I don't see any point in arguing for the existence of "God." Can anyone see any point in arguing for the non-existence of God?

If it stops creationism being taught in our schools.

If it stops adults teaching children that they will go to hell.

If it stops women being treated like beasts of burden and household slaves.

If it stops objection to stem cell research.

Can anyone think of any others?

(February 6, 2010 at 6:33 pm)Darwinian Wrote: If it stops creationism being taught in our schools.

If it stops adults teaching children that they will go to hell.

If it stops women being treated like beasts of burden and household slaves.

If it stops objection to stem cell research.

Can anyone think of any others?

Have you carefully considered these or are you being emotional? I have absolutely no doubt that God exists, and yet I am against creationis being taught in schools, don't believe the Bible teaches hell, would never treat a woman like a beast or slave, and approve of stem cell research.

Darwinian is stating how harmful the unrestrained god concept can be, in other words, people's beliefs define their actions. Indeed I'd add another to his list in that it sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our Universe and reality.

Now looking at your response, David you've clearly got a good head on your shoulders, but sadly trying to defend the Bible or dismiss its foul doctrines as not true is a futile attempt. It doesn't just preach Hell through its colourful language... it practically revels in the gore and misery of human suffering that results from it.

If you put the Bible and the Necronomicon (from Army of Darkness) next to each other in the same room, the Book of Dead written in blood would cower in the corner and wet itself from fear. ^_^ No seriously, as an example of literature its exceptional, but it is also a frightening piece of dogmatic work and even more abominable when hopelessly convinced people take its immoral commandments and teachings literally.

Quote:If you put the Bible and the Necronomicon (from Army of Darkness) next to each other in the same room, the Book of Dead written in blood would cower in the corner and wet itself from fear.

That's brilliant

(February 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Darwinian is stating how harmful the unrestrained god concept can be, in other words, people's beliefs define their actions. Indeed I'd add another to his list in that it sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our Universe and reality.

The god concept, like any other, can be abused. Peoples beliefs may define their actions up to a point in a negative way, but not necessarily. Beliefs are not exclusive to the god concept. God didn't mislead scientist in the inquisition of 1633. A trinity of dogma of a scientific, theocratic, and philosophical variety did. That is what sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality.

I will give you two examples of how your capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality might be hindered in some way. The Bible doesn't preach hell. Hell is a pagan concept adopted later by the apostate church. The Bible doesn't give an estimation of the age of our universe, it doesn't say it was created in a 144 hour period.

In other words, if you believe that there is no hell, and that science has a good idea of how old the earth is you have no disagreement with the Bible. If you think otherwise you do.

(February 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Now looking at your response, David you've clearly got a good head on your shoulders, but sadly trying to defend the Bible or dismiss its foul doctrines as not true is a futile attempt. It doesn't just preach Hell through its colourful language... it practically revels in the gore and misery of human suffering that results from it.

Demonstrate to me why you think the Bible teaches hell.

(February 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: If you put the Bible and the Necronomicon (from Army of Darkness) next to each other in the same room, the Book of Dead written in blood would cower in the corner and wet itself from fear. ^_^ No seriously, as an example of literature its exceptional, but it is also a frightening piece of dogmatic work and even more abominable when hopelessly convinced people take its immoral commandments and teachings literally.

We will see if that is true, perhaps.

I had to give kdos for the AoD reference, and it's very true literal translations coupled with extremism in any field typically lead to disaster and tragedy.
I'm sure Chatpilot has a long list of quick references for literalist translations of the bible.

(February 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm)David Henson Wrote: The god concept, like any other, can be abused. Peoples beliefs may define their actions up to a point in a negative way, but not necessarily. Beliefs are not exclusive to the god concept.

No as I just explained, the god concept isn't what's being abused, it's being taken literally that leaves us open to every kind of conceivable abuse there is. For its intended purposes, the god concept is but a clever instrument of social control.

David Henson Wrote:God didn't mislead scientist in the inquisition of 1633. A trinity of dogma of a scientific, theocratic, and philosophical variety did. That is what sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality.

Well, as you maybe aware, I believe God is just a concept people use and is not actually real, besides power-mad religious leaders kicked off witch-hunt-like inquisitions, not the intellectual minds of those who founded the Scientific Revolution. =]

David Henson Wrote:I will give you two examples of how your capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality might be hindered in some way. The Bible doesn't preach hell. Hell is a pagan concept adopted later by the apostate church. The Bible doesn't give an estimation of the age of our universe, it doesn't say it was created in a 144 hour period.

Two points: First, the Bible explicitly teaches on the consequences of disobeying an all-loving deity and being send to Hell for it, i.e. not subscribing to our religion earns you a nice spot in eternal damnation, even after death.

Second, how did you rationally make that Optimus Prime leap onto the Bible's estimation of the age of the universe? That's not what we're arguing and even if we were discussing the Bible's assertion on the given of age of the cosmos then surely you meant to say "Heavens" right? God's dwelling place and not the actual real Universe by definition?

David Henson Wrote:Demonstrate to me why you think the Bible teaches hell.

David, even Universalists think the Bible teaches hell/lake of fire/second death.

Quote:Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Now I can list ten quotes from memory alone and there's more extracts to be found in the scriptures but if you want them then you'll need to do your own homework my friend.

David Henson Wrote:We will see if that is true, perhaps.

...? You do realize Evil Dead/Army of Darkness is a trilogy of films right?

(February 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm)David Henson Wrote: The god concept, like any other, can be abused. Peoples beliefs may define their actions up to a point in a negative way, but not necessarily. Beliefs are not exclusive to the god concept. God didn't mislead scientist in the inquisition of 1633. A trinity of dogma of a scientific, theocratic, and philosophical variety did. That is what sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality.

You speak as if there is only one true god concept and that you have access to that one true concept. As it happens all 3000+ denominations of christianity, each oddly enough showing strong geostatistical correlation, claim the same. Furthermore non-christian theistic believers equally mashed up in all kinds of schizophrenic siblings claim the same. Still furthermore, many christian believers, so called non-denominationals, pick and choose their own version of the concept from various elements within or outside the dogmatic framework of the institutionalized denominations. Still furthermore there is metaphorical interpretation of the one true god concept that can act as a final cop out. All these claims share the fact that they are utterly unfalsifiable and they all share the fact that they offer no unambiguous unbiased straightforward method for settling truth claims among them or even to identify less probable claims from more probable claims. The sheer number alone of god concepts around should sound humongous alarm bells in your head and in the head of every theist on the planet. Yet theists claiming their unique truth choose to simply ignore that fact. So from what other than arrogance do you claim that your god concept, whatever it is that you mean by a god, is the true one and what evidence for that do you bring to the table? Please elaborate.

(February 6, 2010 at 6:33 pm)Darwinian Wrote: [...]
Can anyone think of any others?

... if - and I'm being almost impossibility ambitious here I reckon - it stops shit like 911, and the Crusades and other horrible disasters that happened because of - and also ones that were just made worse by - Religion from happening.

EvF