Religion

im just gonna cut to the chase and say that I think your use of "objective" is misleading.

  On 3/23/2012 at 9:57 PM, encey said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 9:49 PM, grue said:

iif there is such a thing as objective morality it cannot be based on divine commands of any kind. god(s) can, at best, track the moral truth, they cannot create the moral truth.

 

I want to understand this better. What if God's will is the infinite version of a Kantian, human/finite 'good will,' so that God's very nature determines what is good and God 'gives Himself the law' for his willing precisely by thinking (or willing, or maybe more obscurely, being) that law. And what is good for human beings is contained in or implied by what is good for God. Wouldn't that relieve the worry about the 'tracking/creating' distinction?

i'm not sure i understand the view (which is my fault, not yours, since i don't know kant that well), but i don't think it addresses the euthyphro worry. it sounds like the view identifies (maybe partially) god with the moral standard itself (e.g. god is the good will, or god is the will willing the moral law), but in that case it's confused, i think, to speak of god as creating the moral law, since a thing cannot create itself.

perhaps a better way to get at the criticism is by asking a few different questions: first, why does god will the law that god actually wills and not another? the only sensible answer, i think, is that god wills that law because that law is the morally correct law. in that case, however, god is tracking rather than creating (though, again, if the law is somehow part of god's nature maybe the tracking/creating distinction breaks down in some way, although i don't think that changes the substance of the euthyphro criticism). second: if god willed a different law (say, the anti-categorical imperative) would that then be the moral law for rational agents? again, i think the sensible answer is "no" which is another way of saying that god's willing the law is not what makes it the objectively correct law; rather, god wills the law because it is objectively correct.

maybe the answer to both questions is that god could not will otherwise, but then it sounds even more like god and the moral law are being identified somehow, in which case it is again confused to talk of the moral law as created by god; rather, the moral law is constitutive of god and asking about its source/cause is like asking about the source/cause of god (and just as it is confused to say that god created god, it would then be confused to say that god is the source of morality).

i suppose then the thought might be that since the moral law is constitutive of god, atheism is incompatible with the moral law, but not because god creates the law; rather because god is the law. but then, i think, the same response made against the cosmological argument works here: if god's groundless existence is not objectionable, why is the groundless existence of a moral law without god objectionable, especially given that one is a part of the other (on this view)?

i'm not sure those questions make sense in a kantian context, but that is my gut reaction.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:06 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

point me to any passage or interview in which Richard Dawkins states that Atheism is objectively good. if he's that adamant about it the evidence should be everywhere. just find one example.

Whole eight chapter of The God Delusion.

Do you actually think he is in his atheist crusade "just 'cause"?

here @ 1:49 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ57X3YhH4&t=1m49s

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:16 PM, GORDO said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:06 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

point me to any passage or interview in which Richard Dawkins states that Atheism is objectively good. if he's that adamant about it the evidence should be everywhere. just find one example.

 

Whole eight chapter of The God Delusion.

 

Do you actually think he is in his atheist crusade "just 'cause"?

 

here @ 1:49 :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ57X3YhH4&t=1m49s

I just skimmed through it, there is not one claim of Atheism as objectively good. What he does claim is that religion tends to be far more destructive than its believers care to admit. Either you do not understand what objective means, or you are being intellectually dishonest. I mean for fucks sake, the same chapter that you provided as evidence as a subheading entitled "The Dark Side of Absolutism".

If Richard Dawkins claims the high ground of the objective good (which I'm almost certain he doesn't) in any sense, he would have to provide massive amounts of irrefutable evidence, thus making him the most important philosopher of all time. In addition to this astounding feat, he would have to simultaneously explain how a lack of something is innately objectively good.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:15 PM, grue said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 9:57 PM, encey said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 9:49 PM, grue said:

iif there is such a thing as objective morality it cannot be based on divine commands of any kind. god(s) can, at best, track the moral truth, they cannot create the moral truth.

 

I want to understand this better. What if God's will is the infinite version of a Kantian, human/finite 'good will,' so that God's very nature determines what is good and God 'gives Himself the law' for his willing precisely by thinking (or willing, or maybe more obscurely, being) that law. And what is good for human beings is contained in or implied by what is good for God. Wouldn't that relieve the worry about the 'tracking/creating' distinction?

 

i'm not sure i understand the view (which is my fault, not yours, since i don't know kant that well), but i don't think it addresses the euthyphro worry. it sounds like the view identifies (maybe partially) god with the moral standard itself (e.g. god is the good will, or god is the will willing the moral law), but in that case it's confused, i think, to speak of god as creating the moral law, since a thing cannot create itself.

 

perhaps a better way to get at the criticism is by asking a few different questions: first, why does god will the law that god actually wills and not another? the only sensible answer, i think, is that god wills that law because that law is the morally correct law. in that case, however, god is tracking rather than creating (though, again, if the law is somehow part of god's nature maybe the tracking/creating distinction breaks down in some way, although i don't think that changes the substance of the euthyphro criticism). second: if god willed a different law (say, the anti-categorical imperative) would that then be the moral law for rational agents? again, i think the sensible answer is "no" which is another way of saying that god's willing the law is not what makes it the objectively correct law; rather, god wills the law because it is objectively correct.

 

maybe the answer to both questions is that god could not will otherwise, but then it sounds even more like god and the moral law are being identified somehow, in which case it is again confused to talk of the moral law as created by god; rather, the moral law is constitutive of god and asking about its source/cause is like asking about the source/cause of god (and just as it is confused to say that god created god, it would then be confused to say that god is the source of morality).

 

i suppose then the thought might be that since the moral law is constitutive of god, atheism is incompatible with the moral law, but not because god creates the law; rather because god is the law. but then, i think, the same response made against the cosmological argument works here: if god's groundless existence is not objectionable, why is the groundless existence of a moral law without god objectionable, especially given that one is a part of the other (on this view)?

 

i'm not sure those questions make sense in a kantian context, but that is my gut reaction.

That all makes sense, and I don't think the view is convincing, but I was trying to find the most plausible defense of it. You could go with Aristotle and say that God exists indefinitely, so there is no question of who or what created Him; and in that case, God's being the moral law is unproblematic.

To object that God's willing the contrary of the categorial imperative would be amoral is to already presuppose a God-independent standard of morality -- if I understand that objection as stemming from our ordinary ethical intuitions, which to the theist would beg the question.

To object that a groundlessly existing moral law not commanded by God is just as plausible as the theist's view would not convince the theist who sees God as the simplest explanation of the existence of everything -- whereas a moral law not commanded by God may explain ethical truths but does not thereby also explain truths about nature.

The Euthyphro point is interesting, because it brings out what is cool (even if it's not ultimately successful or coherent) about Kant's approach to morality -- saying that we 'give the moral law to ourselves' is, I take it, his way of trying to accommodate both (a) the idea that there is a law we must follow because it is good independently of our inclination to follow it, and (b) the idea that our willing the law is nevertheless the source of its bindingness on us, so that in that sense (which I don't know how to spell out) the law 'depends on our willing.' I was trying to express a parallel point in the context of a God conceived as having an 'infinite' faculty of practical reason -- where the 'choice' to will the moral law does not even encounter the complication of resisting potentially contrary inclinations from a 'faculty of sensibility' the likes of which we have, but rather, just kind of 'flows out automatically' from God's very nature. This was meant to soften the worry about it seeming either (a) arbitrary that God 'chose' to will that law and no other, or (b) necessary that God will that law, independently of whatever God may 'want' to do.

But I don't know the Kant all that well either, so I may just be bollixing it all up.

Edit: Awesome that Firefox does not flag 'bollixing' as in need of spell check!

wtf i just watched that video. nowhere does he state that Atheism is objectively good. I have no idea what you mean by "objective."

I don't understand why you put the concept "objective good" in such a high pedestal. maybe you're stuck in the phase where one thinks the ideal abstract meaning of "objective" is somehow attainable.

And he doesn't have to explain why the lack of something is good, he has to explain why having beliefs that are not reasonable are harmful. which is pretty easy to do.

  Quote

I just skimmed through it, there is not one claim of Atheism as objectively good. What he does claim is that religion tends to be far more destructive than its believers care to admit.

fucking lol.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:44 PM, GORDO said:

I don't understand why you put the concept "objective good" in such a high pedestal. maybe you're stuck in the phase where one thinks the ideal abstract meaning of "objective" is somehow attainable.

 

And he doesn't have to explain why the lack of something is good, he has to explain why having beliefs that are not reasonable are harmful. which is pretty easy to do.

 

  Quote

I just skimmed through it, there is not one claim of Atheism as objectively good. What he does claim is that religion tends to be far more destructive than its believers care to admit.

 

fucking lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

i can't tell if you are trolling or not.

grue, gotta run but looking forward to any reply! xxxxx

it's windy again today

Some things you don't know about The Bible and Christianity:

Why don't Christians know those things? Because they don't read The Bible for themselves and rely on their blind guides to explain it. Isn't it a bit strange that almost no one has actually read The Bible?
It is totally illogical to declare a book "campfire stories" when you haven't read it. How could you possibly come to a correct conclusion if you are not fully informed? Would you sit on a jury, in a trial, about something someone had written and not actually read what they wrote? I mentioned this to an Atheist friend of mine and he agreed somewhat, but didn't seem to care. What I have noticed is that most Atheists are first and foremost Atheists and use "science" to back them up. Look at a Richard Dawkins speech. About half of it is just him ridiculing Christians.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:44 PM, encey said:

The Euthyphro point is interesting, because it brings out what is cool (even if it's not ultimately successful or coherent) about Kant's approach to morality -- saying that we 'give the moral law to ourselves' is, I take it, his way of trying to accommodate both (a) the idea that there is a law we must follow because it is good independently of our inclination to follow it, and (b) the idea that our willing the law is nevertheless the source of its bindingness on us, so that in that sense (which I don't know how to spell out) the law 'depends on our willing.' I was trying to express a parallel point in the context of a God conceived as having an 'infinite' faculty of practical reason -- where the 'choice' to will the moral law does not even encounter the complication of resisting potentially contrary inclinations from a 'faculty of sensibility' the likes of which we have, but rather, just kind of 'flows out automatically' from God's very nature. This was meant to soften the worry about it seeming either (a) arbitrary that God 'chose' to will that law and no other, or (b) necessary that God will that law, independently of whatever God may 'want' to do.

i think you're right that this is the best way to circumvent the euthyphro point, and i also agree that it is a fascinating feature of kant's moral thought (the self-binding feature of the moral law). it provides a nice contrast to the euthyphro point.

i still find the euthyphro view more compelling though. we can factor the kantian project into two pieces (maybe, a kant scholar might think i'm butchering things here): (1) what is the moral law? (2) what makes the moral law binding? i think the euthyphro criticism is aimed at point (1), the idea being that the moral law is what it is and all a being like god can do is follow it flawlessly, not create it. this is implicit in your description of the view, where you say that the moral law is "good independently of our inclination to follow it." i think the same must be true of god. the only difference is that god never fails to follow it because, as you say, god has no contrary inclinations.

in the case of god, these two issues might be harder to separate precisely for the reason that god is really not free to choose what law to will (if we assume that god is necessarily omnibenevolent). but that, i think, is a way of conceding the euthyphro point; god couldn't will another law because no other law is (or could be) morally correct (even if god were to will another law).

perhaps the direction of explantion is the dividing issue. the theist would, i suppose, decline to answer the question: why does god will this law? they might, as you suggest, take it to be part of god's nature that god will this law, but that is, i think, conceding that the law is not really up to god; that the necessity of god's perfection forces god to will one law, and not another, because the facts about morality are one way and not another.

this might be clearer if i respond to some of your objections:

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:44 PM, encey said:

To object that God's willing the contrary of the categorial imperative would be amoral is to already presuppose a God-independent standard of morality -- if I understand that objection as stemming from our ordinary ethical intuitions, which to the theist would beg the question.

typically i think you're right that these objections rest on ordinary ethical intuitions, but i don't think that is essential. kant derives the categorical imperative from the requirements of rational agency; god doesn't come into the picture until he starts discussing the summum bonum (that is, god serves as the guarantee that happiness will ultimately be proprotionate with virtue). but when it comes to discovering the moral law, god doesn't play a role for kant, so even a kantian should admit that we have, through reason, an independent purchase on what is morally right and wrong.

even ordinary religious believers make this distinction in practice i think. there is a reason that although many chritians profess to follow the 10 commandments, they do not observe the prohibition on wearing garments that mix wool and linen. the reason is that they independently judge that the really important thing, morally speaking, is captured by the commandments. more abstractly, the fact that there are differing interpretations of the bible indicates a reliance on our own ability to discern moral truths through reason.

so i don't think it is a simple case of question begging; i think there is good evidence that we have a capacity for moral judgment that is not just following divine commands, which in turn allows us to comprehend potentially counterfactual (or even counterpossible) scenarios where god wills the immoral.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:44 PM, encey said:

To object that a groundlessly existing moral law not commanded by God is just as plausible as the theist's view would not convince the theist who sees God as the simplest explanation of the existence of everything -- whereas a moral law not commanded by God may explain ethical truths but does not thereby also explain truths about nature.

here i think we need to keep the original dialectic in mind. you might be right that in some sense god is a more powerful explanation than a groundless moral law, but the point i'm defending is that the existence of an objective moral standard does not presuppose the existence of god. the objection i was trying to anticipate was that a groundless moral law is somehow inconceivable or problematic in some other way; my response is that it can be no more inconceivable than a groundless god, especially given the view that the moral law is somehow part of god (in which case the inconceivability of the law would entail the inconceivability of god).

the point you raise is an interesting one, but it addresses a different question, which is: what provides the best explanation for the nature of the world (including morality), god or a groundless moral law? here god is obviously a more complete explanation, but that is a new question that raises a whole host of difficult issues. it also concedes my point, namely that atheism with objective morality is not somehow inconsistent or inconceivable; rather, on this line, it is just less well supported by the evidence.

sorry for the long post

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  On 3/23/2012 at 11:32 PM, HoA said:

Some things you don't know about The Bible and Christianity:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. The Bible condemns going to church.

 

Matthew 6:5-7

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt NOT be as the hypocrites [ARE]: for they love to pray standing in the Synagogues(churches) and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, pray to thy Father in private (Enoch 56:5; Sura 7:55); and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

6:7 But when ye pray, use NOT vain repetitions, as the heathen [DO]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

 

Sura 7:55

7:55. Call on your Lord with HUMILITY and in PRIVATE (Enoch 56:5; Matt. 6:6): for "I AM" loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds.

 

Sura 9:107

9:107. And there are those who put up mosques (churches; synagogues; etc.), by way of mischief and BETRAYAL - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against "I AM" (Revelation 12:7) and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; but "I AM" doth declare that they are certainly LIARS.

 

Matthew 23:8-9

23:8 But be not ye called priest (etc.): for One is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

In the old kJAV of The Bible, the word "church" is used. But this word is translated from the Greek "ekklesia", which simply means "community", it has nothing to do with a building or house of worship. Likewise, the Greek word "hagioi", which means "holy (whole) people" was translated into "saint"; it has nothing to do with someone being above others. Also, in The kJAV there is the word "synagogue". The synagogue was the church of that time. Because Jesus taught not to go to church and to pray in private, people stopped going and stopped giving their money to the church so they began to lose money. Subsequently, they had Jesus killed to perpetuate their lucrative business and that is also why they have corrupted The Bible (compare a 1611 kJAV with a NIV).

 

In revelation, the Vatican is described as "the mother of harlots" which sits on seven mountains (hills). And it is well known that Rome sits on seven hills.

 

Revelation 17:3-5

17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

17:4 And the woman was arrayed in PURPLE (bishops) and SCARLET (cardinals) colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY (2 Thess. 2:7), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (her daughters) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

 

Revelation 17:9

17:9 And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth (Rome).

 

Revelation 17:18

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great CITY, which reigneth over the kings of the earth (Rome).

 

2. Christ hates Christmas.

 

Revelation 2:6

2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes (followers of Santa [Ni]-Claus - Yuletide, Easter [ishtar - a goddess of fertility - eggs a symbol of fertility] etc.),which I also hate.

 

Revelation 2:15

2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the followers of St. [Ni]-Claus (Yuletide), which thing I hate.

 

3. Jesus was not born on Christmas day.

 

Jesus was more than likely born 12th April 7 B.C. Since Herod died in 4 B.C. (The story of the "wise men" is really how druids [according to the Irish version of The Gospel] came to see Jesus when he was a child [not a baby] and The Bible does not mention there being three of them. Also, the "star" they followed was not a star, it was a spaceship [Father is, by definition, an Extra Terrestrial]. How are you supposed to know when a star is above a house?)

 

Also, there was no such place as "Nazareth". There is absolutely no evidence of a place called "Nazareth" existing before the fourth century A.D. "Nazir" is a Hebrew word, which means "truth". So therefore, Jesus was a Nazarite or "follower of The Truth".

 

4. Christianity is a mixture between The Way (which Jesus and His disciples were followers of) and Babylonian mystery religion.

Perhaps you have heard about the similarities between Christianity and sun worship. They are similar because that is true. Traditions such as Easter and Christmas and other corrupted stories from The Bible are base on Babylonian mystery religion to deceive people.

 

Simon Pater, the sorcerer, (not Simon Peter) took the name "Christian" and founded the religion, Christianity; which mixes The Way with Pagan rituals.

 

5. The (counterfeit) Jews are not True Israel.

 

Most (counterfeit) Jews are what is called "Ashkenazi Jews". (http://en.wikipedia..../Ashkenazi_Jews) Ashkenaz, in The Bible was descended from Japheth, not Shem. So they are Japhethites, not Semites. At

the end of the 8th century, the Khazarian people mass converted to Judaism and that is what makes up the majority of (counterfeit) Jews today.

 

6. The Koran is in perfect harmony with The Bible (when interpreted correctly).

 

What confuses Muslims and keeps them from reading The Bible is verses like this, which have been incorrectly interpreted:

 

Sura 4:171

4:171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

 

Correct translation:

 

Sura 4:171

4:171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the Truth. Jesus the (human) son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of God; and His Word (John 1:14), which He bestowed on Mary's (human) son; was a spirit-Being (Christ) proceeding from Him (making the human+Being called Jesus+Christ): so believe God and His Apostles. Say NOT "Trinity": DESIST: it will be better for you: for "I AM" is one God. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a human son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.

 

Mohammed was Illiterate so he couldn't read what his followers were recording and to check and see if it was right.

 

The Koran also tells the reader to follow The Bible, which I mentioned earlier.

 

Sura 6:154-155

6:154. Moreover, We gave Moses the Book (Torah), COMPLETING (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining ALL things IN DETAIL,- and a GUIDE and a MERCY, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.

6:155. And this (Torah) is a Book which We have revealed as a BLESSING: so follow it and be righteous, that YE may receive mercy (Sura 32:23):

 

 

Why don't Christians know those things? Because they don't read The Bible for themselves and rely on their blind guides to explain it. Isn't it a bit strange that almost no one has actually read The Bible?

It is totally illogical to declare a book "campfire stories" when you haven't read it. How could you possibly come to a correct conclusion if you are not fully informed? Would you sit on a jury, in a trial, about something someone had written and not actually read what they wrote? I mentioned this to an Atheist friend of mine and he agreed somewhat, but didn't seem to care. What I have noticed is that most Atheists are first and foremost Atheists and use "science" to back them up. Look at a Richard Dawkins speech. About half of it is just him ridiculing Christians.

I have read the Bible before. I don't have it all memorized. But given a concept, I can look it up pretty quickly. I don't see why this is somehow a bad thing.

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:53 PM, GORDO said:

http://en.wikipedia....ivity_(science)

The criticisms of scientific objectivity are the same as criticisms of the philosophical concept. He still doesn't claim atheism is an objective good, in either sense. What he does claim is that there is far more rational evidence to suggest that belief in something without evidence can be harmful.

ok, so if this is the definition you are using, how is what he is saying wrong? How can you look at evidence of theism objectively and NOT come to the conclusion that there is no significant evidence to suggest a God? The only way you could is if you accepted illogical and completely subjective standards of evidence. If that is the case, we might all as well believe in solipsism and go drink our own urine until the end of time.

i've found that conversations about such spiritual things on the watmm that are not proven by science and the like are similar in their result to banging ones head against brick until head is the consistency of thin pudding

Can we not use the KJV translation of the Bible anymore? It's really confusing. Use the NIV or, if you want closer to word-for-word, the NASB.

  On 3/24/2012 at 1:20 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 10:53 PM, GORDO said:

http://en.wikipedia....ivity_(science)

 

The criticisms of scientific objectivity are the same as criticisms of the philosophical concept. He still doesn't claim atheism is an objective good, in either sense. What he does claim is that there is far more rational evidence to suggest that belief in something without evidence can be harmful.

 

ok, so if this is the definition you are using, how is what he is saying wrong? How can you look at evidence of theism objectively and NOT come to the conclusion that there is no significant evidence to suggest a God? The only way you could is if you accepted illogical and completely subjective standards of evidence. If that is the case, we might all as well believe in solipsism and go drink our own urine until the end of time.

not harmful = good, far more evidence = objective.

and I'm not saying he's wrong.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:27 AM, troon said:

i've found that conversations about such spiritual things on the watmm that are not proven by science and the like are similar in their result to banging ones head against brick until head is the consistency of thin pudding

i usually think that about this place, but like you, I continue to post and read threads here. I have to take a viewpoint that even if I half-ass argue on the internets, chances are there might be some undecided/on the fence person that would be further interested to question their belief systems, or question my own point of view, in either case they are exercising something that is not often exercised. Anyway, anything Ive said in this thread is child's play compared to the Kantian deconstruction going on with encey n' friends. Im gonna need a day to fully break down all of it....I wouldn't try to argue on that level...atleast not without rereading some of this stuff..its like a toddler walking into an adult conversation ;p

So I spent about an hour writing, and then my browser decided that me pressing "delete" meant "go back to the previous page" not "delete the highlighted text". Most of that time was developing ideas, not writing, so I'll post later. But I need to take a shower now. I usually copy my long posts into text documents, but it appears that the one time I needed it I forgot to do this.

I'm kind of pissed.

  On 3/23/2012 at 1:55 AM, chassis said:

Debates on religion generally turn into people saying why religion is wrong, rather than making point why there isn't a god. Just because Noah's Ark is bullshit, doesn't make you right. Having said that, Id love to see an atheist make a cogent argument on why there is no god, without reference to any religion whatsoever.

Why is there a god? What proof? Where is the convincing evidence that we aren't just a bunch of stupid, useless apes destined for nothing? The bible? Where does a god factor in? Is he only good enough to punish us because he killed his own son and is bitter? Is that why he takes away our bowel function, our minds, our will to live, after a while? what kind of sick freak is that?

If that is god then i fucking hope he fucks right off.

Ehm, because God, like religion is a human construct? Before human history there was no God. And that's about it really. It's not that hard to understand, right?

If you are saying God is a concept, then yes, God exists as a concept. What is the point of stating that?

Again, atheism is the null/default position. The burden of proof is on those stating a theist belief. There is no burden of proof on me to prove the absence of something; I'm not the one claiming anything, only challenging a positive claim.

all this talk of god is making me horny