An Atheist Christmas

[chang50]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

John can I ask you this?Does the effect religion has on a society,positive or negative,have any bearing at all as to the truth of the claims of that religion?I would posit it is irrelevant.The reason I am an irreligious atheist is I am unconvinced by the claims made by the religions I am aware of,how good or bad for society widespread belief would be does not enter the equation.I ask you this respectfully with the hope you will reciprocate,Peter.

[john9blue]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

John can I ask you this?Does the effect religion has on a society,positive or negative,have any bearing at all as to the truth of the claims of that religion?I would posit it is irrelevant.The reason I am an irreligious atheist is I am unconvinced by the claims made by the religions I am aware of,how good or bad for society widespread belief would be does not enter the equation.I ask you this respectfully with the hope you will reciprocate,Peter.

no it doesn't.

santa claus can bring joy to a child's life even though he is a complete lie. but we still perpetuate that myth, don't we?

even if i thought that it was more logical to believe that god did not exist, i would not actively try to spread my atheism because religion usually has a positive effect on society. that's why militant atheists really piss me off. i am perfectly fine with atheists who keep their atheism to themselves, even though i disagree with it.

[pimpdave]

Only people I agree with should ever be allowed to voice an opinion! Everyone else should shut up!

[chang50]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

John can I ask you this?Does the effect religion has on a society,positive or negative,have any bearing at all as to the truth of the claims of that religion?I would posit it is irrelevant.The reason I am an irreligious atheist is I am unconvinced by the claims made by the religions I am aware of,how good or bad for society widespread belief would be does not enter the equation.I ask you this respectfully with the hope you will reciprocate,Peter.

no it doesn't.

santa claus can bring joy to a child's life even though he is a complete lie. but we still perpetuate that myth, don't we?

even if i thought that it was more logical to believe that god did not exist, i would not actively try to spread my atheism because religion usually has a positive effect on society. that's why militant atheists really piss me off. i am perfectly fine with atheists who keep their atheism to themselves, even though i disagree with it.

Equally I am fine with theists who keep their theism to themselves.It is really instructive how little value you appear to place on the truth when you seem to say you would prefer a lie that was beneficial to society to a truth that was harmful,if I understand you correctly.Perhaps this highlights a major difference in how the religious and the irreligious view the world.I do not see myself as a member of a flock who needs a shepherd to protect me from the truth,but as a robust individual capable(hopefully) of making decisions as an informed adult..

[Army of GOD]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

John can I ask you this?Does the effect religion has on a society,positive or negative,have any bearing at all as to the truth of the claims of that religion?I would posit it is irrelevant.The reason I am an irreligious atheist is I am unconvinced by the claims made by the religions I am aware of,how good or bad for society widespread belief would be does not enter the equation.I ask you this respectfully with the hope you will reciprocate,Peter.

no it doesn't.

santa claus can bring joy to a child's life even though he is a complete lie. but we still perpetuate that myth, don't we?

even if i thought that it was more logical to believe that god did not exist, i would not actively try to spread my atheism because religion usually has a positive effect on society. that's why militant atheists really piss me off. i am perfectly fine with atheists who keep their atheism to themselves, even though i disagree with it.

Equally I am fine with theists who keep their theism to themselves.It is really instructive how little value you appear to place on the truth when you seem to say you would prefer a lie that was beneficial to society to a truth that was harmful,if I understand you correctly.Perhaps this highlights a major difference in how the religious and the irreligious view the world.I do not see myself as a member of a flock who needs a shepherd to protect me from the truth,but as a robust individual capable(hopefully) of making decisions as an informed adult..

[john9blue]

Equally I am fine with theists who keep their theism to themselves.It is really instructive how little value you appear to place on the truth when you seem to say you would prefer a lie that was beneficial to society to a truth that was harmful,if I understand you correctly.Perhaps this highlights a major difference in how the religious and the irreligious view the world.I do not see myself as a member of a flock who needs a shepherd to protect me from the truth,but as a robust individual capable(hopefully) of making decisions as an informed adult..

there are two categories here: what an individual believes, and how that individual affects the beliefs of others.

take me for example: i'm pretty agnostic as far as personal beliefs go, but if given the choice i would act in such a way as to preserve religious belief among other people. i feel that i have high personal moral standards (possibly thanks to my religious upbringing, but it's hard to tell) and that i don't necessarily need religion at this point to do the right thing.

but, to be EXTREMELY blunt, this world is full of assholes who need religion or something similar (government works here, but i'm not a fan of that particular solution) to "keep them in line", that is, make them act closer to my own personal moral standards (which are mostly the same as society's standards... which people often do not follow, especially without religion).

finally, i do not see religion as "protection from the truth". religion is a science, like many other things which are sciences even though pretty much everybody doesn't realize it. how do you think religion got started? a question that needed to be answered. "where did we come from?" that is the basic question (among many others) that the science of religion seeks to answer. religion is a path to the truth, not a diversion.

[chang50]

Equally I am fine with theists who keep their theism to themselves.It is really instructive how little value you appear to place on the truth when you seem to say you would prefer a lie that was beneficial to society to a truth that was harmful,if I understand you correctly.Perhaps this highlights a major difference in how the religious and the irreligious view the world.I do not see myself as a member of a flock who needs a shepherd to protect me from the truth,but as a robust individual capable(hopefully) of making decisions as an informed adult..

there are two categories here: what an individual believes, and how that individual affects the beliefs of others.

take me for example: i'm pretty agnostic as far as personal beliefs go, but if given the choice i would act in such a way as to preserve religious belief among other people. i feel that i have high personal moral standards (possibly thanks to my religious upbringing, but it's hard to tell) and that i don't necessarily need religion at this point to do the right thing.

but, to be EXTREMELY blunt, this world is full of assholes who need religion or something similar (government works here, but i'm not a fan of that particular solution) to "keep them in line", that is, make them act closer to my own personal moral standards (which are mostly the same as society's standards... which people often do not follow, especially without religion).

finally, i do not see religion as "protection from the truth". religion is a science, like many other things which are sciences even though pretty much everybody doesn't realize it. how do you think religion got started? a question that needed to be answered. "where did we come from?" that is the basic question (among many others) that the science of religion seeks to answer. religion is a path to the truth, not a diversion.

Religion as a way of controlling society I understand,although most believers I know would be horrified at the suggestion.I also get it was our first attempt at science,at understanding the world,a hangover from the terrified infancy of our species,but like nearly all first attempts hopelessly inaccurate.
But I cannot help feeling uneasy about the mass propagation of a lie to keep people in line,as you put it,the truth has to valued higher than that for me.

[Haggis_McMutton]

there are two categories here: what an individual believes, and how that individual affects the beliefs of others.

take me for example: i'm pretty agnostic as far as personal beliefs go, but if given the choice i would act in such a way as to preserve religious belief among other people. i feel that i have high personal moral standards (possibly thanks to my religious upbringing, but it's hard to tell) and that i don't necessarily need religion at this point to do the right thing.

but, to be EXTREMELY blunt, this world is full of assholes who need religion or something similar (government works here, but i'm not a fan of that particular solution) to "keep them in line", that is, make them act closer to my own personal moral standards (which are mostly the same as society's standards... which people often do not follow, especially without religion).

finally, i do not see religion as "protection from the truth". religion is a science, like many other things which are sciences even though pretty much everybody doesn't realize it. how do you think religion got started? a question that needed to be answered. "where did we come from?" that is the basic question (among many others) that the science of religion seeks to answer. religion is a path to the truth, not a diversion.

To also be blunt, you believe that you are fundamentally better than "the masses" which, unlike you, need the threat of hell to keep them in line?

And atheists are the arrogant ones?

See, I don't presume I'm smart enough to decide what lies the next human generations needs to believe so that they don't become assholes.

[MeDeFe]

even if i thought that it was more logical to believe that god did not exist, i would not actively try to spread my atheism because religion usually has a positive effect on society. that's why militant atheists really piss me off. i am perfectly fine with atheists who keep their atheism to themselves, even though i disagree with it.

So Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc can all spread their convictions around as much as they want then? Is it only the atheists that should, metaphorically speaking, sit down and shut up?

Along with what chang50 and Haggis have pointed out about your argument...

Dude, your worldview is seriously fucked up.

[BigBallinStalin]

His worldview isn't coherent yet... Give him time... And more moral teachings from MLP!

[john9blue]

Religion as a way of controlling society I understand,although most believers I know would be horrified at the suggestion.I also get it was our first attempt at science,at understanding the world,a hangover from the terrified infancy of our species,but like nearly all first attempts hopelessly inaccurate.
But I cannot help feeling uneasy about the mass propagation of a lie to keep people in line,as you put it,the truth has to valued higher than that for me.

if i was an atheist and thought that religion was wrong, i probably wouldn't be able to advocate the spread of religion. i would probably be agnostic about it, actually, and keep my atheism to myself. but i'm not an atheist, so i can't say.

To also be blunt, you believe that you are fundamentally better than "the masses" which, unlike you, need the threat of hell to keep them in line?

And atheists are the arrogant ones?

See, I don't presume I'm smart enough to decide what lies the next human generations needs to believe so that they don't become assholes.

i allow people to make up their own minds about religion. there's nothing arrogant about that.

plus, i'd say i'm semi-religious, even though i don't really spend much time with organized religion... but my personal beliefs are irrelevant.

it's like driving laws. even though i never drive above my own personal limitations, i recognize that driving laws that are below my personal limitations can benefit society as a whole, so i am fine with living in such a society.

So Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc can all spread their convictions around as much as they want then? Is it only the atheists that should, metaphorically speaking, sit down and shut up?

Along with what chang50 and Haggis have pointed out about your argument...

Dude, your worldview is seriously fucked up.

two reasons i see atheism as fundamentally different from the ones you listed:

- it offers no moral code by itself. basically every other religion has some kind of guide to human action (although the followers are generally poor at following it, but we're just human after all) and most of these guides follow the same general principles (such as the ethic of reciprocity) which benefit society if implemented correctly.

- atheism is the only worldview whose adherents regularly profess it to be factual. most religious people at least are able to realize that their beliefs ARE beliefs. atheists think their beliefs are fact. so why does this matter? earlier i pointed out that a person's effects on the belief of others is important. although religious people are motivated to impose their beliefs on others due to a (benevolent) desire to save them from damnation or something similar, atheists have an even STRONGER motivation: they believe themselves to be spreading facts that cannot be refuted. combined with their status as a minority, it motivates them to take a more aggressive approach in spreading their worldview than the average religious person. this is evidenced by the rapid growth of atheism in the past 5-10 years or so, and the very large percentage of vocal atheists online when compared to vocal religious people.

so as far as i can tell, not only is atheism is generally unpreferable for society as a whole, but atheists also have the strongest motivation to spread this undesirable worldview. this is not to say that atheists are all bad people; i simply strongly oppose the actions of those who are aggressive about their atheism.

His worldview isn't coherent yet... Give him time... And more moral teachings from MLP!

mlp actually had an episode that dealt with religious tolerance. it's called "feeling pinkie keen".

[BigBallinStalin]

Atheists are godless heathens--devoid of morality! They have moral teachings from some holy text! How else can these poor souls cooperate with others?!

[Symmetry]

Religion as a way of controlling society I understand,although most believers I know would be horrified at the suggestion.I also get it was our first attempt at science,at understanding the world,a hangover from the terrified infancy of our species,but like nearly all first attempts hopelessly inaccurate.
But I cannot help feeling uneasy about the mass propagation of a lie to keep people in line,as you put it,the truth has to valued higher than that for me.

if i was an atheist and thought that religion was wrong, i probably wouldn't be able to advocate the spread of religion. i would probably be agnostic about it, actually, and keep my atheism to myself. but i'm not an atheist, so i can't say.

To also be blunt, you believe that you are fundamentally better than "the masses" which, unlike you, need the threat of hell to keep them in line?

And atheists are the arrogant ones?

See, I don't presume I'm smart enough to decide what lies the next human generations needs to believe so that they don't become assholes.

i allow people to make up their own minds about religion. there's nothing arrogant about that.

plus, i'd say i'm semi-religious, even though i don't really spend much time with organized religion... but my personal beliefs are irrelevant.

it's like driving laws. even though i never drive above my own personal limitations, i recognize that driving laws that are below my personal limitations can benefit society as a whole, so i am fine with living in such a society.

So Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc can all spread their convictions around as much as they want then? Is it only the atheists that should, metaphorically speaking, sit down and shut up?

Along with what chang50 and Haggis have pointed out about your argument...

Dude, your worldview is seriously fucked up.

two reasons i see atheism as fundamentally different from the ones you listed:

- it offers no moral code by itself. basically every other religion has some kind of guide to human action (although the followers are generally poor at following it, but we're just human after all) and most of these guides follow the same general principles (such as the ethic of reciprocity) which benefit society if implemented correctly.

- atheism is the only worldview whose adherents regularly profess it to be factual. most religious people at least are able to realize that their beliefs ARE beliefs. atheists think their beliefs are fact. so why does this matter? earlier i pointed out that a person's effects on the belief of others is important. although religious people are motivated to impose their beliefs on others due to a (benevolent) desire to save them from damnation or something similar, atheists have an even STRONGER motivation: they believe themselves to be spreading facts that cannot be refuted. combined with their status as a minority, it motivates them to take a more aggressive approach in spreading their worldview than the average religious person. this is evidenced by the rapid growth of atheism in the past 5-10 years or so, and the very large percentage of vocal atheists online when compared to vocal religious people.

so as far as i can tell, not only is atheism is generally unpreferable for society as a whole, but atheists also have the strongest motivation to spread this undesirable worldview. this is not to say that atheists are all bad people; i simply strongly oppose the actions of those who are aggressive about their atheism.

His worldview isn't coherent yet... Give him time... And more moral teachings from MLP!

mlp actually had an episode that dealt with religious tolerance. it's called "feeling pinkie keen".

Isn't much of your argument making a bit of a hash of ethics vs morality? I know that the two aren't exactly clearly divided, but obeying God against your moral sense is at the very heart of Abrahamic religions, and they are fundamentally ethical forces, rather than moral ones. The fall from Eden is a fall from ethics (obeying God's rules) into morality (knowledge of what is good and evil).

Atheists have ethics too- the rule of law being a major one, but likely most people have a sense of what is ethical far beyond the teachings of religion.

Morality is much more complex, and much wider, and, to be fair to your arguments, Christianity does much to reconcile moral teachings and Old Testament ethics. Abrahamic religions, however, are fairly in agreement that morality does not come from God, but from free will, and that in Christianity, is original sin.

It's a little rich to talk about morality as being the sole purview of Christians, when the knowledge of good and evil is viewed as a taint, and one for which the punishment is eternal torture when you die unless you fully accept the accounts of Jesus' life as told by whichever version of the Bible is currently in vogue.

[oVo]

religion benefits society.

Lots of things benefit society with no connection to religion.

[b.k. barunt]

Religion benefits society unless it is abused. The horrific reign of the Catholic Church, which plunged the world into the Dark Ages is a good example of such. The leaders of said church knew that the Bible would expose their treachery so they made it an offense punishable by death to possess a copy of the scriptures in the common tongue. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible.

Another example is the Religious Right in this country. If you are an "evangelical" Christian in America you must be a Republican. If you are not, you are looked at with at best suspicion and at worst as a budding heretic. The RR cites the immorality (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc.) of the Democrats for such but ignores the fact that the Scriptures have much more to say about abuse of the poor than abortion or homosexuality. Abuse of the poor is a hallmark of the Republicans.

True religion is beneficial for society, but we seem to have a dearth of such in this country.

[AAFitz]

Religion benefits society unless it is abused. The horrific reign of the Catholic Church, which plunged the world into the Dark Ages is a good example of such. The leaders of said church knew that the Bible would expose their treachery so they made it an offense punishable by death to possess a copy of the scriptures in the common tongue. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible.

Another example is the Religious Right in this country. If you are an "evangelical" Christian in America you must be a Republican. If you are not, you are looked at with at best suspicion and at worst as a budding heretic. The RR cites the immorality (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc.) of the Democrats for such but ignores the fact that the Scriptures have much more to say about abuse of the poor than abortion or homosexuality. Abuse of the poor is a hallmark of the Republicans.

True religion is beneficial for society, but we seem to have a dearth of such in this country.

I agree 100%. The Religion benefits society line is open to interpretation, but I think even that is accurate most of the time.

[AAFitz]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

Im sure many do, but I can assure you, as I have in the past that I am not one of them. As a born and long time believer, I very much consider the morals and ethics of Christianity to be part of my soul, if soul is used to refer to the embodiment of my entire person. I may not believe that soul will go anywhere afterwards, but I still very much consider it very important.

However, religion need not be present for the same morals to be taught and learned, and if there is no creator, then this religion, has very much not benefited society, if its taken for granted, that morals would have been taught in its stead, with an increased and improved knowledge of the actual world.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society. One simply must decide for themselves the probability of this however.

[Aradhus]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

That's utter bunk. Because people do something repeatedly that makes it inherently good? The perception is that religion benefits society. How can you accurately guage if there's a benefit if you don't have access to a world where no religion exists, where it hasn't permeated into every crack of existence infecting everything like a virus.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society.

Why? this creator could be a total jackoff who just likes fucking with people. Or religion could be his, or its, test, where the people who pass are the people who reject it.

[Army of GOD]

If you're going to say that religion is just tool that allows some people to be evil in the world (and that, without religion, they would find another way to be evil) then I think it's only fair to say that religion has the same effect with being good and good people...that they would be good even if religion didn't exist. And I agree with that point.

[chang50]

But whether religion benefits society or not has nothing at all to do with the question of the existence of god(s).Anyone who believes in such because it is good for society,or does not believe because it is bad for society is at a minimum guilty of confused logic.

[chang50]

Religion as a way of controlling society I understand,although most believers I know would be horrified at the suggestion.I also get it was our first attempt at science,at understanding the world,a hangover from the terrified infancy of our species,but like nearly all first attempts hopelessly inaccurate.
But I cannot help feeling uneasy about the mass propagation of a lie to keep people in line,as you put it,the truth has to valued higher than that for me.

if i was an atheist and thought that religion was wrong, i probably wouldn't be able to advocate the spread of religion. i would probably be agnostic about it, actually, and keep my atheism to myself. but i'm not an atheist, so i can't say.

To also be blunt, you believe that you are fundamentally better than "the masses" which, unlike you, need the threat of hell to keep them in line?

And atheists are the arrogant ones?

See, I don't presume I'm smart enough to decide what lies the next human generations needs to believe so that they don't become assholes.

i allow people to make up their own minds about religion. there's nothing arrogant about that.

plus, i'd say i'm semi-religious, even though i don't really spend much time with organized religion... but my personal beliefs are irrelevant.

it's like driving laws. even though i never drive above my own personal limitations, i recognize that driving laws that are below my personal limitations can benefit society as a whole, so i am fine with living in such a society.

So Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc can all spread their convictions around as much as they want then? Is it only the atheists that should, metaphorically speaking, sit down and shut up?

Along with what chang50 and Haggis have pointed out about your argument...

Dude, your worldview is seriously fucked up.

two reasons i see atheism as fundamentally different from the ones you listed:

- it offers no moral code by itself. basically every other religion has some kind of guide to human action (although the followers are generally poor at following it, but we're just human after all) and most of these guides follow the same general principles (such as the ethic of reciprocity) which benefit society if implemented correctly.

- atheism is the only worldview whose adherents regularly profess it to be factual. most religious people at least are able to realize that their beliefs ARE beliefs. atheists think their beliefs are fact. so why does this matter? earlier i pointed out that a person's effects on the belief of others is important. although religious people are motivated to impose their beliefs on others due to a (benevolent) desire to save them from damnation or something similar, atheists have an even STRONGER motivation: they believe themselves to be spreading facts that cannot be refuted. combined with their status as a minority, it motivates them to take a more aggressive approach in spreading their worldview than the average religious person. this is evidenced by the rapid growth of atheism in the past 5-10 years or so, and the very large percentage of vocal atheists online when compared to vocal religious people.

so as far as i can tell, not only is atheism is generally unpreferable for society as a whole, but atheists also have the strongest motivation to spread this undesirable worldview. this is not to say that atheists are all bad people; i simply strongly oppose the actions of those who are aggressive about their atheism.

His worldview isn't coherent yet... Give him time... And more moral teachings from MLP!

mlp actually had an episode that dealt with religious tolerance. it's called "feeling pinkie keen".

By definition atheism cannot be factual,it is disbelief in the existence of god(s),simple as..Any atheist who professes this to be factual does not know what atheism is and I certainly would never make such an absurd claim.

[b.k. barunt]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

That's utter bunk. Because people do something repeatedly that makes it inherently good? The perception is that religion benefits society. How can you accurately guage if there's a benefit if you don't have access to a world where no religion exists, where it hasn't permeated into every crack of existence infecting everything like a virus.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society.

Why? this creator could be a total jackoff who just likes fucking with people. Or religion could be his, or its, test, where the people who pass are the people who reject it.

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

[chang50]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

That's utter bunk. Because people do something repeatedly that makes it inherently good? The perception is that religion benefits society. How can you accurately guage if there's a benefit if you don't have access to a world where no religion exists, where it hasn't permeated into every crack of existence infecting everything like a virus.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society.

Why? this creator could be a total jackoff who just likes fucking with people. Or religion could be his, or its, test, where the people who pass are the people who reject it.

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

Because the evidence for any kind of supreme being is somewhere beween negligible and non-existent, its difficult to imagine what would make any particular version thereof any more likely than any other.You might not like the terminology 'total jackoff',or the FSM,as is more often used to illustrate this point, but I think there is a valid point being made here by Aradhus,which deserves consideration and should not be dismissed so quickly.

[MeDeFe]

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

Because the evidence for any kind of supreme being is somewhere beween negligible and non-existent, its difficult to imagine what would make any particular version thereof any more likely than any other.You might not like the terminology 'total jackoff',or the FSM,as is more often used to illustrate this point, but I think there is a valid point being made here by Aradhus,which deserves consideration and should not be dismissed so quickly.

Quite true, I know a lot of philosophers and theologians have tried to demonstrate that a creator has to be "good", but not a single one of them has managed to produce an argument that holds up to close scrutiny. So, bk, what makes you say that a hypothetical creator could not be a big jerk?

[AAFitz]

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

Because the evidence for any kind of supreme being is somewhere beween negligible and non-existent, its difficult to imagine what would make any particular version thereof any more likely than any other.You might not like the terminology 'total jackoff',or the FSM,as is more often used to illustrate this point, but I think there is a valid point being made here by Aradhus,which deserves consideration and should not be dismissed so quickly.

Quite true, I know a lot of philosophers and theologians have tried to demonstrate that a creator has to be "good", but not a single one of them has managed to produce an argument that holds up to close scrutiny. So, bk, what makes you say that a hypothetical creator could not be a big jerk?

I myself think the argument is more that for the creator to be the true God He must good...if he is not pure good, then really, hes just a really powerful son of a bitch. Still the creator, but only a God in the respect that a guy with an IPOD was a God in the 14th century.

As far as Bks argument on that one...well, he very much seemed to be doing what he was accusing the other poster of doing. There of course can be no evidence that God is Good, since all we ever could know about such a powerful being would be from said God himself...and since we cant prove He exists, we sure as hell cant hook him up to a polygraph.