The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó
In the post's original concept, the concept being left in a "null state" was not an interventionist deity. Rather, the idea being left alone was that of an agent outside of our sphere of observation, one with (at most) incidental contact with humanity or the world around it. This is harmless non-dogmatic near-theism.

Yahwe, on the other hand, is another case entirely. The skygod/personal God theory has many points of interaction with humans' daily lives, and thus many points of falsifiability. People are much more likely to use this kind of deity as a justification for atrocities than to use a deist god to justify something. In the case that something reprehensible is done in the name of a personal God (e.g. Islamic terrorism) you should consider the factors that caused the action that needed justification (i.e. why someone felt the need to act in a way that requires justification at all) and focus on those. I suspect that religion is more often an ad hoc rationalization than outright cause of tragedy, although there are certainly prominent exceptions (such as the murder of Dr. George Tiller). When trying to reduce the amount of tragedy in the world, reducing economic inequality will probably be more effective than reducing the prevalence of religious faith.

Of course, if your only goal is to encourage the use of rational thought, or increase the number of people that agree with you, or even just spread a more accurate picture of the physical universe, then it is acceptable to attack religious faith. In those situations, challenging religious worldviews is an avenue of attack that, while not necessarily effective, is not strongly dominated by other options.

TL;DR
Attacking faith will not help the world as well as other options.
If being right is more important than relief work (which it very well could be, for some people) then go nuts.

I'm not attacking faith, nor enforcing my view on the matter. I'm merely sharing my objective thoughts. I do however have the feeling that some "religious nuts" have been brainwashed by other people into believing and they're not completely free in that way. These are mostly people who refuse to think about my objective thoughts and refuse to even discuss it.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I'm not attacking faith, nor enforcing my view on the matter. I'm merely sharing my objective thoughts. I do however have the feeling that some "religious nuts" have been brainwashed by other people into believing and they're not completely free in that way. These are mostly people who refuse to think about my objective thoughts and refuse to even discuss it.

Oh, you know I agree with you on the topic. I just don't think it is as important to convince angry American number 1253956 that he's talking to an empty room when compared with, for example, curing AIDS in Africa. Or getting laid. So basically I let crazy people be crazy, and work on a personal forcefield/sexy fun times.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Oh, you know I agree with you on the topic. I just don't think it is as important to convince angry American number 1253956 that he's talking to an empty room when compared with, for example, curing AIDS in Africa. Or getting laid. So basically I let crazy people be crazy, and work on a personal forcefield/sexy fun times.

👆

Originally posted by Zampanó
DS, I'd like to point out the generally shitty state of the world before the onset of the Enlightenment, and note that it took man's reason to figure out that Slavery is morally wrong. Divinely Revealed morals, ethics, and precepts didn't purge the world of that injustice. Instead, contemplation of natural rights did. Say what you will of the academic pissing contest that Philosophy departments are today, but the founding fathers of philosophy were damn good at what they did.

Edit: DS, what would you do if God appeared to you, offered whatever evidence you needed to be absolutely certain that He was who He claimed to be, and then told you that eating babies is the morally correct thing to do and you must begin right away? [/B]

Out of everything you philosphical religious nuts are saying, this:

Originally posted by Pwned
Unless someone says bacon is bad. Then they deserve to DIE. That splitting into factions, i can understand, pro-bacon and the dead.

Makes the most sense.

[quote] Edit: DS, what would you do if God appeared to you, offered whatever evidence you needed to be absolutely certain that He was who He claimed to be, and then told you that eating babies is the morally correct thing to do and you must begin right away? [/B]

Originally posted by Zampanó
I do not understand. How is this a limitation? Surely an omnipotent being is able to communicate with his creations?
(This isn't like an attack or anything. I just saw this and thought it was interesting.)
((And the other thing was a cheap shot.)) [/B]

Ok, I'll entertain you. If God were to say that(since he's always right and knows what's best, nothing indcates he would say this), then I would cease believing in his wisdom and essentially, in him, regardless of his existence.. To me I'm sure there's a middle ground but I've seen that the absence of religion yields moral relativism. I actually had people in my intro to philosophy class (2002) claim that the Nazis and Hitler were bad from a certain perspective, since everything is relative.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
moral relativism

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
To me I'm sure there's a middle ground but I've seen that the absence of religion yields moral relativism. I actually had people in my intro to philosophy class (2002) claim that the Nazis and Hitler were bad from a certain perspective, since everything is relative.

Ok, I'll entertain you. If God were to say that(since he's always right and knows what's best, nothing indcates he would say this), then I would cease believing in his wisdom and essentially, in him, regardless of his existence..

that's... really interesting, and gives me the most hope for humanity of any possible answer you could give.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I'm comparing an invisible monkey to God. Both have no proof of their existence and both can't be proven to not exist.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yes. So? 😐 Should we then lie and pretend that it can be proven or disproven so as to make ourselves feel better?

Not sure I follow you completely there. While I definitely do see how the characteristics that the Bible, for example, attributes to God are not realistic, I don't think there's an objective behavior that an interventionist God is supposed to display.

huh

that's... really interesting, and gives me the most hope for humanity of any possible answer you could give.

You do realize that your hypothetical leaves open for the exact opposite? What if your leader/leaders told you that murdering a race is ok? It goes both ways.

In so far as an idea can be proven, the concept of a Personal God (like the Christian Yahwe) has been proven to be unconnected to reality. The universe simply doesn't behave as though there is an interventionist God.

RN: Can I answer the hypothetical? If God told me to do that: I would turn against him and fight him until the day he killed me and sent me to Hell. Its why I already struggle very much with portions of the old testament where God ordered the complete destructions of people, including babies. It makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by truejedi
RN: Can I answer the hypothetical? If God told me to do that: I would turn against him and fight him until the day he killed me and sent me to Hell. Its why I already struggle very much with portions of the old testament where God ordered the complete destructions of people, including babies. It makes no sense to me.

You people and your moral dilemmas...

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yes. So? 😐 Should we then lie and pretend that it can be proven or disproven so as to make ourselves feel better?

If this God does nothing to interfere with anything that happens around us, why do he get worshipped and do we try everything to please him. More importantly, why does something that doesn't do anything divide so many people into groups. You don't see huge buildings being build for an invisible monkey, right?

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
If this God does nothing to interfere with anything that happens around us, why do he get worshipped and do we try everything to please him. More importantly, why does something that doesn't do anything divide so many people into groups. You don't see huge buildings being build for an invisible monkey, right?

We're back to square one in this debate, the same level we always get to. My contention is that people claim there is no god but if there was, they could explain him logically.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We're back to square one in this debate, the same level we always get to. My contention is that people claim there is no god but if there was, they could explain him logically.

There's a certain level of insecurity people need to overcome.