I've seen plenty of discussion about whether or not god/s exist. I concluded over 50 years ago that they don't, and that everything in the universe is natural and will eventually be explained by science and reason. What a relief that was after a childhood blighted by daily christian services in morning assemblies at supposedly secular state schools.
However, there is another dimension to this argument. For argument's sake, let us assume that there is a god. So what? For theists the assumption is that there is a god, and that therefore we must worship it by singing hymns, chanting prayers, and wearing fancy dress. Where's the logic behind this? Not only do theists have no evidence for the existence of god, they have absolutely no evidence that god has has ever had any positive or negative effect on them. So why do they feel that they owe god any duty of worship?
The only thing I'd want from god if it existed would be an apology for all the horrors committed in its name.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I couldn't agree more. Organized religion is irrational, divisive and sectarian even if there were a Creator of some sort.
I report: God's presupposed existence is most frequently coupled with an afterlife construction governed by Him. Ergo, His existence is considered to lend itself to the credibility of worship and of other behaviors believed to produce certain effects after death. The exact natures of these behaviors and results vary be religion.
If that all theist d and did, that would be fine. That isn't close to all they do. They force others to be obedient to their god upon threat of penalty and in some cases death. They abolish REAL science and replace it with lies. The same with real history. So in a word religion is dangerous and not in the best interest of humanity.
Only a minority of theists "force others to be obedient to their god upon threat of penalty," just as only a minority of atheists murder: no longer lives the greater of the Catholic Church of old. Moreover, theism is but one of thousands of motives to falsify history and to attack science. Thus, the majority of modern theism poses no more a danger to science, history, and law than does modern atheism, as both parties' individuals do, and will always, as do all humans, harbor biases and independent personal motives.
No threat to science, history? Bullshit. Theist think there is an attack on christmas, just because they are not allowed to put a manger scene at city hall. Theist want the ten commandments in every courthouse. They want prayer in school. Christians want to ban muslims from LEGALLY entering this nation. They forced "under god" into the 'Pledge of Allegiance'. Everywhere one turns christians/theist are forcing their myth on people. Christians want a holy war with terrorist. What's next a religious test for everything one does or becomes? Theist of all kinds are inherently racist and prejudice. The thing is theist encroach on individual freedom. It is a matter of time until they resort to force which is their history.
You have committed the straw man fallacy. More importantly, you made the same general mistake twice, even after I repeated it myself: your evidence's magnitude is disproportionate to your claims'.
It isn't a strawman fallacy at all.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/actually_the_right_invented_the_war_on_c...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/christi...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-man-who-wrote-the-pledge-of-al...
http://archive.adl.org/10comm/print.html
Furthermore, atrocities are committed all over the world in the name of god. Christianity has NEVER been a religion of peace.
You made the same mistake as Xavier; see my response to him, below. Nonetheless, the conclusion that was actually posed has been challenged and disproven by another user, so I have redacted it.
M. V. Reeves, I'll blow that argument out of the water. Theist groups all across the world are continually trying to (both in and out of the legal system) slow or stop stem cell research. This is research that could, in the future, be very beneficial by allowing amputees to regrow lost libs, organs, and the like. And yet the theistic community believes that there religion(s) alone give them the ability to decide that such research is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, that example alone is damning to your claim that theism is no threat to science.
You have committed the straw man fallacy.
What have I left out? I would like to fix such a error.
I wrongly claimed that theism poses no greater a threat to science than does atheism, not that theism poses no threat whatsoever. You challenged the latter conclusion, rather than the former.
Ah. My apologies. I misread your post.
M. V. Reeves- "Thus, the majority of modern theism poses no less a danger to s̲c̲i̲e̲n̲c̲e̲, history, and law than does modern atheism"
vs:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Excellent! I am wrong, and I thank you for showing it to me. I redact the challenged conclusion.