3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdYour response seems to go quite a long way to ask very little. Your opening bit about proof seems to be merely a definition of the problem. For the most part I don't see what is required of me. When you finally get around to putting in your question mark, I'm really not quite sure what it is you're asking me.
This is interesting: I gave Omni a rec, and find that I have to give you one as well—a rec for each side. Indicates the level of the discourse.
I have some questions, though (and they’re just that, questions--mostly):
But I disag and offer some thoughts, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Stephen
Your part about the limits of rationality is much clearer. Of course rationality does not get us everywhere. It is not intended to. There are many phenomena which will defy a rational analysis, such as love, music, beauty, etc. But we should be rational enough not to invent gods to attribute those things to, for that is just another attempt to pin them down and assign an explanation to them.
As for a "higher power" helping someone get over an addiction, that's fine. If someone really wants to have god as their placebo effect for whatever ails them, then I really don't have any problem with that. As long as they admit they have no proof for their claims and don't try to force their solution down everyone else's throat, then that's their business. Unfortunately, far too many theists are determined to have their personal placebo effect become the absolute truth for society at large. But just because they've made that connection in their mind doesn't mean that it's true. There's a difference between judging something on it's utility and judging it on it's truthfulness.
If you're keeping religion around for its "aesthetic richness" or to spice up daily living, then it really ceases to be a religion, doesn't it? It becomes more of a hobby. You could keep it around because it amused you without actually believing it was the absolute truth. There is a difference between a system that helps to bring harmony and peace into your life and an omnipotent god. One is useful to have around, the other demands worship. Because something cannot be defined by rational means does not mean it belongs in the realm of gods.
I'm not sure if this answered all your questions. If not, then try me again.
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe if atheists weren't so busy trying to outdo each other in insulting our religion, we wouldn't feel obligated to defend it. And it must suck knowing you always retain a chance of being wrong.
Your response seems to go quite a long way to ask very little. Your opening bit about proof seems to be merely a definition of the problem. For the most part I don't see what is required of me. When you finally get around to putting in your question mark, I'm really not quite sure what it is you're asking me.
Your part about the limits of rationality ...[text shortened]... ealm of gods.
I'm not sure if this answered all your questions. If not, then try me again.
Originally posted by DarfiusYou bring the insults on yourself, Darfius. The harder you try to shove your religion down our throats, the nastier our temper becomes. If you practiced your religion in privacy and in silence then atheists would never have anything to say to you at all.
Maybe if atheists weren't so busy trying to outdo each other in insulting our religion, we wouldn't feel obligated to defend it. And it must suck knowing you always retain a chance of being wrong.
The chance of being wrong does not overly concern me. Because even if I'm wrong it doesn't mean that you're right.
Originally posted by rwingettRwingett: "You bring the insults on yourself, Darfius."
You bring the insults on yourself, Darfius. The harder you try to shove your religion down our throats, the nastier our temper becomes. If you practiced your religion in privacy and in silence then atheists would never have anything to say to you at all.
The chance of being wrong does not overly concern me. Because even if I'm wrong it doesn't mean that you're right.
Since when are we not responsible anymore for our own actions, Rwingett ?
I've heard racists say the same thing about black people.
I've heard sexists say the same thing about women.
Rwingett: "The harder you try to shove your religion down our throats, the nastier our temper becomes."
Again Rwingett, you yourself are responsible for your temper.
By the way who is this "we" you are talking about ?
Rwingett: " If you practiced your religion in privacy and in silence then atheists would never have anything to say to you at all."
One of the "Champions of Free Speech" and "tolerance" is talking here I guess.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThe christian concept of god may be more useful than my claim about magical pink unicorns, but that doesn't make it any more true. Because millions of people beleive in their christian god doesn't give their claim any more credence. Truth is not decided by a majority vote.
It is not that believing in an unprovable God is logical, it is that believing in an unprovable God is not any less logical than not believing in an unprovable God. Don't confuse logical with sensible. Now as for your pink unicorns--what is the concept of them? Are they nothing but a heretofore unknown animal, or do they symobolize some sort of human ...[text shortened]... ink there is a theistic party line though. Christian, maybe, but not theistic.
... --- ...
Now the question arises as to whether it is beneficial to believe in a false god. Mankind seems to derive some small measure of benefit from this. But at what cost? Could not the benefits attributed to this belief be gotten equally well from another source, and without all the negative side effects? I would say that the burden of maintaining this belief in their god is an extremely costly one. The benefits derived from it are simply not worth it. Perhaps in pre-scientific communities the cost/benefit analysis would have been much more favorable. But in the 21st century it's increasingly hard to rationalize.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'd wager his justification is that God has what is called, 'Irresistable Grace,'
So nobody who doesn't believe in your God can possibly be a loving and caring human being?
which essentially means that, if God wants you to be good (even if you
don't believe in Him), you are going to be good.
Nemesio