RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 3:18 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 3:23 am by Fake Messiah.)
Listen the main thing with ontological argument is that believers of it are not imagining anything, let alone some objective superhuman being with superior morals. What they're actually doing is projecting themselves and saying it's "a superior being". So if they themselves hate melanoid people and women - well, what a coincidence, their superior being is also hating those people. That's why everybody has different superior being and that's why they're killing each-other of whose superior being is the "real" superior being.
That is also why, for instance, the Bible is ripe with contradictive description of so called "superior being". In some parts he's saying "Don't kill" and little bit later "Kill that particular tribe of people" and so on.
That is also why, for instance, the Bible is ripe with contradictive description of so called "superior being". In some parts he's saying "Don't kill" and little bit later "Kill that particular tribe of people" and so on.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
