At the dawn of time, man looked down at his own junk and said "My... thats one big penis right there." And of course, another said "Nah, your stupid, mine is bigger." As they began debating and rubbing their cocks together while trying to figure out which one had the larger member, people cheered and booed equally. But only a few of the onlookers actually looked at this and said "Holy fuck, both those dudes are gay..."

The idea of a religious debate is pointless. And I feel sorry for the world that is so fucking narcissist that it needs to tell others at every moment that the other's faith is wrong.

Why not? A company mascot helps with brand identity and recognition.



Time, effort, resources and human capital are wasted on many more things than religion. Look at Furbies: meaningless little toys that have no value other than entertaining a child in a way a cardboard box could at a fraction the price. Look at all the money those horrible little things made, money that could've been spent on worthier causes. I'm sure some would consider religion just as meaningless and futile, but a sizable number of people don't, and until we have a Cult of Furbie up and running it will continue to be so.

Not that I disagree at all, I think allocation of resources among certain religious circles leaves a lot to be desired.



There's the argument that there's no such thing as free will/free thinking in the first place. Indeed, rigid adherence to logic and the powers of reason is hardly "free-thinking", isn't it?

Yes I'm aware of the ludicrousness and silliness of that sentence, I just wanted to say it for audacity's sake. Forgive me.



In all honesty, I think the world would certainly be different, but I can't say it would be better, or worse for that matter. Wars over territory, ideology, trade and other factors would have still existed, and the vaccuum of religion as an "opiate of the masses" would simply have something else fill the void: perhaps an early form of consumerism or materialism.

I don't like playing these games, since I always think it'll end up like an Outer Limits episode where everything is much much worse than it started out.

I held off on this thread for a long time because of my unapologetic hatred for all things Judeo-Christian. I felt I'd have nothing significant to contribute. But, in the interest of polite discussion, I'll just say that there is a difference between institutional religion and religious dogma and lessons.

Religious institutions are non-profit, charitable businesses. This doesn't make them inherently beneficial or malicious. Ultimately, my view on them is that they ought to offer refuge to the sick and the poor, since they are part of the reason people are sick and poor. I find it ironic that churches are usually the most vociferous opponents of gambling and the erection of casinos, meanwhile it's perfectly fine to rake in donations to get one's prayers answered. We irreverent hessians would certainly agree that both types of expenditure revolve around chance and superstition. One would do well, in my opinion, to regard these institutions with suspicion. That does not mean, however, that they are innately more surreptitious than other powerful institutions within the realms of private business or government.

Religious dogma is a different story. Judeo-Christian dogma has become increasingly dualistic with each passing century, to the point where its most extreme adherents find themselves in direct opposition to reality. My problem with Judeo-Christianity is its antagonism to the natural world, its ignorance of human nature, and its favorable posture towards everything passive and unassertive. This, to me, represents a complete inversion of what ought to be considered the ultimate goal of nations and cultures. Today, humility and dependence upon institutional guidance are stressed above pride and self-sufficience. When people get a bit sick, they see a doctor. When people get sad, they visit a shrink or self-medicate. When people fear judgement, they go to their priests and rabbis. Judeo-Christianity is, in my opinion, of principal responsibility for our society's co-dependence and neuroses. In the interests of creating a new and better world for our children to live in, I think humanity would do well to oppose the synagogue, church, and mosque, and their corresponding philosophies, as detrimental to progress.

I think you might be overstating the "sick" part (unless you refer to religious reasons for refusing treatments, especially when children are involved), but that's a reasonable POV.



The difference being that most people don't get into serious debt by giving a few pennies toward a church fund. Plus, I get the impression prayer isn't quite as "morish" as the various gambling arts unless you're really, really into praying, and even then the money spent pales into comparison to the average compulsive gambler's.



Really? That's the impression you get? I get the overwhelmingly opposite impression of modern society, where self-reliance and personal advancement are prized above respecting authoritative figures and institutions and "knowing your place". Might be an America vs Britain thing again though, but even the US has profoundly different opinions on this depending on state.



Yet aren't national health services institutional guidances in themselves? Surely pride and self-reliance would mean that if you're sick you don't bother going to the doctor or psychiatrist, you just go online and fix yourself. Obviously this isn't quite the same thing, but for people raised in religion you have two choices: "cure" yourself and never see a priest again, or continue to see priests for your spiritual wellbeing. Both are perfectly fine, but people who've done one thing will criticize the other either for being godless heathens or dogmatic sheep. Such is life.

I would be really interested to see a proper atheistic government and society start up without the problems that plagued past ones just to see if it lived up to the ideals: it would be nice if it did, but I get the feeling that humanity's stupid nature would come back to bite it in some way.

Splitting hairs. It's the principle of the thing. I was referring to the constant intrusiveness of the church into people's finances and pastimes to force their morality on others. Also, I suppose one could argue that at least at the track, there's the thrill of victory.



I find that people are pushed and prodded from all sides, by the state, by the church, by marketing and advertising, etc. I think the individual is lost in a sea of options, and too often that individual will choose to take up empty causes rather than become self-sufficient. I think you're equating spiritual self-sufficience with material.



I'm not arguing for an Atheist government, although I think it would be a nice change of pace. If an American politician were to say that he didn't believe in god, I think I might actually be inspired to vote. But it's unlikely that that alone would have a lasting impact on the way Americans, or the rest of the Western World, go about their daily lives, transact affairs of state, etc. I find that the West is consumed with Judeo-Christian guilt and is fundamentally unable to accept the time-tested and proven truth that people are not equal. This simple understanding, impolite as it may be, would change human consciousness were it allowed to seep in.

Well, that's why people go to church in the first place: they don't feel confident enough to form their own morality, so they look for someone with "authority". If they really had a problem then they wouldn't stick with it.



I am, most likely.



Not saying you were, it just seems logical that atheists would advocate an atheist/secular government.



Intriguing. I too have problems with the culture of guilt, Catholicism being the worst for that.

No; the whole point of Judaism, Christianity and modern Secular Humanism is that people are not equal. Otherwise no injunctions would be necessary to provide for the underachievers, tolerate the less abled and forgive the ones that outperform you. If all people were equal, no laws would be needed to protect the weak from the strong. So the very foundation of Western society lies upon the assumption that people are not equal.
But I suspect that the "simple understanding" that people are not equal leads you and me to completely different ideas as to what should be done about that fact. I take it that you advocate Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism, contrary to what its proponents often think, is not the only possible logical consequence from acknowledging that people are not equal; nothing forces you to go down that path. While you are regrettably free to do so, it is all the same not logically permissible to deduce a course of action from a fact alone, without stating an intention as well. So please get your intention out in the open, admit that permission to act like an antisocial asshole is what you're going on about, and don't be mealy-mouthed about it.

It seems to me the intention of these religions is to put the weak above the strong, or at least to declare piety and utter submission as traits worthy of heaven. Implicit in that, in my opinion, is the 'leveling out' of society, wherein neither people's weaknesses nor strengths are of any real value.

This antisocial asshole thing...I haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about. My intention was to discuss religion and share my thoughts on Judeo-Christianity, which I am now certain was a bad decision. I am not trying to offend Christians.

I rephrase: I suspect that you want to exploit the fact that there are gifted and less gifted individuals as an excuse for egoism, i.e. making use of your gifts to your own advantage while not employing them to help others. I find that that is usually the agenda of people who so stridently keep harping on the fact that people are not equal and urging people to accept inequality. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not a Christian, by the way. I'm an atheist secular humanist with a tendency to the political left.

I'm advocating realism, not hedonism.

I also have a somewhat (admittedly) romanticized ideal about what virtue consists of, and - as hokey as it may sound - I believe in honor and integrity and all that. In other words, I have ideals. The fact that I keep harping on inequality does not make me an elitist, a misanthrope, or a hedonist. My values are simply incompatible with those of Judeo-Christianity, and I do not respect any doctrine of fear.

On a semi-related note, have you read Demian by Hermann Hesse? I am fascinated by this book, and am currently re-discovering it. I've yet to find a more perfect reflection of my own thoughts. In reference to your point, I do not think that Demian lacks compassion.

I never willed that there be a social hierarchy or inequality, though I believe that how we go about things should take our nature into account. The problem is, what our nature is (e.g. whether we are naturally equal or not), is disputed. People on the left and the right have conflicting viewpoints about this. That's about as honestly as I can put it.

You didn't, apologies.



I sort of agree with you in abstract, but I have no hesitation in admitting that some part of me can't accept your conclusion. Perhaps it's because I'm still a student, as such not having to pay taxes and therefore not seeing my hard-earned money flushed down the drain of the welfare state. I'll get back to you when I'm paying my 35% like all other good citizens. In the meantime, I still do attach more value to humanity than you do With nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition I might add.

Steering the direction of the thread back towards the OP...

As an Atheist, I don't mind others believing in things I find childish such as the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Rabbit or the Christian God Yahweh. I mind when people justify their actions and decisions using beliefs which I don't share AND have no way to verify for myself. If you say you are against stem cell research because you worry about a direct correlation with increase abortions, I might not agree, but I can at least have an argument about it with you. Not so for the religious version of the argument.

I am Robotics PhD student so I tend to hang around people in the Sciences and Engineering at university. A few weeks ago, religion popped up as a topic for discussion. We saw that most researchers are extremely passionate about their work, almost religious. Some are notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their stance.

The difference we arrived at in the end between the emotion and personal attachment to our research and that of a believer to his or her religion, is that we actively defend our work and are willing to change direction or start from scratch if proved wrong. I remember jokingly suggesting a "religious defense" for my work. Instead of answering questions at the end or my talk, I would just say things like "I am offended", "If you believed in this as much as me, you will understand" and "I can't answer these questions, but don't worry, it will be revealed to you over time if you are willing to believe what I believe".

Indeed. You touch on a very important point about religious people which is, IMO, especially true of Christians. Fundamentally, they believe themselves to be so spiritually evolved that no justification for their actions or statements is required. To them, the world and all the mysteries of the universe are essentially very simple to comprehend, and to deny their dogma is to deny truth itself. It's that simple. They boil all the myriad wonders of the cosmos down to the will of a being that they created. So, essentially, they advocate a reality in which the world, and everything that was and will be, is overseen by human thought, human will, human ego. I heard once that if all time until our existence were represented by the Empire State Building, humans' time on earth would account for no more than a postage stamp placed atop the highest spire. Judeo-Christianity tells us that this insignificant sum is infact the divine culmination of everything that has come before it, that it is not mere chance that humans occupy the Earth, that we are the ultimate revelation. I call that arrogance.

My take on the whole issue of the horror of religion is not the ideal and the concept behind religion but it is the abomination in the actions of people in running the religion.

For example, we have the catholics (led by their king the pope) denying on religious grounds protection from AIDS and the like due to their stance on contraceptives and people are horribly DEAD because of it. We have these same victims of their past imperialism praying to their Abrahamic god living in poverty and starving whilst the king of their religion sits in his treasure laden castle on the other side of the world. We also have people preaching in the name of the other variation of the Abrahamic god (read Mohammed) about the murder of innocents.

I wont even go anywhere near the denial of past crimes throughout history conveniently forgotten cause 'we are nice guys.'

What also shits beyond tears is the argument and accusation that if I dont believe 'their way' then I am condemned to their version of hell.

I have no problem with people following the folklore of 2000+ years ago as their ideology and belief system. Hell, I will say that I do follow in some ways the ways of Asatru based up Norse mythology. I have a HUGE problem when that same institution corrupts and harms society and humanity and denies it does.

His Unholiness has been in NYC, where I am currently living, today. I wore my Inquisition (Col) t-shirt as a personal tribute and a reminder of just one of Catholicism's gifts to humanity. Watching the nun groupies waiting for a glimpse of His Presence on TV whilst I was in the gym this morning was an extra giggle.

I would like to think that I am held accountable for everything that I do. When I find myself acting out of arrogance, I want someone to slap my senses back into place.

Of course I'm going to disagree with you on who created who. And I look at it as not boiling the cosmos down to anything, but rather the vastness, the mystery, the majesty of the cosmos helps to really reveal what God is capable of.

What you seem to be touching on is a form of reductionism: putting too much focus simply on God's glory and power and forgetting that He designed things they way that they are for us to marvel at, to wonder at.

I disagree on you, then. Give us an argument about God's creating the universe, and then the option may be considered.

That wasn't really a challenge, just more of a "wink wink" statement that also might help someone who doesn't know me yet know where I am coming from. I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can disprove it to me, unless you're willing to take my word on the things that I've seen [which, if you're like other atheists I know, you aren't (I'm not condemning you for it, either)]. It's something one must try to give God a chance on, that God might prove Himself to the individual. But I digress.

No. I can disprove the existence of the Christian God. Why does evil exist, if God is all-powerful and all-loving?

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
(Epicurus)

Perhaps, because, God's omnipotence is limited to being able to do all that is intrinsically possible?

While we atheists cannot disprove all gods, we can disprove the Abrahamic gods - Allah and Yahweh - without a shred of doubt that they are, indeed, quite nonexistent. And using simple logic, we can then say that all other gods are highly improbable, due to the fact that the universe is self-regulating, and that other accounts of creation and the gods are wrong.

God granted man the will to choose whether they wanted to serve God or themselves. Evil is the consequence of serving oneself before God and others. In the end, there will be retribution for evil...whether through absolution by the blood of Christ, or by destruction.

Why can't he delete the ones who don't serve God right now, so that the "good" ones don't have to suffer?

Also, you have an interesting definition of "evil." If I serve myself before God, that's evil, eh? So, since all atheists don't serve God at all, and do serve themselves, they are evil regardless of what they actually do?

Thing is, since god knows all, he knows the possible outcome of every situation, no matter which variable he tweaks. Therefore, in the simple creation of a being that is considered evil, he must have set all the variables in place for that being to be evil. Because he is all-powerful, he then has the ability to remove that evil by any means he wishes. And because he is benevolent, you would think he'd remove that evil in such a way that would promote non-violence for everyone, meaning he would not kill the being, but rather alter said being's nature. If none of the above has logically happened or has evidence in support of it, how can you possibly support this impossible notion of a god?

Everyone is evil. Salvation comes solely from following Christ and accepting His forgiveness.

Altering the being's nature would be in violation of the freedom God has given us. It's inherent in having the ability to choose God, that there must be an alternative. That's why He says that we are set apart from the animals; we have the facilities to understand our choice and make it, instead of just living doing what is good for us and maybe our relations. If we were all mindless robots that did nothing but good, then there would be no real purpose to our existence; everything would just blur into one long line of bliss, with no thoughts of God ever entering our heads. Instead, sometimes He withdraws His hand of blessing and lets us try to run things ourselves in order for us to realize that we need Him.

Logic must be as foreign to you as a television set to some African tribal with no previous encounter with technology.

Like Kruel, I find your definition of 'evil' interesting. I find it interesting in the context of innocent suffering. What about destruction, sickness, poverty that afflicts millions of the innocent? Will their plight be helped if they accept god and serve him? I hope you're not putting forward the notion that everything evil or 'bad' that happens is a direct effect of not having accepted god. Or is famine, genocide, etc the work of Satan?

So god isn't really benevolent is he? Or rather, he is not benevolent according to our piddling little human conception of 'benevolence'. Because he has a grand master plan, and to point to individual examples of non-benevolence would be to misunderstand the mind and purpose of god. Right?

That's okay, I can live without a benevolent god. But what about the illogic of omnipotence and omniscience? I mean, omniscience means he knows everything to infinity. Omnipotence means he can do everything and anything. But if he knows everything that is going to happen, it means he can never change his mind as to the future. He CAN'T change the future. And there are examples in the Bible of god changing his mind...Oh noes. He can't be omnipotent can he?

Also, how does omniscience fit in with your idea of free will? See, omniscience means knowing everything, right? But if god knows everything, he also knows what we are about to do and the consequence of our actions. Which means, we don't really have a choice, do we? it's been pre-ordained.



Then he is not omnipotent, is he? "Limitation" is not in god's vocabulary. God can and does the impossible, that is one definition of god, as is the definition of miracles.

If your answers to the above is that you can't judge god by human standards, that you're imparting meaning on the divine using your flawed, tiny and incomplete human knowledge, well, then the same can be said about you. Who are we to presume to know the mind of god, including you christians and religious folk?

Please explain the illogicality of my statement, then.

I've already covered this.
Maybe, maybe not. They will, however, partake in a resurrection, after which there is no suffering.
I'm saying that evil occurs when someone puts himself before God or other people.
He probably has a hand in some of it, but it is definitely the choice of those who commit it.

Define "benevolence." In my understanding of things, a lot of our lives would be much shittier if it wasn't for God's hand in them.

I don't necessarily believe that God knows everything that's ever going to happen. I believe that He knows everything He will do, but our choices are our choices, and there's nothing we can choose that He can't work into His plan.

I'm not a Christian by any means - just playing devil's advocate here, but this is not a good argument against, say, Protestant Christianity, where limitations are placed upon God's omnipotence - for example, God cannot bestow upon a creature free will, and yet withhold free will from it, as that is nonsense. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that gibberish does not attain meaning simply because "God can..." or "God is..." is prefixed onto a sentence.

Firstly, true "free-will" doesn't exist. Everything has causality. On the surface, decisions may appear to be free-will, and to some extent they are, but if one were to possess knowledge of all variables of a situation, one would invariably know that situation's outcome down to the last minor detail. Secondly, you believe in Yahweh/the Abrahamic tradition of god. A god that, shackled by logic, is not only improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE. Other gods? Well, many other forms of the gods retain possibility, but not plausibility. The fact that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one has neither means that most people who believe in it are either intellectually lobotomize or they never bother to actually think of the god presented to them according to their canon. Thirdly, you believe there to be evidence of some divine intervention. There is none. None. Miracles are merely highly IMPROBABLE events, meaning they're not truly impossible through natural means, whose necessary causes happened to line up. Fourthly, you have a juvenile concept of "good" and "evil", and the fact that you simply use those words reinforces that. I could go on and on for days.

I really hope you're a troll who's just acting like a theist to instigate people on a metal forums. Say, isn't a forum like this the last place you would think to find a die-hard theist?

What, by saying "Everyone is evil. Salvation comes solely from following Christ and accepting His forgiveness"? Well, forgive me if I happen to think that babies aren't evil...


Um yeah, resurrection. That's what you've been told...okay.


That doesn't make sense in the innocent victim context I've outlined above.


And those who suffer under it? "Victim" is the keyword here, as is "innocent".



I'm using the religious definition of benevolence, where god is wise, fair, good, loving etc. In my understanding of things, things ARE shitty now, with or without god. Also, do you have any evidence of (a) god's hand in things and (b) a time where it was much worse without god's hand in things?



That's not really omnipotence is it? What he does is determined by OUR choices? Wow...

Anyway, you've been quite civil and I respect that. I've heard these arguments before from people who've tried to convert me, but anyway, your beliefs are your beliefs. And mine are mine

Well free will is a separate point. Again, I'm arguing that free will as outlined by christians to give the false impression of choice in this matter (to accommodate their weird ideas of 'evil') is impossible according to their definitions of both free will and the omniscience of god.

With regard to impossibility, I take your point. To a certain extent, all we're doing here is playing around with words. But the fact remains is that the christians and the religious are using the same words to tell us about highly improbable things that happened x000 years ago, and claiming them to be truth. So we're just playing the game on their own turf.

That's not necessarily true.

I haven't seen this proven yet, so this statement means nothing to me.

I also disagree here, but, once again, I know that you guys don't accept anecdotal evidence.

And you fail to amply explain your insults. What exactly would a "mature" concept of good and evil be?
Then what's stopping you? I bet you're really out of ways to put me down so that I'll stop talking about Christianity and concede the victory to you, but you want it to look like you're really on top.

Not really. There is no commandment saying "Thou shalt not listen to metal."

I mentioned that in the end, retribution is made for those who inflict suffering upon others, in one way or another.

And I believe in it wholeheartedly.
I'm confused, but ok.
Again, not sure what you're getting at here.
I have various bits of what you would probably call "anecdotal evidence."
Not determined, but it can be influenced. If we have choice, then there must be a reaction, no?

Well, I thank you for your respect, and I wish to extend the same to you.

Okay, I'm losing track here. I'll just bring up a new argument.

Belief in God is important, right? It would be nice if everyone believed in God, right? And God can certainly make people believe in him, without violating "free will." As you said, he can "influence" people to believe in him. Then, why do atheists exist? Wouldn't the all-loving God bestow the knowledge of his existence to the poor atheists by showing some sort of evidence to them?

Some people don't see it as evidence. Romans talks about the evidence of God's existence being in creation and in the sense of "right and wrong" we have in ourselves. However, for me, what did it was simple experimentation: I basically prayed to various deities (I'll admit I honestly did not expect any kind of response whatsoever) but I had to come to the conclusion that my prayers to Yahweh were being answered. It's very hard to explain (partly because it was so long ago).

I have a workout at 7 am, so I'm going to bed now, and won't be able to respond to any further posts until tomorrow night. Good night, all.

The sense of "right or wrong" comes from evolution and society, not God. And your anecdotal "evidence" means nothing; it's a delusion, if you really think you felt God or whatever.