The spread of Christianity

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not suggesting there is a need to prove or disprove God. Again, I see it as a matter of choice to enter into the exploration or not. I certainly can understand those who have not such interest.

Do you think the word “irrelevant” is a better one than your “superfluous" - or perhaps there is even a better word, can't think of it - but yes, to use the words "logic" and "the concept of God" in the same sentence is indeed awkward.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not suggesting there is a need to prove or disprove God. Again, I see it as a matter of choice to enter into the exploration or not. I certainly can understand those who have not such interest.

Do you think the word “irrelevant” is a better one than your “superfluous" - or perhaps there is even a better word, can't think of it - but yes, to use the words "logic" and "the concept of God" in the same sentence is indeed awkward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant superfluous as in serving no useful purpose. In terms of logic, the concept god really has no purpose.

I think the history of philosophy shows that there is no logical argument that can be shown to prove the existence of god. Likewise, no one can give a logical argument that disproves the existence of god.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I do however think religious beliefs can be a very dangerous thing. They will most likely be the doom of man. Ironic, isn't it? Suicide bombers who believe they must kill the infidels in the name of God. It's just a matter of time before some religious fanatic gets hold of a WMD and dooms mankind in the name of his religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thinking is very dangerous, I think. (Not that fanatics aren’t dangerous, too.) I have seen this thinking a few times in the forum. The problem is not with the Religion. It is with the idiots (the fanatics) who either misinterpret the Religion or lead or are led by fanatics.

Crucify the fanatic all you want. He is a dangerous person. But, that is not a good argument against any religion.

As an aside: The only argument I have seen against Religion that has an iota of validity (although I think it, too, falls short) is David S’s. He maintains that it can distracts from other things that perhaps are more important.

I think he is wrong that it distracts. And even if he is right, to use his own words “So what”? I say to the atheist, so what. I’ll “waste” my life how I want. Curing cancer might be grand from someone’s own perspective, doesn’t fit my criteria of the only thing (and similar things) as to what is truly important. Again, if no God (actually, even if a God), I see no importance to such things anyway. Things like curing cancer are just fluff. So what if we live a few years longer in the grand scheme of things (sure it is nice to not die an horrendous death and perhaps not die "prematurely").

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant superfluous as in serving no useful purpose. In terms of logic, the concept god really has no purpose.

I think the history of philosophy shows that there is no logical argument that can be shown to prove the existence of god. Likewise, no one can give a logical argument that disproves the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it. I was thinking of the word as used in the context of over-abundant.

I agree with your point.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
This line of thinking is very dangerous, I think. (Not that fanatics aren’t dangerous, too.) I have seen this thinking a few times in the forum. The problem is not with the Religion. It is with the idiots (the fanatics) who either misinterpret the Religion or lead or are led by fanatics.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is with religious beliefs. A fanatic is just someone who is more entrenched in his or her beliefs and more determined to spread them to other people. HE has a religious belief; YOU have a religious belief. The only difference is intensity and how they go about practicing.

It is only from an extreme sense of self-importance that you can gather that your religious beliefs are any better than anyone else's. But that's precisely the point. I'm sure you do. And so do others. I'm sure the terrosist who blows up a bus thought HIS beliefs were correct too.

If you don't think religion distracts; I'd like to ask what color the sky is in your world. On earth it's usually blue. On earth, millions have perished in the name of religion. No other cause has created more wars, death, and hatred towards one another.

And you think MY line of thinking is dangerous?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
And you think MY line of thinking is dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

Show me a religious text that preaches anything that you speak of and I'll agree with you.

I don't care if it is a fanatic suicide bomber or a crazy Pope. Anyone who says their religion speaks of the things you descibe is simply not following their Religion (and/or they are following some idiot's interpretation of their Religion) .

Your rationale simply is a non sequitur.

RJT

[RJT]

Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
It is only from an extreme sense of self-importance that you can gather that your religious beliefs are any better than anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ever gave you the idea that I thought my religious beliefs are better than anyone’s else?

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think religion distracts…

[/ QUOTE ]

Distracts from what is my only point. Go find the cure for cancer. So what? So now I can live for 10/20 more years. What purpose does that serve in the grand scheme of things?

RJT

[David Sklansky]

"As an aside: The only argument I have seen against Religion that has an iota of validity (although I think it, too, falls short) is David S’s. He maintains that it can distracts from other things that perhaps are more important"

You don't think that the fact that it is bad if people use bad reasoning to believe in incorrect ideas isn't an even better valid argument?

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Show me a religious text that preaches anything that you speak of and I'll agree with you. </font>

That's the thing. Religious texts are subject to great interpretation. I might ask if you really believe all of the more outrageous claims in the bible. You might say yes, or you might say well some of it is symbolic, etc. You can only give me your interpretation or the interpretation of those who tutored you.

Are you saying that all those muslims dedicated to killing infidels don't really believe in what they're doing? Do you think they are purposely taking the good teachings of the Coran knowingly committing atrocities against God?

I doubt it. Religious beliefs and intrepretations can be a very dangerous thing. Maybe yours aren't, another's is.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">What ever gave you the idea that I thought my religious beliefs are better than anyone’s else? </font>

I assume you feel that your religious beliefs are a little better grounded and above those who's religious beliefs allow them to to fly planes into skyscrapers filled with innocent people.