[quote name='AwesomeWalrus']Nearly the same reason I don't believe in God. Apperantly God is some ruler who makes good people walk the Earth to die. How could any ruler kill his own people? Doesn't really make sense to me, and doesn't really (In my eyes) make him any better than a senseless dictator. That, and the whole "logic" thing.
~AwesomeWalrus[/QUOTE]
As someone has already pointed out, that is almost completely irrelevant. God's (God defined as some supernatural, self-aware being that created the universe, its laws, and everything in it while observing and judging us now) existance is not dependent on the existance of good or evil at all. God's existance should be predicated on evidence, logic, science, probabiliy, etc. I suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for more on this, as he can articulate this position a lot more effectively than I could ever hope to.
[quote name='elprincipe']This line of reasoning makes me venture maybe you are ignorant of most religions. Given that all the major religions hold beliefs in another, different life after death, surely you are putting too much emphasis on death (or so they would tell you). This among other things like your understanding is surely a lot more limited than His, He does things for a purpose, and (as already pointed out) since God is by definition good (at least in all mainstream religions), comparing His acts to a dictator is rather bizarre.[/QUOTE]
How is the Yahweh of the Old Testament good? How could a good that had Isaac almost sacrifice his son to prove his faith be good? Or one that would almost allow Lot's daughters to be gang-raped by the town of Sodom (there's an incident in another part that almost mirrors this incident perfectly, except the sodomy actually happens, and someone dies in the process) to protect two angels? Obviously, I could go on, but I think we're all at least familiar with the sort of things either directly or indirectly encouraged by Yahweh in the Old Testament.
And then there's Allah. I don't even think I need to say anything about that guy, what with the ordering of his followers to destroy infidels and rewarding them with paradise for sacrificing themselves to do so.
I won't bother with White-Wolf, as he seems to be a 50/50 agnostic, and those people make me a sad panda. Plus, his post is really long. I will say, though, that he seems to be giving too much assumptive respect to religion in forming the questions the way he does. So asking "Does god want X, Y, or Z because the bible says...?" is the inappropriate question. What god says in the bible doesn't matter in the least if the claims made are completely without reason, evidence, or are logicially incoherent with each other.
I think I may go through the older posts in this thread and respond in some way:
[quote name='Brak']I love the way you tip-toe around belittling the beliefs of others.
"No, I don't."
Yes, you do.[/quote]
Your implied assertion is that everyone's belief is worthy of respect and people shouldn't belittle them. Bullshit. There is absolutely nothing special about religion that should make its criticism any less reasonable than the criticism of any other belief about the world. What makes "God exists and he loves me." any different than "2+2=5"? Not a damn thing.
[quote name='Brak']Because it's not your place to do so.
I'm sure you could get a better mean-streak infested rush from pushing children down in the mud, mounting them bully-style, slugging them in the face a few times and declaring that Santa Claus isn't real, and that their parents don't go anywhere when they die.
There's a charming analogy for you -- one that isn't loaded, like yours.
Yes, religion teaches wrong -- it's rotted with man-made laws, rules and guidelines... That I can see having a vendetta against (although having vendetta's is pretty weak in itself, o' free-thinker). But razzing the shit out of people who believe in something grander than reality? Come on. Why use that as a catalyst? Get a life, man.[/quote]
Again you're passively awarding religion some sort of special status that makes its believers free of criticism. eldad already confronted this point earlier in greater detail, so I won't bother here.
[quote name='chosen1s']Actually, while atrocities have always occured in the name of religion, the vast majority of good in this world has come from people who brought about that good while pursuing their belief that they are fulfilling God's "good purposes" for their lives. [/quote]
Yeah, and? Are you implying that those people wouldn't have done good if it wasn't for religion? If you are, then we are in more trouble than first thought, and countries like Germany, the Netherlands, etc. are on the verge of a massive war, as they're relatively nonreligious.
[quote name='chosen1s']Even the now-deified (in our culture) scientists who stood up to the nasty ole' Church and told us all that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun and that it's round and not flat and that gravity keeps us from flying away, etc. would have (and did in the writings they left behind that are not studied in school) described themselves as deeply devoted to God.
If you think social, scientific (yes, I said scientific), and ethical advancement throughout human history has been brought about by an ongoing congregation of athiests and agnostics you are terribly misinformed.[/quote]
Most of those people lived a time when proclaiming a disbelief in the Christian god got you tortured, thrown in jail, or just plain killed.
You're also implying a relation between progress and religion, which is so completely baseless as to almost warrant contempt. Massive ethical, social, and scienctific advances have only become completely integrated when religion (particualrly Christianity, as most change throughout history was bred in the west) abandons its dogma in order to retain relevance. For example, people for centuries believed illnesses had supernatural causes (demons, god's wrath, etc.), but we know now that germs, viruses, etc. actually cause illness. Of course, any person who says otherwise today is considered either insane or a jackass.
[quote name='chosen1s']The most notable attempt to create a paradise based on athiesm/agnosticism was led by Karl Marx and the nations who based their institution of Communist rule on his teaching. It resulted in widespread misery and poverty while much of the "religeous" Western world flourished.[/quote]
Because the dogmatic form of Communism forced upon the Russia people by the Bolsheviks is completely rooted in reason and isn't like religion in any way, right? Oh wait, it's the exact same thing.
[quote name='chosen1s']Is it more probably that random events created the perfect location for life, then created life, or is it more probably that there is a God who created us?[/quote]
What a completely ridiculous satement. First off, you're assuming the location is perfect and that life is somehow special. Next, you're assuming that the events that lead to us were random. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of evolution and natural selection knows that the process is anything but random.
You also don't account for that fact that evolution and the other processes that lead to life on earth took billions of year to occur, and that even if they were improbable events, they had plenty of time to do so. You also say that the probability of a creator is much greater than the probability of the aforementioned processes leading to life on earth, which isn't even worth responding too, as any idiot would look at that argument and say "Who created the creator?" and that the probability of a being so complex that it could create the apparent complexity of the universe without being designed itself is completely improbable.
[quote name='Atherius']No, the potential and nature of mankind, historically, is to be unbending and unjust. But, you seem to miss the point. Why does my belief in the existance of something matter anything to you, or anyone else? I agree if God came and told people that they shouldn't use condoms, you have a right to take complaint. However, God didn't do that, men did.
So yes, with all things said I still believe. But why am I asked to postulate that God doesn't exist, when there are as many people that believes he does? I'm not telling you, you must believe. So why must you tell me I can't?[/quote]
Because history and present evidence has show time and time again that religious belief is the greatest imepedence to progress than knowledge yet known by mankind.
[quote name='Brak']It's no secret that religion is man-made. If one is right, they can't all be... Hell, maybe none of them are right -- and I'm speaking in terms of "mythology", in this regard. Religious teachings / beliefs, in terms of ways to live one's life, are different. A lot of religions share the same core beliefs, in this regard. Whether they're "right" is subjective, obviously; there are absolutes in way of what's right and wrong, however.
As long as there is man in religion, filtering the core beliefs through whatever agenda they have, religion can be mutated and deformed into anything. Hatred, money-grubbing, political / social vendettas, etc.[/quote]
The problem, though, is that the holy books of man (who is the only thing involved in their writing, obviously) are absolutely filled with hate and violence (you're a reasonable person, so I won't berate you by listing them), and much of the "good" is hidden between parts that call for the stoning of adulterers, the slaying of infidels, etc. It doesn't take a filter to turn Islam into a violent, conquer-centric religion or Christianity into an anti-semitic, women-hating one. It just takes a reading of the texts.
Your belief (not in the religious sense, but in the general one), if I'm understanding you correctly, is essentially that the violent and otherwise unuseful parts of the religious texts are to be ignored in favor of adapting the nicer parts. But, if one is to get some sort of moral or ethical code from a religious text (which is, at the end of the day, all the major religions are), how does one do that without applying some non-religious, secular standard of morality to it?
[quote name='Brak']I never proposed to turn religions into something that's inherently good. Again, lying within that question, you're speaking in absolutes.
As I mentioned earlier, man, throughout the ages, ruin things -- especially if they have the power to do so. And what better way that to brainwash the masses through a religion? King James' version of the Bible, for instance. He edited the Bible and threw in some of his own ulterior motives. Not circumcised? See you in Hell, you bastard.
Not all religions are inherently good, but a lot of them, at their core, have a semblance of something good that once was. Throughout time, and through the hands of man, they've been sculpted to appease various motives.[/quote]
My last response is relevant here as well, as the only real conclusion one could make is that the best way to determine how to live would be to completely abandon the religious doctrines in favor of reason, logic, and evidence.
[quote name='Brak']Erm... You do realize there has been a world with no religion, right? It's human nature, obviously, to be religious; to believe in a higher power, or to have a belief system, or else religion wouldn't be around today.[/quote]
Actually, this little part is very deep. Religion may actually be the by-product of an evolutionary (irony FTW!) adaptation that makes us listen to and believe are elders when we are children.
[quote name='Brak']You strive for a world where everyone shares your mindset, just like - say - the Christians you're so eager to complain about. (Amongst other religions).[/quote]
But that mindset (at least to me) is one completely grounded in reasonable discourse, evidence, and reason, not imaginary friends.
[quote name='Brak']And, yet again, your speaking solely in terms of the "magical" aspects of religion, and not the core moral beliefs. I'm tired of talking in circles, as much as I'm tired of you elaborating on the wrong points. As I mentioned earlier, in 17, or so, of my posts, you have misdirected angst towards religion. Do you dislike the unbelievable aspects of religion, or the moral guidelines? You're flipping between the two, whenever I try to discuss one of them.[/quote]
The problem is that the two are completely intertwined, and to untwine them would basically get rid of the religion and would leave use with nothing but an unjustified (not making a value judgement, merely pointing out that w/o the mystical aspect, the moral codes have no back-up) moral code.
Allow me to explain. You'd agree that the moral codes and ethics espoused by religion are done so because of some supernatural reason, correct? Basically, you have to do X because God says so. Now, if you were to take out the "because God says so" part, you'd be left with simply "You have to do X" without any justification. People would obviously never follow this message, as there is no reason given for them to.
HOWEVER, if one were to take that principal "You have to do X" and applied reason to it, changing it to "You have to do X because Y.", where Y is a purely reason and logic based argument with evidence to support it, you'd be able to convince people of that initial principal, assuming your evidence and supporting premises were sound.
See the difference?
[quote name='Brak']But I'm sure you'd nail any religion to the cross for wanting "non-believers" to see it their way, right? It's alright when you do it, though, because your belief system has no ties to a god, or higher power. That's what they call "free-thinking", right?[/quote]
Believers want someone to believe in something with no evidence or logic behind it. Non-believers want someone to think something because of the evidence and logic supporting it. They want people to accept a concept or idea because there's a justifiable reason for it. As I've implied before, there's a clear difference.
I may go after some of the other posts on page 2, but there's like a billion of them, and I don't feel like it right now. There's pumpkin pie in my fridge.
