no Heaven or Hell for your reward or punishment after death, or even an after-life of any kind, and such a being would have no interest in establishing a permanent kingdom on Earth, after murdering most of the people on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It seems to me that 1 percent of the evil done in the name of religion does not discount the 99 percent of good that it does. But you never hear about the good things, right?
Whatever "good" that might possibly come from religion is minuscule compared to the enormous damage done to Civilization and Society.
Since your benevolent supreme being did not see fit to establish democratic forms of government, humans suffered for thousands of years. And even when the first real democratic form of government was established, the religious leaders cried "Foul!"
Humanus Genus was a Papal Bull issued by Pope Leo. What kind of supposedly benevolent being would allow a Pope to condemn Americans to hell, because Americans chose to elect their leaders instead of having them appointed by the Pope?
"The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem."
Your benevolent supreme being didn't see fit to treat women as equals, either, and also condoned slavery and genocide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
But why can't you understand that many people don't have the inner resources to get by without religion.
Because it's detrimental to everyone.
If those people refocused their efforts to the Here-and-Now, which is all that exists for any living organism, instead of believing in the false promise of an after-life, their lives would be much improved, and Society would benefit greatly.
Based on current understandings of science. Everything as we know it might had come from quantum fluctuations.
A hypothetical god cannot be free of physical laws. Because one of the definitions of a god is that it's conscious. So god must have its transcendental equivalent of neurons, perhaps quadrillions of them, since folks claim it's infinitely intelligent or something.
For these transcendental neurons to work in a specific way (like making this god a loving or evil one), there's gotta be some physical laws governing them. By the way, this is also why god/gods cannot be eternal as people claim to be, because being CONSCIOUS means changing overtime and making decisions. An ''eternal consciousness'' is an oxymoron, let alone an ''omnipotent, omniscient'' one.
By the way, the term ''creative force'' that you coined is begging the question. Just go with ''physical law''.
Based on current understandings of science. Everything as we know it might had come from quantum fluctuations.
A hypothetical god cannot be free of physical laws. Because one of the definitions of a god is that it's conscious. So god must have its transcendental equivalent of neurons, perhaps quadrillions of them, since folks claim it's infinitely intelligent or something.
For these transcendental neurons to work in a specific way (like making this god a loving or evil one), there's gotta be some physical laws governing them. By the way, this is also why god/gods cannot be eternal as people claim to be, because being CONSCIOUS means changing overtime and making decisions. An ''eternal consciousness'' is an oxymoron, let alone an ''omnipotent, omniscient'' one.
By the way, the term ''creative force'' that you coined is begging the question. Just go with ''physical law''.
The drawback to the above approach is that the theist will simply shift all claims to the realm of magic, postulating a deity which transcends all known natural laws. Restrictions and limitations do not apply.
In short you'll get what Carl Sagan identified as the Dragon in My Garage argument. That is where the claimant responds to every proposed natural test for this dragon, by assigning the dragon properties which make it an exception to such testing.
The drawback to the above approach is that the theist will simply shift all claims to the realm of magic, postulating a deity which transcends all known natural laws. Restrictions and limitations do not apply.
In short you'll get what Carl Sagan identified as the Dragon in My Garage argument. That is where the claimant responds to every proposed natural test for this dragon, by assigning the dragon properties which make it an exception to such testing.
Yes. It's the old theist ploy of....
'These are the rules that apply to everything in order for it to exist. Oh by the way! My god is exempt to the rules that must apply to everything.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
