The God idea. Argue with this.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:35 pm

that's a bit fucked up (althouh the UK is the opposite extreme

). i can't watch that vid though cos i don't have a youtube account

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:19 pm

RGC wrote:I don't like the idea that it automatically implies mental disorder or dysfunction. A psychological quirk (of nature?) only needs professionally addressing if it causes harm to the individual or those around him/her. This obviously doesn't represent the condition of the majority of religious folk. That said, I would agree that many have an overpowering need to believe in something out there, taking ultimate responsibility for us all. "Why?" is a much deeper issue, and it has nothing to do with stupidity, IMO.

But it does cause harm to others !
It has been doing so for 2000 years and still is.
On an individual level it isn't so harsh but that doesn't count here.
It's the complete picture you have to take into account.
And then it's terrifying !
Millions of monotheists walking in the same direction, walking over or dragging with them, those that try to walk another way.

Atheists have always had a bad name thanks to their crusaders, who can indeed be as irritating as "good news" preachers. But again, typically they are no bother to anyone, and should be left alone in their lack-of-belief rather than universally branded 'raving heretics' or whatever. You won't find me proselytising towards atheism, or banging on about idiocy and feeble-mindedness, even if I do find Pat Condel's rantings amusing.

Atheist crusaders ?!?
Who are they ?!?

I'm presenting my personal views here. If people can deal better with that by stamping me an atheist, I don't care. But if people think they can make assumptions about me because of that stamp they are just wrong and as stupid as monotheists.

You know, in a room with 10 people of which nine are missing an arm and the tenth still has all his limbs it's considered 'normal' to only have 3 limbs.
But still this isn't the way it should be.

D wrote:politicians say crazy racist stupid stuff.

I don't see nothing racist about it ! It's the truth.

1 politician makes a movie against the Koran/moslimism.
Apparantly I was the only one who found it odd that politicians start to create movies now.
Anyway, people take these politicians to court. Politicians get equited because the court says: "no, it's not racist and not insulting!"

You see. It's not racist

That's it in a nutshell.
You should youtube this movie he made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0
It's called FITNA. the creator is a crazy racist politician by the name of Geert Wilders. He even bleached his hair white!

Great movie by the way.
The only shame is he is only against one group of monotheists.

Meanwhile our economy is stagnating because we haven't build a road for 30 years and every highway has traffic jams, costing the economy billions.

This has nothing to do with the islam problem but all with countries seeing themselves as businesses instead of a representation of the people.
Capitalism in all its glory !

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:34 pm

D wrote:These guys over in the Netherlands are crazy!
I'm ashamed of being Dutch and I feel bad for all minorities suffering.

i can see why

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:49 pm

Michaelm wrote:
RGC wrote:I don't like the idea that it automatically implies mental disorder or dysfunction. A psychological quirk (of nature?) only needs professionally addressing if it causes harm to the individual or those around him/her. This obviously doesn't represent the condition of the majority of religious folk. That said, I would agree that many have an overpowering need to believe in something out there, taking ultimate responsibility for us all. "Why?" is a much deeper issue, and it has nothing to do with stupidity, IMO.
But it does cause harm to others !
It has been doing so for 2000 years and still is.
On an individual level it isn't so harsh but that doesn't count here.

The billions of harmless believers don't count? Thanks for the alarmist history lesson, but unlike you I'm not ready to tar every believer with the same extremist brush. I think when you say it "does" cause harm you actually mean it "can". Well, hate to shock you, but quite a few types of beliefs can lead to harm. All it takes is the right kind of warped mind to come along and *bingo* you have another fundy with a chip on his shoulder. Attacking the root of the belief, i.e. informing him there's no God, will not cure this lunatic. Neither will behaving like one yourself, so why not relax and think about that "why" issue for a moment.

Michaelm wrote:
RGC wrote:Atheists have always had a bad name thanks to their crusaders, who can indeed be as irritating as "good news" preachers. But again, typically they are no bother to anyone, and should be left alone in their lack-of-belief rather than universally branded 'raving heretics' or whatever. You won't find me proselytising towards atheism, or banging on about idiocy and feeble-mindedness, even if I do find Pat Condel's rantings amusing.
Atheist crusaders ?!?
Who are they ?!?

Coming to a mirror near you!

Michaelm wrote: I'm presenting my personal views here. If people can deal better with that by stamping me an atheist, I don't care. But if people think they can make assumptions about me because of that stamp they are just wrong and as stupid as monotheists.

Well I'm quite happy for you to think I'm stupid. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth trying to change other people's beliefs. You see the correlation with JWs yet?

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:05 pm

RGC wrote:The billions of harmless believers don't count?

Like I said, you can't bring it down to an individual level when the religion itself uses the masses for it's own agenda.

There probably are 'terrorists' who wouldn't do harm to others but because they have joined the same party people just don't buy that. Those people must be mean and bloodthirsty too !
In fact a terrorist group only needs one person to do the harm and can have thousands of peace loving members and still the terrorist group is seen as an evil group in it's whole.
The same goes for monotheists.
They are keeping the system intact and therefore they are as bad as the system.

Thanks for the alarmist history lesson, but unlike you I'm not ready to tar every believer with the same extremist brush. I think when you say it "does" cause harm you actually mean it "can". Well, hate to shock you, but quite a few types of beliefs can lead to harm. All it takes is the right kind of warped mind to come along and *bingo* you have another fundy with a chip on his shoulder.

I agree but it would be nice if the world can go on with atleast one of those reasons less. And yeah, monotheism has proven itself for the last 2000 years to be a main reason !

Attacking the root of the belief, i.e. informing him there's no God, will not cure this lunatic.

Hey wait, you just said other forms of belief but still you keep to monotheism

Anyway, monotheism has proven to be frequently 'misused' for bad things.
And if you spoke out against monotheism 100 years ago you'd be spit out of your community immediately.

Neither will behaving like one yourself, so why not relax and think about that "why" issue for a moment.

Ok, this is so easy.
Most people can't cope with death.
So they invented a nice story to give meaning to death.
There's your why

RGC wrote:Coming to a mirror near you!

Wow, cool !!
I never thought I'd be labeled a crusader in my life

Thanks for labeling me like that for only giving my opinion !!
Should I tell you a secret and be labeled a secret agent ?

Well I'm quite happy for you to think I'm stupid. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth trying to change other people's beliefs. You see the correlation with JWs yet?

I called you stupid for making assumptions about me.

If we could get rid of all the churches, mosquees, priests and all the public manifestations of monotheism then people may believe in one god from me. I couldn't care less actually.
But unfortunately those damned monotheists press their imagery in my face everyday and I'm getting quite sick of that so I say what I have to say. And if people get upset by that then that's their problem.
Mind you, my government is full of monotheists pricks so I have every right to speak out against it.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:59 pm

Michaelm wrote:those damned monotheists press their imagery in my face everyday and I'm getting quite sick of that

my heart bleeds

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:42 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:Prove that I should care if God exists?

thread over

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:51 pm

Michaelm wrote: In fact a terrorist group only needs one person to do the harm and can have thousands of peace loving members and still the terrorist group is seen as an evil group in it's whole. The same goes for monotheists.
They are keeping the system intact and therefore they are as bad as the system.

We probably agree more than we disagree, and I can see you're taking this in good humour, which is what I'm all about. BUT, surely you must see that your argument could apply equally to the positive teachings of certain monotheistic religions, say, charity? In context: "Only a minority of christians are truly charitible by deed, but since the rest help preserve the system behind that behaviour, they must be equally as good!" You've selected a minority of ruthless nutjobs and used them to represent all monotheism, but on what basis? I suspect the same basis that prevents "agnostics" from admitting they actually don't believe in God, namely, atheists are all on a rabid crusade to kill religion aren't they? Why would an apprehensive agnostic possibly want to join a group like that? Well, actually we don't all want to kill religion. The minority who shout about it from the rooftops may do, and they are clearly disturbed people. But, some (possibly most) of us would rather focus on bringing psychiatric care and/or imprisonment to the relatively few extremists who abuse their religious upbringing in order to take innocent lives.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:46 pm

RGC wrote:BUT, surely you must see that your argument could apply equally to the positive teachings of certain monotheistic religions, say, charity?

Monotheism surely doesn't have a monopoly on charity.
It probably existed long before monotheistic religions evolved.

In context: "Only a minority of christians are truly charitible by deed, but since the rest help preserve the system behind that behaviour, they must be equally as good!"

See above. If you take all the exclusive positive things, which aren't many indeed, and then all the exclusive negative things and do the math I end up with a negative number.

You've selected a minority of ruthless nutjobs and used them to represent all monotheism, but on what basis? I suspect the same basis that prevents "agnostics" from admitting they actually don't believe in God, namely, atheists are all on a rabid crusade to kill religion aren't they?

I can't speak for the others but I only want to kill (or extremely cripple) monotheism and let the other religions be.
I just can't see anything good coming out of the belief in one almighty creature and the afterlife in paradise. A lot of bad but not anything good.
All the rest of the 'values' monotheism is said to have are not exclusive to monotheism. Even atheists share a lot of those values.

Why would an apprehensive agnostic possibly want to join a group like that? Well, actually we don't all want to kill religion. The minority who shout about it from the rooftops may do, and they are clearly disturbed people.

Well, this is the internet and I'm not shouting of any rooftops IRL.
I'll happily state my opinion in a discussion IRL too and I have.
I don't explicitly want to attack anyone personally but that's hard to do in a topic like this I've noticed. Especially on the internet.

But, some (possibly most) of us would rather focus on bringing psychiatric care and/or imprisonment to the relatively few extremists who abuse their religious upbringing in order to take innocent lives.

But I think the motive is worse then the sacrifice.
In other words, you need to address a problem at its cause and not the consequence.
In the long run this brings the best result.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:07 pm

regarding the point about charity, islam would be a better example, as muslims are taught to give 10% of their free cash to local charitable causes

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:43 pm

What about Christian and Jewish tithing? Orthodox Jews are also supposed to forgive debts (a point of legal debate in Israel recently as it's alleged that some debtors knowingly abuse this practice, wonder why).

lol, religion penis discussions. "Our charity is bigger than urs!11"

Post by **undamned** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:24 am

jp wrote:How long before atheists start going from door to door handing out tracts?

"Did you know that nobody has a plan for your life?"

Awesome. Where's Lordstar when I need a T-Shirt of this?! Artists? Anybody?
-ud

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:40 am

undamned wrote: Awesome. Where's Lordstar when I need a T-Shirt of this?! Artists? Anybody?
-ud

subtext: 'it's time to make it up yourself! Atheism: think outside of the Hive!'.

Fighterstein would approve, of course.

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:43 am

Doctor X and Michael M. are proud members of the Rational Response Squad.

xorthen · Post by **xorthen** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:17 am

JoshF wrote:Doctor X and Michael M. are proud members of the Rational Response Squad.

I call it subjective perception.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:29 am

xorthen wrote:I call it subjective perception.

Monotheism is subjective. Subjective to the existence of an almighty creature.
Atheism is not. What should it be subjective of ? nothing ?
If it's subjective to nothing it ain't subjective.

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:57 pm

Michaelm wrote:
RGC wrote:BUT, surely you must see that your argument could apply equally to the positive teachings of certain monotheistic religions, say, charity?
Monotheism surely doesn't have a monopoly on charity.
It probably existed long before monotheistic religions evolved

..which is the entire reason I used charity in my example. Monotheism doesn't hold the monopoly on any kind of human social behaviour, whether perceived as good or bad. People can be charitible, they can love thy neighbour, or they can mercilessly bludgeon thy neighbour's child. Any behaviour can be justified by a twisted set of beliefs, and it needn't be anything to do with a belief in the divine. I'm just amused by your certainty that removing the intentional object of belief from the mind of every monotheist would magically halt their negative behaviour towards others (of course all benevolent individuals would remain altruistic automatons once denied their religion, right?).

I asked this:

You've selected a minority of ruthless nutjobs and used them to represent all monotheism, but on what basis?

And you answered:

If you take all the exclusive positive things, which aren't many indeed, and then all the exclusive negative things and do the math I end up with a negative number.

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of human behaviour is exclusive to monotheism, positive or negative. Could you show your workings for this math please? And don't forget to include all cases of missionary work in developing countries.

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:11 pm

doctorx0079 wrote:@ SUPER LAYDOCK!!

There are better ways to argue against religion!

Please watch this video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jMD3bFJdI

In fact, watch the whole series, it's not that long.

In fact, everybody watch it.

And if you think they're wrong or they suck, I'll tell you right now that I don't care.

One more thing. James Randi has a good point. He says that people believe in things like life after death, because they need to. They have a psychological need they have to fill. Thus they need professional help. When someone has that kind of need, they have to decide to seek help on their own. No amount of arguing for atheism will ever convince them.

Just watched the first 2 I got to, but I agree this is worth watching.
Just want to know more about the backgroung of this ARI institute before saying something more about it.
I'll get into that later.

Thanks for the link.

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:15 pm

greg wrote:I just skipped this entire thread.

Laydock, I'm sure you find it annoying when Christians try to pick arguments with you about not believing in God and try to convert you to their way of thinking. Does it take more than a second or two of thought to understand that it is just as annoying when it is coming from the opposite direction?

Atheist aren't forcing anything on theists aside from the notion that believing in a "personal" and "omnipotent" is a silly idea.
Theists are not only trying to force their believe on us (non believers), they also try to influence our lifes by forcing their mrals and values upon us.
I just want to decide for myself.

but he's turning towards technology to spread his "gospel" of a void instead of a gospel of eternal love, condemnation, and all that.

What does make eternal love an exclusive for religious people?
Or condemnation for that matter?

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:28 pm

Super Laydock wrote:Theists are not only trying to force their believe on us (non believers), they also try to influence our lifes by forcing their mrals and values upon us.
I just want to decide for myself.

We're all trying to win the war of ideology, so we should all admit that.

Us atheists certainly have a wide range of opinions on morality, but I think that a lot of us have a pretty firm conviction that you can still have (should have) morals and we want other people to see that sometimes religion asks us to believe silly things with regards to them (possibly).

Relgion's defense has always been "without religion there is no firm grounding for morality," but religion isn't based on reality, so there.

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:39 pm

greg wrote:I just skipped this entire thread.

Michaelm, this is why you are wasting your breath tackling the God belief head on.

Ed Oscuro wrote: Relgion's defense has always been "without religion there is no firm grounding for morality," but religion isn't based on reality, so there.

Besides which, what the hell is this 'firm grounding' they talk about?

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:47 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:
Super Laydock wrote:Theists are not only trying to force their believe on us (non believers), they also try to influence our lifes by forcing their mrals and values upon us.
I just want to decide for myself.
We're all trying to win the war of ideology, so we should all admit that.

If you call me tackling "unfounded" (hey I took notice there

) beliefs an ideology than I suppose you're right in your assumption.
I wouldn't call my thinking ideology though.... Reactionary: yes.
If someone had't made up the God idea, I wouldn't even be thinking about this stuff, let alone posting about it.

Us atheists certainly have a wide range of opinions on morality, but I think that a lot of us have a pretty firm conviction that you can still have (should have) morals and we want other people to see that sometimes religion asks us to believe silly things with regards to them (possibly).

Relgion's defense has always been "without religion there is no firm grounding for morality," but religion isn't based on reality, so there.

I think I can agree on this (if I "get" your point, which I think I do)

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:49 pm

RGC wrote:Besides which, what the hell is this 'firm grounding' they talk
about?

I´d like to know this as well. I can almost predict the answer though:

Bible, Thora, Quran...

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:18 pm

RGC wrote:I'm just amused by your certainty that removing the intentional object of belief from the mind of every monotheist will magically halt their negative behaviour towards others (of course all benevolent individuals would remain altruistic automatons once denied their religion, right?).

You're missing the point !
If I raise you teaching you blacks are inferior people you will think that it's true.
The same goes for monotheism, only they feel superior against anyone that isn't following their faith.
While raising white kids teaching them blacks are inferior people has been quite normal in the states for a long time it now becomes less and less.
I don't think you will deny that the change of mindset in that area did bring good things. Even though it still has to change some more.
Also I've never talked about magic and I know these things take time, just like the example I gave you just yet.

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of human behaviour is exclusive to monotheism, positive or negative. Could you show your workings for this math please? And don't forget to include all cases of missionary work in developing countries.

Ok, here goes:
Positive - Nothing.
Negative - Belief in a superpower and by obeying that guaranteeing a place in the eternal afterlife in paradise with that superpower.
Negative - Those that don't obey will burn forever in hell.
That brings me -2.
The first one will make monotheists try to make the world like they think that superpower wants it, which also means the whole world should follow their faith.
The second one will make monotheists think that by killing those that wont follow their faith they'll be rid of them forever as they'll be in paradise while their victims will be burning in hell.
Now I know that the monotheistic religions teach that murder is wrong but unfortunately they don't really act to it.

If you would believe in reincarnation for example.
Then you'll believe that by killing someone you will just give that someone a new start. Hence you wont be rid of that person forever. It's a tiny difference that means a lot.

About the missionary work in developing countries I have a simple reply.
AIDS !
That ain't positive to me.
Also, the missionary work is only done to gain souls so it ain't charity to begin with.

RGC wrote:
greg wrote:I just skipped this entire thread.
Michaelm, this is why you are wasting your breath tackling the God belief head on.

Huh, why ? He probably dies too soon anyway for putting his trust in something non-existent instead of real medicine.
Just like the children of those people living in the so called "bible belt" of the Netherlands who refuse to vaccinate their kids cause they believe god wants it that way.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:36 pm

Super Laydock wrote:
RGC wrote:Besides which, what the hell is this 'firm grounding' they talk
about?
I´d like to know this as well. I can almost predict the answer though:

Bible, Thora, Quran...

Essentially, but the argument is usually formulated along the lines of "God laid down rules and we must follow them. You can't argue with them because they are set in stone."

Michaelm wrote:[Analyzing monotheism]
Positive - Nothing.
Negative - Belief in a superpower and by obeying that guaranteeing a place in the eternal afterlife in paradise with that superpower.
Negative - Those that don't obey will burn forever in hell.
That brings me -2.

Look up Pascal's Wager. I'm not convinced by it, but it brings up a different score than your reading.

Not all monotheistic religions profess a belief in hell (possibly heaven as well?), so that is also a strike against your argument in some cases, like Judaism.

On Pascal's Wager, the things that don't convince me are:

- The benefit (+) side of living a religious life is predicated on God not allowing people second chances when they see what is real. The old scene from Christian religion that we've all heard about from Jack Chick is of people being turned away from Heaven because they were foolish and demanded proof.

That is a petty asshole of a God and I have no use for him. If he wants to send me to Hell for eternity because I wanted to be rational, then he shall likewise have an eternity to consider the consequences of his faulted plan.

Or, more likely, the religion squad types like Jack Chick are just vindictive morons.

- The benefit (+) side of religion and a negative for atheism is that you will not life a life content in the knowledge (???) that God exists. If God isn't real, Pascal argues, then you needn't feel bad about living a contented life. Pascal is being dense here; if you don't believe in something, knowing that if you were drugged on belief would make you happy does not mean you will be able to achieve that happiness.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:45 pm

Michaelm wrote:
RGC wrote:I'm just amused by your certainty that removing the intentional object of belief from the mind of every monotheist will magically halt their negative behaviour towards others (of course all benevolent individuals would remain altruistic automatons once denied their religion, right?).
You're missing the point !
If I raise you teaching you blacks are inferior people you will think that it's true.
The same goes for monotheism, only they feel superior against anyone that isn't following their faith.
While raising white kids teaching them blacks are inferior people has been quite normal in the states for a long time it now becomes less and less.
I don't think you will deny that the change of mindset in that area did bring good things. Even though it still has to change some more.
Also I've never talked about magic and I know these things take time, just like the example I gave you just yet.

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of human behaviour is exclusive to monotheism, positive or negative. Could you show your workings for this math please? And don't forget to include all cases of missionary work in developing countries.
Ok, here goes:
Positive - Nothing.
Negative - Belief in a superpower and by obeying that guaranteeing a place in the eternal afterlife in paradise with that superpower.
Negative - Those that don't obey will burn forever in hell.
That brings me -2.
The first one will make monotheists try to make the world like they think that superpower wants it, which also means the whole world should follow their faith.The second one will make monotheists think that by killing those that wont follow their faith they'll be rid of them forever as they'll be in paradise while their victims will be burning in hell.
Now I know that the monotheistic religions teach that murder is wrong but unfortunately they don't really act to it.

If you would believe in reincarnation for example.
Then you'll believe that by killing someone you will just give that someone a new start. Hence you wont be rid of that person forever. It's a tiny difference that means a lot.

About the missionary work in developing countries I have a simple reply.
AIDS !
That ain't positive to me.
Also, the missionary work is only done to gain souls so it ain't charity to begin with.

RGC wrote:
greg wrote:I just skipped this entire thread.
Michaelm, this is why you are wasting your breath tackling the God belief head on.
Huh, why ? He probably dies too soon anyway for putting his trust in something non-existent instead of real medicine.
Just like the children of those people living in the so called "bible belt" of the Netherlands who refuse to vaccinate their kids cause they believe god wants it that way.

what the fuck are you talking about?

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:15 pm

Super Laydock wrote:
doctorx0079 wrote:@ SUPER LAYDOCK!!

There are better ways to argue against religion!

Please watch this video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jMD3bFJdI

In fact, watch the whole series, it's not that long.

In fact, everybody watch it.

And if you think they're wrong or they suck, I'll tell you right now that I don't care.

One more thing. James Randi has a good point. He says that people believe in things like life after death, because they need to. They have a psychological need they have to fill. Thus they need professional help. When someone has that kind of need, they have to decide to seek help on their own. No amount of arguing for atheism will ever convince them.
Just watched the first 2 I got to, but I agree this is worth watching.
Just want to know more about the backgroung of this ARI institute before saying something more about it.
I'll get into that later.

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome!

JoshF wrote:Doctor X and Michael M. are proud members of the Rational Response Squad.

Not sure what you mean by this. Good? Bad? Sarcasm? Did you mean that we are like vigilantes who jump in and try to force people to be rational? But please don't assume he and I are on the same side just because we're both atheists. I'm an atheist and he seems to be an atheist but we disagree about almost everything else. Although I would like to assume that he likes shmups.

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:22 pm

In my mind Pacal's wager is entirely undermined by the false notion that belief follows action, and that individuals can choose what to believe, irrespective of the evidence conveyed by reason and the senses. I don't think you can choose to believe in God (a matter which should at all times remain distinct from fraudulently devoting one's life to the church - the "living as if God exists" part of the wager). Pascal seems to think talking-the-talk implies walking-the-walk. He had his head right up his arse.

If there were a God, and I decided to act as though I believed in Him starting tomorrow, I'm sure in his infinite wisdom He'd see right through my little ploy. I'd be straight on that toasting fork!

Sorry, but I had to laugh at this line:

Michaelm wrote:The same goes for monotheism, only they feel superior against anyone that isn't following their faith.

They? As in all!? If you honestly believe that every human on this planet holding the faintest conviction towards an overarching diety feels superior as a result of it, all I can say is that there's more chance you'll convert the archbishop of Canterbury to atheism than of me getting through to you. When a young woman whose child tragically develops terminal cancer finds herself engaging in a moment of solitary prayer, does she feel superior to people like Michaelm and his pathetic unbelief? Is she a moron? Methinks you overgeneralise just a little.

Your bizarre calculation:

[Analyzing monotheism]
Positive - Nothing.
Negative - Belief in a superpower and by obeying that guaranteeing a place in the eternal afterlife in paradise with that superpower.
Negative - Those that don't obey will burn forever in hell.
That brings me -2.

Perhaps if Rando converted this into notation it might make more sense, but I thought we were talking about human social action carried out in the name of religion. Afterall, we're weighing up all the good and bad effects of monotheism right? It really doesn't matter whether you think a missionary is behaving disingenuously in her work, the point is to assess what good comes out of her actions. You answer 'none' which of course is horseshite. The correct answer is (hopefully) 'a lot of good'. Now, how much bad comes out of religiously motivated acts of terror? Answer: 'a lot of bad'. You've decided that the bad outweighs the good, and I'm asking how you begin to quantify this? You were obviously successful in quantifying it, since you announced that more bad comes out of monotheism than good (the basis of your argument for its abolition).

Also, why should removing the 'God belief' passify Bin Laden, yet not make a sadistic tyrant of Mother Teresa (other than the fact she's dead)?

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:25 pm

One problem I have with Pascal's wager is, it assumes that you know what God would want if there is a God, and the only safe bet is to do it. But how do you know what God would want you to do? First of all he's supposed to be an unknowable being. And then there are various books and writings which different people say are the only true word of God. Maybe he wants you to not do anything and just sit there, or kill people in His name, or be Hitler, or you're here to take care of the ants. How can you tell??

EDIT: RGC's problem with it seems to be that it doesn't lead you to genuine faith or belief, and I agree. I think Pascal is trying to smuggle in faith but it doesn't really take you all the way. Perhaps he is just trying to get you used to doing what he wants and sucked into that whole mindset and tradition, and after a while you really will have the faith.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:13 pm

RGC wrote:They? As in all!?

Don't be ridiculous !
You know damned well how I mean this.
Those that 'misuse' it but are strengthened by the masses.

When a young woman whose child tragically develops terminal cancer finds herself engaging in a moment of solitary prayer, does she feel superior to people like Michaelm and his pathetic unbelief? Is she a moron? Methinks you overgeneralise just a little.

You can't have a discussion about a topic like monotheism without generalizing so please stop whining about that.
The example you gave shows a woman in desperation who would suck your dick if she believed it would save her kid !

Perhaps if Rando converted this into notation it might make more sense, but I thought we were talking about human social action carried out in the name of religion.

Why did you left out the explanation I gave with them that shows the social action coming directly from it ?

Afterall, we're weighing up all the good and bad effects of monotheism right? It really doesn't matter whether you think a missionary is behaving disingenuously in her work, the point is to assess what good comes out of her actions.

I've said it once before. Motives matter more !
If good comes out of it it's because she wins souls for her religion through it. It's not the other way around.

You answer 'none' which of course is horseshite. The correct answer is (hopefully) 'a lot of good'.

Then what 'good' exactly is exclusive to monotheism ?!?
I was considering putting 'giving meaning to death' as a positive thing but then again that too isn't exclusive to monotheism so I dropped it.
I honestly can't think of anything exclusive to monotheism that is good about it. Please tell me what exactly.

Also, why should removing the 'God belief' passify Bin Laden, yet not make a sadistic tyrant of Mother Teresa (other than the fact she's dead)?

What you're on about here ?
Ofcourse it will not passify Bin Laden. Maybe his grandchildren.
And perhaps Mother Teresa has been reincarnated as a serial killer, who knows.