Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

[ayabe]

I would encourage both believers and non-believers to read this. While I don't agree with everything he says, he does lay out a pretty thorough arguments. I am not posting this to bash religious people but instead to encourage some honest discourse.

Text


This is how the article starts but it is not a political rant.

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming."

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

Exactly as Whoozyerdaddy said. The entire concept of history is broken.

 

[PrinceofWands]

While I wouldn't call the statement accurate on its own, as a comparison to most other nations America (as post-constitutional political body) was about as secular as existed at the time. Even if the individuals in office were very religious it managed to stay out of politics better than it does today.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

I think he means that America wasn't purposely founded as some kind of "Christian" nation.

 

[Lemon law]

Science is based on the reasoning ability God supposedly gave us---and is based on empherical evidence--and rests on empherical testable evidence.

Religions is based on faith---based on doctrines of faith by in large conceived by people who pre-date the rise of empherical science.

Human progress has been by in large accomplished by science and its offspring--technology.

Faith vs. empherical evidences----and never shall the two meet seems to be where we are at now.

God is welcome at any time to appear and settle the debate.------God does not seem to be interested---maybe because we are beneath contempt or notice.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

It's good to see you have an open mind as usual.

Edit - The rest of the article discusses science which is his forte.

 

[brandonb]

Yeah, this is a good article /boggle:

Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Sounds like a typical moron who found his corner of cyberspace.

BTW, the founding fathers were mostly Christian. They wanted seperation of church and state,. Because in England, they had the "Church of England." Which meant, that the tax payers paid for an official church. Freedom of Religion meant its now donation, and the burden isn't placed on the tax payers. As those who don't go to church should not be paying for a thing they don't even believe in, and would never use the services of (which in those times, meant schools, medical facilities, orphanage, and other places which helped the common man for the common good.)

It fits with my opinion of welfare. I pay $1500 a month in taxes, most which go to Department of Health and Human Services. I'd gladly choose to remove $1000 of that tax to sign a waiver that said I would never be eligable for welfare or any other program in that department. I'm sure that would be in the constitution if they founding fathers would have been alive today, but its not. But its the same principle however.

However, I still see freedom of religion being practiced in this country. Our tax dollars are not going into the donation plate. PS. It freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Yeah, this is a good article /boggle:

Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Sounds like a typical moron who found his corner of cyberspace.

BTW, the founding fathers were mostly Christian. They wanted seperation of church and state,. Because in England, they had the "Church of England." Which meant, that the tax payers paid for an official church. Freedom of Religion meant its now donation, and the burden isn't placed on the tax payers. As those who don't go to church should not be paying for a thing they don't even believe in, and would never use the services of (which in those times, meant schools, medical facilities, orphanage, and other places which helped the common man for the common good.)

It fits with my opinion of welfare. I pay $1500 a month in taxes, most which go to Department of Health and Human Services. I'd gladly choose to remove $1000 of that tax to sign a waiver that said I would never be eligable for welfare. I'm sure that would be in the constitution if they founding fathers would have been alive today, but its not. But its the same principle however.

You aren't arguing the facts, do you even know who the author is?


You are wrong the founding fathers, most of them were Deists, big difference.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I would encourage both believers and non-believers to read this. While I don't agree with everything he says, he does lay out a pretty thorough arguments. I am not posting this to bash religious people but instead to encourage some honest discourse.

Text


This is how the article starts but it is not a political rant.

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming."

I got as far as your intro to the topic before i started to laugh...
Then reading the article the people posting on this thread all have you figured out and the author of this article....

brandonb states-- Sounds like a typical moron who found his corner of cyberspace. -- I agree!!

Also the OP of this thread states-- would encourage both believers and non-believers to read this. While I don't agree with everything he says, he does lay out a pretty thorough arguments. I am not posting this to bash religious people but instead to encourage some honest discourse.

yet the OP is correcting everything in this thread that the OP believes with no proof to support the OP`s beliefs that others are posting inaccurate statements?

I`m not posting to discuss my views and have you try to corect my views because you believe they are flawed...
Honest dialogue means within the views of the person posting there views.
Could they be wrong if course they could. But if you are going to correct somebodys views then I would contend you need to also post supporting documentation before superimposing your views or beliefs on somebody else....

Have fun...
Grabs a Chair and an Ice cold Glass of Ice tea!!

 

[ayabe]

It's common knowledge that the founding fathers were Deists and not Christians, at least the ones that matter. I don't need to post links for everything, look it up yourself. You can disagree but you would be wrong, the sky is blue, sorry I don't have links for that.

I do however have a problem with people who won't even read the article and try to discuss what is laid out, rather than laughing it off because of the first line and the last paragraph. Neither of which are the meat and potato's of the article.

But hey, this is what I knew would happen with the ideologues in here, but at least I tried.

 

[Martin]

I particularly liked this one

As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.

I see two main kinds of theists. The personal god ones - the ones that believe god performs miracles because they worship him once a week - are really bad, since they are either irrational or are capable of some truly amazing feats of doublethink. The impersonal god ones usually realize the idiocy of a personal god, so they bypass all contradictions by believing some variation of "god is outside our understanding." That certainly is a good belief as far as it is impossible to disprove it, but it strikes me as someone who contructs a fantasy because they're uncomfortable with atheism.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: ayabe
It's common knowledge that the founding fathers were Deists and not Christians, at least the ones that matter. I don't need to post links for everything, look it up yourself. You can disagree but you would be wrong, the sky is blue, sorry I don't have links for that.

I do however have a problem with people who won't even read the article and try to discuss what is laid out, rather than laughing it off because of the first line and the last paragraph. Neither of which are the meat and potato's of the article.

But hey, this is what I knew would happen with the ideologues in here, but at least I tried.

I read most of the article and found it rather dull. It's like trying to listen to a marine biologist explain the inner works of the Intel processor. How can someone who does not want to believe in God honestly give supporting evidence that he doesn't exist based upon what they preceive as his behavior? For instance, their concept of the second coming and the experiment with speeding the recovery of heart patients. Not only are these understanding and test ignorant, but they prove absolutely nothing, for or against God. It just proves they don't understand the being who existence their trying to verify. It's like looking for a Lion in a spider's web. It doesn't make any sense.

That's my problem with the article, but at least I read it, I guess.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is how the article starts but it is not a political rant.

Saying that it's not a political rant doesn't make it so.

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

The axioms on which the Constitution is based are largely Christian in origin.

The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people.

Red herring.

It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world.

False dilemma.

It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds.

Hasty generalization, among others

More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming."

Appeal to fear.

Based on this, I can't see wasting time reading the whole thing.

 

[Vic]

That entire article is lacking in a basic knowledge of history. America is not "becoming" the victim of religious politics, it has BEEN the victim of religious politics since Day One. For example, a large part of Jefferson's presidential campaign of 1800 was, in effect, a bitter battle between his freedom of religion clause in the Constitution and the Anglican priests who wanted to return the Anglican church to being the taxpayer-funded state religion that it was prior to the revolution. Had Aaron Burr won the election (as he nearly did), that quite likely would have happened. So if American is "becoming" the victim of religious politics, then this "becoming" has been occurring for more than 206 years.


Some of you people quite obviously don't understand how to recognize basic sales, marketing, and propaganda techniques so, as a professional in that field, let me help you. All sales/propaganda is based on fear, which in turn is based on submission. It's not sex that sells, it's the fear of not getting any. The beta wolves submit to the alpha wolves because the alpha wolves have instilled fear in the beta wolves. The beta wolves then do what the alpha wolves tell them to do. Human beings are animals with opposable thumbs and the brains to use them. When pushing a product (from a car to a political agenda), the first step is to instill fear, thereby the recipients will submit to your agenda. When a person tells you that some vague threat is new when it has actually existed since the dawn of time, you are being sold. When you are being sold, you are being asked to pay a price in exchange for something. The greater the price in relation to the value of the exchange, the greater the infliction of fear that will be used in the sale.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

The axioms on which the Constitution is based are largely Christian in origin.

Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Science is based on the reasoning ability God supposedly gave us---and is based on empherical evidence--and rests on empherical testable evidence.

Religions is based on faith---based on doctrines of faith by in large conceived by people who pre-date the rise of empherical science.

Human progress has been by in large accomplished by science and its offspring--technology.

Faith vs. empherical evidences----and never shall the two meet seems to be where we are at now.

God is welcome at any time to appear and settle the debate.------God does not seem to be interested---maybe because we are beneath contempt or notice.

That got a good chuckle out of me

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

Looks like someone failed history class. Go read a book - any book - about the Roman emipre, then tell me again how these axioms were universally held before Christianity.

I'm not saying that these axioms originate solely in Christianity, as they do indeed appear elsewhere. However, Christianity happened to be the common ground that our founding fathers stood on when developing our early documents.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: thraashman
Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

Looks like someone failed history class. Go read a book - any book - about the Roman emipre, then tell me again how these axioms were universally held before Christianity.

I'm not saying that these axioms originate solely in Christianity, as they do indeed appear elsewhere. However, Christianity happened to be the common ground that our founding fathers stood on when developing our early documents.

Now you bring up the Magna Carter???

Lame crappy :roll:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is how the article starts but it is not a political rant.

Saying that it's not a political rant doesn't make it so.

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

The axioms on which the Constitution is based are largely Christian in origin.

You're pretty much completely wrong. The three largest foundations for the Constitution were Hobbes, Locke, and Montisque - with English practices running a close fourth. The convention debates very clearly expressed the desire to leave all religious inference COMPLETELY out of the runnings of government, which is why God doesn't appear in the Constitution and why no oath or procedure had any religious overtones until corrupted by later individuals and groups.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: thraashman
Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

Looks like someone failed history class. Go read a book - any book - about the Roman emipre, then tell me again how these axioms were universally held before Christianity.

I'm not saying that these axioms originate solely in Christianity, as they do indeed appear elsewhere. However, Christianity happened to be the common ground that our founding fathers stood on when developing our early documents.

Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: thraashman
Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

Looks like someone failed history class. Go read a book - any book - about the Roman emipre, then tell me again how these axioms were universally held before Christianity.

I'm not saying that these axioms originate solely in Christianity, as they do indeed appear elsewhere. However, Christianity happened to be the common ground that our founding fathers stood on when developing our early documents.

Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

Yes, but Christianity developed through Judaic law, which did predate Hammurabi. Simply because the 10 commandments were not written in stone until around 1500bc doesn't mean they weren't already developed and used. The death of Able was murder and Cain knew it, and knew it was wrong. That was, typically agreed upon, to be around 4000bc. So maybe we'd say, "Christian, with pre-Christ components." Not really sure how to word that.

That being said though, I think the founding father's based the laws upon an agreed set of Moral values, many of which corresponded to the Christian way of life, but since the country was embracing religious freedom, it would make no sense for them to subject people governmentally to a set of laws based upon a specific religion. Otherwise, they could have just stayed in England.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: thraashman
Well, those axioms are quite obviously evolved traits that are "truths held to be self evident" because humanity evolved as a social, pack animal. Note the fact that 1. These axioms predate christianity, and 2. Parts of the world unfamiliar with christianity practice the same thing. So in all technicality these axioms are Darwinian in origin.

If I take something globally known, and put it in a book and get people to follow it, it doesn't mean I was the originator.

Looks like someone failed history class. Go read a book - any book - about the Roman emipre, then tell me again how these axioms were universally held before Christianity.

I'm not saying that these axioms originate solely in Christianity, as they do indeed appear elsewhere. However, Christianity happened to be the common ground that our founding fathers stood on when developing our early documents.

Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

Yes, but Christianity developed through Judaic law, which did predate Hammurabi. Simply because the 10 commandments were not written in stone until around 1500bc doesn't mean they weren't already developed and used. The death of Able was murder and Cain knew it, and knew it was wrong. That was, typically agreed upon, to be around 4000bc. So maybe we'd say, "Christian, with pre-Christ components." Not really sure how to word that.

That being said though, I think the founding father's based the laws upon an agreed set of Moral values, many of which corresponded to the Christian way of life, but since the country was embracing religious freedom, it would make no sense for them to subject people governmentally to a set of laws based upon a specific religion. Otherwise, they could have just stayed in England.

I understand that, but the idea that the foundation of our government was religious in nature has been largely refuted through all reliable research. Again, read the notes of the conventions and read the Federalist. Read Locke and Montisque and the enlightenment political theorists. It's entirely about removing religion utterly from the state. Not prohibiting it or getting rid of it, but seperating it from the state - for the betterment of both church and state.

People existed before any form of religious organization (unless you're one of 'those', in which case we have nothing to talk about) and those people formed rules and societies. These grew to be full civilizations which eventually (under Hammurabi) managed to actually write the rules down. Religion is NOT required for morality, nor for political structures as has been amply demonstrated.

I guess what it comes down to is that in the last two years of history and political science classes (and all the studying before that) I have yet to see any actual supporting evidence of what some of the people on here are arguing for - but tons of evidence arguing that it was a secular government. I myself am not an atheist, so the only possible purpose I'm trying to serve here is accuracy.

 

[Vic]

Judaic Law does not predate the Code of Hammurabi. If anything, Abraham, being from Babylon of the period, took the code with him to later become the law as he moved his tribe west into Canaan.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic
Judaic Law does not predate the Code of Hammurabi. If anything, Abraham, being from Babylon of the period, took the code with him to later become the law as he moved his tribe west into Canaan.

Yes much of the bible is plagerism of other sources (and shameless at that), but I think what he was suggesting was that the stories of the bible were about a time before the writing of the code which I don't dispute. That doesn't mean the stories are accurate of course, I'm not arguing for literal reliability of biblical stories. I merely don't see that argument as being relavant to this discussion.

Just wanted to point out that obviously we're talking only about old testament here, and only a small portion of that.