Atheists are into acquired intelligence deficiency syndrome.

Evidence . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

If I say I don't believe something, that's conclusive--I'm the only one who can know that.

If you're referring to the meaning of your post, I agree.

I'm referring to what I do or do not believe. I'll tell ya what, Sport, you keep your snide remarks to yourself, and I will refrain from telling you what a great, braying jackass you always are.

Oh I see. Your post wasn't addressed to anyone. So you were talking to yourself. Nevertheless, your post wasn't clear. We'll chalk that up to the fact that it's Saturday night, and so I guess I'll cut you some slack.

As far as your name-calling, it's not your fault that your elders didn't bother to socialize you. But don't get me wrong. It doesn't mean they didn't love you.

Yours didn't do much of a job with you, given your apparent propensity for snide insults to people who were not addressing you, and whose comments are obviously beyond your comprehension.

You should have used the quote function. That way no one has to guess at who you're addressing. You might also note the absence of reply from whomever it is you thought you were addressing; not that they'd have known what you were trying to convey anyway.

I intentionally used quote marks around evidence to imply such "evidence" was highly questionable and not dispositive.

For instance "The world is filled with so much beauty and so many wonders" is a reason some believers will cite as proof of the existence of God, but, of course it's no such thing.

There are a number of design arguments that have in recent years been advanced as empirical evidence and while they all may hold up better than the one above, they are all vulnerable to critical scrutiny and certainly not dispositive.

From the other "side" we often see human suffering as "evidence" of the fact that God doesn't exist. For many reasons, this is no more convincing than beauty being evidence of God's existence.

Another argument made by atheists is that everything we know can be explained without the necessity of a divine creator. I don't believe that is quite true, but even if it were it's not proof that God is not the originator of the all the processes we believe we understand.

In the end, I don't see how it matters. Individual beliefs harm no one. Harm comes from the way some choose to act on their beliefs. Jihadis and I both believe in the existence of a God, but we act on that belief in very opposite ways, and I'm convinced that if belief in God could be wiped free of every human mind that it wouldn't stop the harm that many cause in his name. They would find some other belief to which they would attach their violence. Communists in China, Russia and Cambodia were, supposedly, all atheists and yet the number of deaths attached to their belief is staggering. I'm not saying it was atheism that drove them to murder, but it was a belief. Clearly they didn't need God to tell them to murder.

A chronic depressive, or incorrigibly maudlin person might say that the fact that world is filled with so much ugliness and stupidity is proof of the existence of Satan.

There's impressions and there's facts. Choose the ones you like. Just don't dictate what other should accept.

True. Is there a point here?

I believe that, for the most part, we see eye to eye on this subject. I guess my problem lies with the human attempt to personify that which defies personification. And I have a problem with it because such personification inevitably leads to distortion. And this distortion inevitably manifests itself as things like witch hunts, silly dress codes, condemnation before examination, meaningless taboos, etc.

Perhaps the need to personify that which defies personification is the perversion of a need for authority. And perhaps even the need for authority is a perversion of the need for origins. If you can't find the god, go to an authority who appears to have found it. It seems that, throughout life, we make the seamless transition from one authority figure to the next, starting with parent, then teacher, then work boss, then military authority (optional). Hierarchy is everywhere. The question is whether or not it is healthy.

Concerning religion, it fosters an "us and them" mentality. Not in every case, as some come to the place where they understand that a particular belief is but a stepping stone toward something indefinable. I think that anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to separate people than through the invention of deity. How can you not have at least a little contempt for those who think you’re full of **** for believing in your particular Almighty or savior?

If god is an experiential phenomenn, then it seems unlikely that people would be able to identify with one another's experiences. And the problem isn't really one of relating to, or identifying with, one another, but rather, one of agreement. And for the most part, we agree to disagree.

Someone says, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, and should be the focus of our worship." Someone else says, "No, Jesus is the son of God, and should be the focus of worship." Still another says, "You're both wrong. Buddha is where it's at." And then along comes others who say that their holy text proves that God favors their kind more that he favors the rest. And before you know it, each person is building a shrine to their favorite version of savior. And the next thing you know, even the ones who agree on just who is top dog in the realm of gods and saviors will begin to disagree with each other as to the meaning of the words of the text they all embrace. Soon after, they choose up sides and begin work on yet another building to serve as a shrine to their particular interpretation of the words of the chosen text.

No one is harmed . . . anymore. There are laws that protect us from the overzealous today.

That the notion that "a beautiful world proves there is be a God" is silly, as, I think, you were saying.

While I think that most people who believe in the existence of God also worship that God, this need not be the case, and so religion and belief in God's existence are not synonymous.

Moreover, what you are citing as religion I think can be better described as organized religion, a system of beliefs and prescribed actions that are shared within a group. There can be an organized religion of two or three people but to the extent that organized religion has had significant influence on the lives of people, the number of adherents is exceedingly higher.

I don't think there are many serious historians who would say that the influence of organized religion has been all bad or all good, but the same is true for any large group of humans that are organized around beliefs. Some like communists have, proportionately, had a worse track record than religious adherents, even though I'm quite sure that there were many people in the peasant classes who benefited from the imposition of their beliefs.

Religious oppression seems to strike a lot of people as much worse than any other, and I'm not sure why it is the case. Perhaps it is their sense that extreme hypocrisy is at play, but, again, the same thing can be said about any other organized system of beliefs. They all tout themselves as providing great benefits, because if they didn't they wouldn't have many adherents. To the extent though that any religion preaches love, charity and forgiveness (and all of the major ones do) this can have a very positive effect on human lives.

Humans are imperfect and that lack of perfection is going to influence all of our endeavors. To expect perfection from human endeavors related to religion is to expect far too much.



I have no contempt for people who express that they think I am wrong about God. I think they are wrong. Animosity develops when someone tells anyone that their beliefs are stupid or evil. In certain cases, certain beliefs may be stupid, but so what? If someone wants to be stupid and it doesn't affect you, why the hell would you care? It's simply a matter of conceit and sanctimony. In certain cases, certain beliefs may even be evil to the extent that they prompt evil actions, but belief in the existence of God, alone, is certainly not one, and you had better be damned well prepared to back up your charge if you call anyone's belief evil.

I was, so thank you for making my point in a different way.

You should kiss my rosy red ass. That your skills here are so pathetic that you can't follow a line of conversation and commentary is not evidence of any faults of communication on my part. Keep it up, Ace. You're a typical internet warrior, a would-be bully hiding behind a screen. For as long as you keep sniping at me, I'll keep pointing out what a jackass you are.

I was going by the standard definition of religion. There is almost always a central hub around which faith and worship revolve.

I would refine your point by saying that spirituality and belief in God's existence are not synonymous.

No argument from me. However, I would add that there are also less obvious forms of religious influence that affect the lives of many. As an example, "One nation under God . . ." comes to mind.

Like everything else that people make up in their minds, the influence of religion depends on the mind practicing it. People will choose whatever religion best reflects their personal values, be it values that cater to their fears, or values that cater to their sense of altruism. Sometimes the drive to find others of like mind is sometimes little more than the drive to find emotional and psychological security.

Religious oppression strikes people as worse because the religiously minded are mindlessly using a book to determine what a deity likes and dislikes, and then attempting to force women into a societal role based on the attitude of the accepted deity.

Sure, but love, charity, and forgiveness are not dependent on the existence of religion. In school I learned that it isn't neighborly to cut in line at the water fountain. In fact, I acquired most of my sense of ethics at home. I didn't need anyone to tell me to not hurt others.

I don't recall calling anyone's belief evil. However, belief in the existence of a god might cause the already infirm to take it upon themselves to crusade against something like abortion or gay marriage by way of smiting the perceived offender.

Religious oppression strikes people as worse because the religiously minded are mindlessly using a book to determine what a deity likes and dislikes, and then attempting to force women into a societal role based on the attitude of the accepted deity.

I would refine your point by saying that religious oppression strikes some as worse etc etc.

Mao's army of students who beat and paraded Chinese intellectuals in dunce caps mindlessly used his little red book to guide them.

Religious oppression has extended beyond women and women have been forced into societal role based on patriarchal tradition as much as religion.

Oppression is oppression, and I fail to see a compelling reason why, given the extent of oppression is the same, why motivation makes a difference between two forms.

Good to see you participating in the discussion. You're coming along nicely.

Hmmm. Suddenly I'm having second thoughts about the virtues of religion. Perhaps there's something to it after all. I recall one morning long ago when my friends and I were standing in the churchyard just before church started. Some kid across the road was swearing and calling us names. I hollered some swear words back at him, and as luck would have it, the preacher heard me. I was sure he was going to scold me for swearing, but instead he explained the futility of poking a mad dog with a stick.

So there might be some merit to religion after all. Sure rings true today.

I never said otherwise. You brought up the issue of religion striking people as worse. I explained why it strikes people as worse. I did not say that it was worse, just that it is perceived as worse.