Jump to content
"[Regarding inconsistent revelations] the issue is no more an argument against the existence of God than the existence of an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=4 annuls the existence of a right answer"
But the difference is, every culture in the world does not have a separate answer for the question "what does 2 plus 2 equal?"
The point is not that there are many different religions but rather that cultures that are separated from each other each have different and contradictory religions.
If there really were a god, it would presumably exist everywhere and not be limited by physical barriers. Thus we would expect every culture to have a similar concept of the divine, since it would all come from the same source.
Think of it this way: let's say that there God fits the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept (i.e.- there is only one god, and he is all-knowing/all-loving/all-powerful). If that were the case, why is it that until the Muslim invasion, India did not have any religions that taught this concept? It's not just that there were polytheistic religions in India; it's that there were NO monotheistic religions there. If there really were a god, don't you think he would have had some presence there?
Ah, I must have misread your comment. Never mind :)
Fair enough, though I disagree that belief in God determines morality. That will probably come up later, so no need to rehash those arguments right now.
So do you have an actual argument for government patronage of religion, or are you just diverting?
As far as evidence against the existence of god, off the top of my head…
-- The sheer number of religions that exist in the world is evidence against the existence of God. Each religion has wildly different views of spirituality and divinity. Some believe in one God, others believe in many, and still others believe not in gods but in abstract spiritual forces. If there really were a God, she or he would presumably provide the same revelation to every culture. The fact that each culture has its own unique religion, one clearly suited to that culture and inconsistent with other religions, implies that religion is just a faculty of the human imagination.
-- God is on the losing side of history. There are many phenomena that were originally explained by divine providence but are now explained by math, science, logic, or closer historical study. Take mental illness: originally, people believed that mental illness was the result of demonic possession, but now we know that it comes from psychological trauma and chemical imbalances in the brain. On the other hand, there is nothing that was ever explained by science, math, logic, or history that is now explained by religion. This indicates that religion is not an independent source of truth, but rather a story that people make up to explain strange phenomena until real explanations become available.
This, of course, is evidence against the existence of any God. When it comes to the Christian God, the case is even stronger. There is evidence against the existence of any God, but it is logically impossible for the Christian God to exist for the following reasons:
-- The Christian God is defined as a being that is both all-powerful and all-knowing. If God were all-knowing, however, he would know exactly what he was going to do tomorrow. But if that were the case, he would not be able to change what he was going to do tomorrow. If there was any possibility of his doing differently than he had foreseen, his foresight would be imperfect, and he would not be all-knowing. Either God is not all-knowing or he is not all-powerful; he cannot be both, but if he is not both, the Christian concept is wrong.
-- The Christian God is said to exist outside of time, yet makes decisions. Without time, however, decisions are impossible. To make a decision, it is necessary that there is a point in time in which I do not know what I am going to do, and then later that changes. Either God does not make decisions (and is thus an automaton), or he exists within time.
I could go on, but this message is too long already. Send me an email if you want to continue at greater length: email@example.com
There is no war on God; only an acknowledgement that he doesn't exist. Society is increasingly realizing that religion is nothing but a means to control people, and is rightfully jettisoning it from public discourse.
I'm not even going to get into the ample evidence and logical arguments against the existence of your or any other God or gods, but I do pose this question: why should the government pay homage to Christianity? There are many Americans who are not religious, and many others who practice religions other than Christianity, yet everyone has to pay taxes to the same government. Why should atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews have to pay taxes to support overtures to Christianity?
The United States has always been, and should continue to be, a secular country. Religion has no legitimate place in the public sector or, really, in human society.
Yes, because expressing my opinions in public is the same as thinking that I am "so knowledgeable I can learn no more."
Why don't you stop these ad hominems and learn to actually debate?
The EPA, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare are adding regulations to the economy? No way!
"try to remember that just because you say something doesn't mean that others can not disagree"
Again, when have I ever written anything like this? Obviously others can disagree; that's why I have debates like this. I like to discuss things with people who disagree and bounce ideas off of each other; if we all agreed, what would be the point of a debate?
Reagan was indeed a liar and a hypocrite. To packwilleat's article I add these two:
Since when have I claimed to "know everything?" I've done no such thing. I responded to this letter because it is insulting to me and because I see serious flaws in its logic and evidence. If you have a problem with my arguments, respond to them, but don't dismiss me as someone who claims to "know everything." I can assure you that I don't know anywhere near everything, but that's irrelevant.
And please tell me what is "immature" about my attitudes and beliefs? How is it immature to believe that women, blacks, homosexuals, and all other groups should be treated equally? Or to suggest that the Founding Fathers got some things wrong and should not be followed word-for-word? Or to recognize that Ronald Reagan was a liar and a hypocrite that people need to stop praising? What does "maturity" have to do with any of these things?
I'd love to discuss with you actual issues, but you seem preoccupied with strawmen. Try addressing real issues; you might actually convince someone.
This article was written to everyone that viewed it. The fact that it addresses conservatives does not mean that libertarians and liberals cannot comment on it. It portrays us negatively, and we're going to respond to that portrayal.
"Sobo, learning a lot up on the Hill, huh?"
Learned that years ago, long before I lived on "the Hill." Why don't you stop attacking perceived biases in education and start addressing our arguments? Yes, college students lean left; that doesn't mean we're wrong.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382