Side issue. Since this is the Straight Dope, the least we can do is get our spelling straight. I spelled it as “Pharaoah” and Apos spelled it as “Pharoh.” If we take the extra “a” out of my spelling and put it in Apos’ the spelling will then agree with Merriam-Webster - “Pharaoh.”
-On the contrary, dear Sir. I relish this sort of argument; I suspect that a considerable proportion of my activity on this board concerns the topic at hand.
The problem, however, is that Religion, in general, is not a “free exchange of ideas”, a factor you yourself have amply demonstrated in a brief two posts that are wholly Christian-centric.
Christianity makes up only a fraction of the World’s belief systems- and it is by no means the largest numerically- and until you start giving equal weight to those other beliefs as you give to your own, I suggest you shy away from the terms “biased” and “free exchange of ideas”.
-Perish forbid! This is, as the saying goes, my meat and potatoes. As I have noted, this sort of topic is something of a favorite of mine- I don’t profess to be an expert, I’m no more than a mildly talented amateur.
However, standing back and making vague allusions to your hurt feelings or insinuating that my own motives are somewhat less than pure, does not argue the topic at hand. To put it simply, I asked several questions in my reply to you, of which I note you answered precisely zero.
Tell me, do you in fact lend equal weight to non-Baptist beliefs? How about those telepaths, water-dowsers and speakers-to-the-dead?
If you can tell me why you disbelieve in, say, the Wiccan concept of the Earth-Mother, you will begin to understand why I disbelieve in your God-concept.
-And another theist nails himself to the cross, rather than answer a valid question. “Oh poor persecuted me, why am I oppressed so?”
-Certainly. Now call it into question, rather than just alluding to it needing to be done so.
It’s quite easy to sit there and say “I think Bush’s foreign policies need to be called into question” without actually stating wich policies, concerning which Nations, what part needs to be questioned, or even why.
-And this is different from basing an entire industry and human lifestyle around a 2,000 year old storybook, under the assumption that, even though we, as normal mortal humans wrote, edited, rewrote and retranslated it, it is the Divine Truth?
The assumption that, since the Book says a thing, that thing must be true?
The assumption that Christianity is the One and Only True Religion?
-You profess a belief in Ghosts. Is that not a delusion?
-Perhaps. Which is why I tend to identify with nontheism. A nontheist does not “deny” the existence of a god any more than he or she “denies” the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, sofa-stealing magic elves, wood dryads or smurfs. Simply put, if one never believed in it in the first place, and has been given no reason to start believing in it, and has a plethora of reasons not to begin believing in it, then why “deny” it? That’s like denying the Earth’s third moon.
-We can play that game all day long. What is guilt? Compassion? Lust?
What does your name smell like? What does purple feel like?
It’s an interesting philosophical pastime, but it’s no answer to any question or statement yet posed.
-Entirely true. That is, again, yet another logical assumption.
Given the parameters of that which is sought (God or any other supernatural being or condition) and the parameters of Reality (‘supernatural’ being defined as outside of nature, IE, other than reality) and the wealth of past observations (which largely amount to vague images in foggy hospital windows, or perhaps a visage half-seen in a tub of margerine) one can rather easily come to the logical conclusion that no one has seen that which does not exist.
Again, from before: Many people say God has “spoken” to them. On the other hand, Ted Bundy said his dog “spoke” to him, and some have said Elvis still “speaks” to them from the clear blue sky.
Why is the former believeable while the latter two are not?
Again, when you realize why you dismiss the latter two, you’ll realize why I dismiss your former.
-Leaving the ‘egocentrism’ part aside- we’ve already covered that, I hope you’ve been paying attention- what, then, defines “real”?
If I said an object could not be felt, seen, heard, tasted or smelled, it could not be detected by any instrument, it couldn’t be interpolated mathematically, it occupies no space, cannot be interacted with, and in general has no evidence of it existing now, and no evidence of it’s existence has ever been seen, how then, can it be said to exist?
-Prove that I have never eaten strawberry-rhubarb pie.
In any case, in this situation the onus is on you. If you claim to have met or seen God, it is up to you to prove such an outlandish and extraordinary claim. Otherwise, you know, some people might call that an illogical statement and make fun of you in public.
-Belief is not evidence of truth. Thousands think we never managed to send a man to the Moon, that it was all filmed in a soundstage in Nevada. Because they believe it, does that mean it’s the truth?
Keep in mind that many of those “religious manuscripts” are the only examples we have of certain events. With no outside corraboration, just how do we know it’s authentic, or an accurate representation?
Also remember that a good many of those “first hand accounts” can in fact be no such thing. For example, we know that the first five books of the Bible were written over a period of no less than a thousand years, in some cases closer to 1,200, yet are often written from Moses “first hand” point of view.
Later portions, such as an “eyewitness” account of the Crucifixion, was written by an author that very likely hadn’t been born at the time.
-“Sound and fury”. Do you know the rest of the quote?
Show me a man with no opinion and I will show you a man in his casket. I do note, however, that you have thus far strenuously avoided actually answering any of my questions, or addressing any of the more salient points, in favor of attacking me, personally.
Kettle, thy name is Black.
-None taken. But you really should pay closer attention; I at no time said no one has ever seen a trace of Theism. That would be rather silly- theism is a general term for religion, and religion is the belief in supernatiural entities. You yourself have professed such a belief- at least heavily implied it- therefore in reading your posts I have seen Theism.
What I said was that no man has ever seen God. Any god. Yours, President Bushs’, anyones. No one has seen Allah, Or Yaweh, or Shiva or Zeus or Odin.
“Proof” of these is not to be found in the books from which we heard of them in the first place. If that was how it worked, we could use Stephen King’s Tommyknockers to prove the existence of alien spacecraft in Maine, and Chrichton’s Jurassic Park to prove there are dinosaurs off the coast of Costa Rica.
-Yes, I know. And eyes, don’t forget the eyes. Too complex to have evolved, you know. And DNA- much too complex to have come from “inert chemicals” over a period of about two billion years.
Been there, done that, argued for the T-shirt. Again, belief is not proof, and your belief runs contrary to evidence and observation.
-Whip, whip, whip. That poor horse…
Continuing to state that a person’s desire for truth, fact and knowledge is a form of “faith” does not make it so. In any case, that is merely a semantical difference, and you still have not refuted or argued a single one of my salient points as posted in my reply to you.
In the legal profession, the saying is, if the Law is on your side, pound on the law. If the Facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table. So far, all I’ve seen is a lot of table-pounding.
Do you actually have an argument?
-Never once said it couldn’t. Moreover, I heartily welcome such questioning! Was it Aristotle who said “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Anyway, I agree. I consider myself a natural student- if a thing interests me, I look for whatever information I can regarding that thing, and welcome any outside opinions and experiences.
At this point, a lesser man might make a snarky comment repeating the “Christian-centric” mindset, and repeat the part about you not replying to- or even acknowledging- my inquiries about “those other religions”, but I’m above that.
Barely. 
-So, since I safely set my glass on this table, where it remained steady and stable, I’ll have to have faith that setting a different glass on that table will have an identical effect, but I can’t be sure until I actually try it?
Interesting that you choose to ignore the more important points I raised previously, and instead harp on was was essentially a throwaway comment.
-Definitely. It does not, however, seem “crazy” to demand evidence- any evidence at all, even vague and circumstantial- of as important a being/entity/force/object as a God, Creator of the Universe.
The concept of a god is by it’s nature contrary to common sense, and yet we’re told to “just believe”, that we must simply “have faith”.
-Ah, then again, Where did God come from? By your statement, “nothing” cannot produce “something”, and since God supposedly created our Universe- IE, he interacted in a direct physical way with our reality- that assumes he is in fact “something”, then He must have come from somewhere. Something created God. Who? Or perhaps what?
Oh, and have you, perchance, read anything on paleobiology? Just curious.
-Ah, the great Denial of Shades of Grey. Gotta love it.
Yessir, since we have only observed gravity functioning for at least ten thousand years of recorded history, we will have to check and make sure the glass will not fly off the table and smash on the ceiling every single time. Thus the popularity of Duct Tape, I’m sure.
No, sir, rather the opposite. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Geology, radioisotopes, erosion and fossilization, among a thousand other disciplines, give a somewhat accurate idea of the Age of the Earth- that being roughly 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 300 million.
A book, written a mere 2,000 years ago, at the very dawn of human written language, contains a story that, if interpreted one way, implies the earth is a mere six thousand years old. Further, that same book describes events and creatures far beyond what we know of the world and the Universe.
Similar books, from different areas and different demographics, have different estimates on the age and wildly different concepts of the creation.
So, do we assume the storybooks are right, or do we lean toward the observable, repeatable evidence gathered by hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide?
-If God is an entity who can hear your prayers and interact with this world, he must then be some sort of actuality, whether he is a physical being, or perhaps a “Unified Energy Field” or whatever you choose to believe.
Light, as it is emitted from a lamp, is a physical object. Tachyons, even less numerous and smaller still than the photons that make up light, can still be detected, and are therefore physical objects.
Radio waves, microwaves, heat, sound, are all physical objects. Your God, if he interacts with the world, must interact in some physical manner, even if it’s just using some kind of as-yet-unheard-of magic to manipulate atoms and molecules. Therefore god, if he existed, would be an object.
-What, like assuming fossils, the Grand Canyon and diatomites on Everest are results of the Great Flood?
Like assuming that Jesus, on the cross, saying “Why hast thou forsaken me?” is actually speaking to a supernatural being and is not actually delerious and hallucinating from injury, dehydration and blood loss?
Like assuming that Koalas can swim a couple thousand miles of ocean in order to be saved on Noah’s ark, and then swim back?
Like assuming that Christianty is the “correct” religion, as opposed to all those other obviously fake religions, like Hinduism, Islam and Judaism?
-“God just snapped his fingers and willed the entire Universe into existence? Really?”
-Sure it is. Both of them are perfectly logical. In both situations you are involved in something that makes you feel good. No different than enjoying a book that makes you laugh, or smelling a pleasant scent.
If you’d like to get picky, there’s reams of documentation concerning neurochemistry and the production/release of endorphins in the brain in certain physical situations, and how those chemicals produce varying levels of euphoria, and how, by cause-and-effect and Pavlovian responses we associate those pleasant euphoric feelings with certain situations, conditions and individuals, but the bottom line is, those acts or that person makes you feel good.
Our little mammal minds are addicts for those pleasant sensations, so we seek them out- we eat good-tasting foods, listen to pleasant music, associate with good-natured people.
-That only depends on your point of view.
Yes, a drug addict might be a vicious robber and thief, unwashed and disheveled. You might think him illogical- why could he possibly be doing that to himself?
Back up a paragraph. Remember those endorphins? The drugs produce sensations very similar to- but far more powerful- the brain’s own chemistry. The addict, simply put, does what he does because, for a few fleeting moments, it feels really, really good.
The alcoholic associates his drink with good times with his friends in the bar.
No, not all of these things are strictly black-and-white logical, but they do follow common, observable patterns so they are logical after a fashion.
What you’re referring to is rational. A man leaving his wife because he’s addicted to heroin may not be rational but it’s not necessarily illogical. Addiction is a known factor, a powerful motivator.
Some guy walking across the lake using his Divine Powers is neither rational, logical or possible.
There’s a difference.
-You’re not missing anything. You’re assuming there is some grand design, and thus some Grand Designer.
You said it yourself above:
“But if we don’t apply the appropriate conditions to test objects we reach faulty conlusions don’t we?”
-More properly, I try to understand the world, not define it. I read, I observe, on occasion I test. I collect evidence where I can, in whatever form is necessary, and the more I learn, the wider my worldview. That is indeed a logical motivation.
To try and hammer the round peg of the World into the square hole of the Bible (IE, redefining “Pi”, arguing against evolutionary theory and geologic history, ad nauseum) is illogical. You’re taking a result and trying to make the test work to prove the result. Nature, logic and science doesn’t work that way.
-My motive, as above, is a simple human curiosity, the need to learn. The more I learn, the more I discover I don’t know. It’s a vicious circle and I love it- probably those endorphins again.
However, again you’re making the erroneous assumption that there is indeed some “motive” behind life- IE, we were put here for a reason.
And if that’s the case, what is that reason? God supposedly wiped the entire earth clean because a few hundred people were “wicked” and apparently committing sodomy. Yet today, we have millions engaged in various levels of warfare, from the Israeli/Palestinitan conflict to Chechen rebels to African tribal genocides. To say nothing of the fact that homosexuality is rampant- far more so today, in both distribution and overall numbers, than back then.
And yet we have yet to be “wiped clean”, so it seems our being “good” or “bad” isn’t the reason.
I’m sure you’ll offer some sort of platitude where we’re not able to understand the complex reasons God might have for our existence, but that will just bring us back full circle to the first part of my first post in this thread- that’s just an excuse, something that sounds superficially pleasant.
You say I’m trying to seperate life as it is from the motive for that life, but you have offered no evidence or explanation for why the two are combined in the first place.
There is no such thing as justice. Only self-interest, compassion, and revenge. None of them requires the existence of a god.
Wait a minute! Don’t lawyers define “justice” as what prevails when they and their clients win?
Just to add my two cents, in case someone is counting responses:
Justice, compassion, malice, and indifference, etc are characteristics of moral beings.
‘Natural Evil’ such as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc seem to me to be neither just or unjust. The events weren’t caused by moral beings, so they have no moral content. Are they tragic? Yes. Are they evil or unjust? No.
‘Natural Goodness’ such as spontaneous remission of cancer or the beauty of babies are the same. The OP could have just as easily asked how atheists/agnostics deal with the problem of ‘Natural Goodness’.
By making the God the Cause of all things, a monotheistic religion makes all things either punishment/rewards deserved by the unlucky/lucky or it makes them undeserved by the unlucky/lucky. But either way, they’re God’s doing.
To me, that’s a slander against God. It implies that God inflicts pain and suffering on people intentionally, when they don’t deserve it. It implies God tortures and sacrifices some of us because, in some bigger scheme of things, it’s better that way.
Not only is it a horrible thing to say about God, it’s a horrible thing to say to someone who is suffering or someone who’s just lost a loved one.
“Sorry Billy, God killed Mommy slowly with breast cancer because her faith wasn’t strong enough. She deserved it.”
or
“Sorry Billy, God killed Mommy slowly with breast cancer because it was better that way. Maybe not for her. Maybe it was for you. Maybe God inflicted that horrific pain on her for your sake, so you’d build character. Or maybe it was for my sake, so I could remarry. We’ll never know, so you’ll always have to wonder if you should bear the guilt of her suffering and death.”
And lawyers also have billable HOURS! 
Nature is not a person. Nature has no conscious, no concept of right or wrong. Nature is amoral. Nature does not care.
I would say it is not unexpected that a segment of the population attributes certain human aspects to nature. We often do. In fact, this is how religion was started (pantheism). Nothing wrong with that in causal usage, though it shouldn’t be used to base part of your ethics on.
It certainly is amusing to see Stereotypical Baptist denying logic on one hand and attempting to argue using logic on the other. The dilemma Mr Stereotypical Baptist faces is this: either he has to admit that logic exists, or you has to admit that all your argument is no better than bovine excrement.
So, which one is it, Mr Stereotypical Baptist?
It’s even more amusing, though sadly unsurprising, to note that his sole argument is little more than minutiae over the use and definiton of “logic”.
Especially telling is the rather obvious avoidance of my inquiries about “alternate” religions. That too, is no surprise- rather common, really, even Poly has done it in more than a few occasions.
I shall, therefore commit the heresy of Chronomancy; I will attempt to predict the future.
Thus, Mr. S. Baptist will do one of two things: He will simply fail to return, or he will return and continue, for at least one more posting (which will, in that case, most likely contain the phrase “I don’t have time for this” and/or “this will be my last post on the subject, I can see all your minds are closed to alternate viewpoints”, which will, of course, score a near-perfect on the Marx-Howard Irony Scale) studiously avoiding the real meat of the question.
I would like to point out that religion and faith are two different things. I’m not religious, yes, I’m an atheist because I do not believe in a God concept. I do have faith, however, that all this is for a reason. I’m what you could call a spiritualist .
The definition of faith is, as far as i know, to believe without proof. I believe without proof. I believe in reincarnation, for instance. Do I have proof? No. Do I still believe? Yes.
Why? Because it is the only explanation that feels right to me. I don’t have the answers (logical answers, that is) to explain this world, the injustice of it, or the cruelty of it it, or even the indifference of it. I need something to fill those gaps up, too.
To be reborn until we have experienced everything there is to experience, and to learn everything there is to learn (the ultimate goal being to achieve a higher state of consciousness), that, for me, feels like the only right way to explain, justifiably, all humanity’s suffering.
I was all set to dispute Doc Nickel’s posts and realized I agree with his reasoning more than yours. For the record, I believe in God, without any doubt. This is like deja vu, because I naively started a thread not long ago and although I didn’t mean to come across poorly, I did. It’s really wrong to consider yourself somehow better because you think you have something they don’t. We don’t. They have the same choice we do. That little jewel of knowledge came from answering 300 posts and realizing some hard truths. You need to stop being self-righteous, put yourself in their place and see what you can learn. Hold on to those beliefs though, some of mine “went missing” during the conflict. I was living in wonderland and so are you. Doc Nickel, if I repeat some of what you said, forgive me. Those are mighty long posts. Don’t pick on me either. I’ve pretty much dumped religion. I’m just keeping God. He’s quiet, not much trouble and I like having him around.
To start with, logic is the process of thought, a system of reasoning. It isn’t right or wrong. It’s your conclusions that are wrong. I have faith in logic, because it is the only way I think.
An atheist does that.
There is no concrete material or fact to test the Christian faith. You would have to believe it on some level to do this. Seems like circular reasoning. An atheist knows the emotion love, feels it and realizes that there is a chemical, electrical component to it. Love is not faith.
There is very little evidence for Christianity other than the history of the religion. There is no evidence of God to a non-believer.
I can’t address this one, I’m lost.
If you really believe in God, then you have to realize that since he is timeless, has always been, the universe has always been timeless also. Without believing in God, it’s starting to look like the universe has always existed. Granted I believe he created our physical part of the universe, but there is no such thing as nothing, so it stands to reason that where ever God was before we came about was the universe.
I believe the Christianity we have today is almost completely a myth. There are too many discrepancies and contradictions to believe otherwise. I believed in religion without questioning it for most of my life. Accepted all the vagueness and errors, “because I had faith”. It looks pretty silly from the outside. There is no debate in the world where you can prove your case for religion or God. In a reasonable debate, the only one that will normally have any change in belief is the believer.
The witness you’re giving is vaguely hostile and it’s reasonable for Cervaise to point out the witness hi-jack. The thread was addressed to athiest, but they’re actually pretty good-natured about being hi-jacked. The reference to a “refresher” course in Christianity doing them some good is condescending and would be like me telling you to sit down and listen to my Satanic religion. Your faith is a mere novelty and rightfully so to anyone that doesn’t believe in it. You really do need to put yourself in their shoes. You will be able to represent your religion better if you “know” your audience. Still won’t do you any good, but at least you’ll know how to keep from looking ridiculous right off the bat.
If I believe all x is whatever, that is what I would state. Makes sense to me.
All the assumption is on religions side. We are assuming a God, they are not assuming anything. They are waiting for proof. It doesn’t matter why you are religious or why they are not. You need to learn to respect their right to choose.
You are talking about emotions. Emotions don’t prove God. I cannot prove you have not or have experienced God, in spite of the fact that I believe in him. That belief is personal and I don’t expect someone to take my word for it. You shouldn’t.
No man on earth has ever proved they saw God. I personally am sure that it happens, but it’s not meant to be evidence for the world; otherwise it would be a world event. I haven’t went back and looked, but I’m sure Doc Nickel addressed the issue of proving a negative. I can’t prove there is not anything that is as abstract or hidden as God. I think I could do a pretty good job at disproving the validity of religion, because faulty though it is, at least it is a tangible thing.
I don’t believe the existence of the universe proves God. I don’t believe in God because of the universe and neither should you. You might take a mighty fall one day if you’re counting on the fact that there is not a way it could have happened without God. What will you do when they prove it can, deny it.
I may have missed it. You said God is not an object. Have you defined God, other than the creator? How do you know he’s not an object?
The lack of belief comes from lack of information, fact.
If you are not angry, why are you using condescending phrases like “capable of grasping”, arrogant, egocentric, etc. These are not “warm fuzzies”.
Well, that’s not really correct reasoning, but I’m not going to address that. The main reason I answered this post is to let you know that I agreed in large part with Doc Nickel, even with a belief in God. Believers do not have the right to demand or take offense at other people not believing. Any more than you should tell them what to believe. It disrepects their intelligence and thought process and implies that you are right and they are wrong. You don’t know that, you believe it. If you expect them to listen to what you believe, then you need to listen to what they believe. If you want them to consider it, you should consider their beliefs. Your beliefs should be strong enough to stand up under your own critical examination and not just be something you have always believed without examination. On the otherhand, they do enjoy the debate. It has high amusement value.
It turns out that I have been lucky. I survived WW II, as did most of those involved, and in the process became desensitized to the evils that result from things that I can’t do anything about.
I just try not to do harm to others by being greedy and pushing and shoving others around in order to satisfy my wants.
I’m not going to address the entire thread, since others seem to be doing fine keeping up, but I can’t just let this go by (it’s been addressed, but not in the words I would use, so here I am)
I’m an atheist, and I by no means deny that design demands intelligent thought. However, I see no evidence that nature was designed. In fact, I see far stronger evidence that nature was not designed. It seems awfully strange fo an intelligent being to design organisms to have genomes full of junk DNA that does nothing except help to explain evolution…
Oh, and as for the original topic, as many have said… there is no injustice in nature, that’s just nature. I cope with it by heading for the basement when the tornado hits, and feeling bad for the people who weren’t able to find shelter.
As for the injustice done by man on his fellow man… I try to fix it (or elect people to fix it or what have you). It’s terrible to hear about someone who died in prison, only to be later cleared by DNA evidence… but the existance of the DNA evidence gives me hope that maybe eventually we’ll get all of this stuff sorted out.
That wasn’t addressed to you. Sorry for the confusion.
Are we debating the existence of God or the proper role to worship God/whatever? If we are going to par religion against religion then we do so, presumably, under the assumption that one or more is true. Pitting religion against the absence of religion is a whole other game. Please make up your mind.
After an unfortunately awkward beginning, IWLN has become one of my favorite new posters.
There ya go, Mr. Stereotypical Baptist. Proof that the two sides can cohabitate.
Hey, thanks. That first link you gave me (your story) was a “lightbulb” moment for me. You did your part in the “fight against ignorance”. You rule!!!
To get back to the justice/injustice issue again, rather than the general existence of God.
Assume God exists and assume he oversees the allocation of Natural Evil (and Natural Good presumably).
Suppose my wife isn’t a very good Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or whatever your flavor of monotheism is). She’s an average person, but her faith is weak. She has sins, and she tries to repent, but her heart just isn’t in it. God has not blessed her with Grace.
Suppose she contracts some horrible cancer and dies after a long painful struggle. Suppose that, since her faith is weak, we can’t be sure she’s going to Heaven.
You, as a religious person, are trying to console me in my hour of grief. You can either tell me:
“She wasn’t that good of a person. She deserved the cancer. And since she wasn’t that good, she’s–let’s face it–probably going to Hell.”
I’d never want to say that, but I suppose if we concentrate on having a just God instead of a loving God, it makes some kind of sense.
Or you can tell me:
“She wasn’t that good of a person, but she wasn’t so bad as to deserve cancer and to die without being in a state of Grace. She deserved to live, and to have a chance to experience Grace. But, in order to make something somewhere else better, she had to be sacrificed. Her life on Earth was Hell this past year, and now she’s in Hell for eternity. But remember–it was all for the greater good. Maybe she was stricken down so that your faith wouldn’t waver, so that you would stay on the straight and narrow. We can’t know–God works in strange and mysterious ways.”
I can’t imagine actually saying that. And, more to the point, if it were true, I can’t imagine such a God being worthy of worship rather than disgust and hatred.
If all Natural Evil were deserved and God were meting it out correctly, that’d be satisfactory. But that strains credibility, since so many good people are stricken and so many evil people prosper.
If God (a Deist God?) took a Hands Off approach to Natural Evil, that’d make sense too–though then you’d have that old Problem of Evil.
But saying that God metes out undeserved Natural Evil–that’s just obscene to me.
Big thumbs up to IWLN.
The OP was asking the nontheists opinion on what is essentially the anthropomorphification of impartial nature; IE, is reality “just” or “unjust”. The question was couched in religious terminology and the replies were in kind.
My original reply stated, quite clearly I thought, that nature, Reality, the Universe, having no consciousness, no sentience, has no, and cannot have, any morals, opinions, emotions or sense of “justice”. It is wholly neutral and impartial.
You, in your first post, took offense to that, accurately taking it as a declaration that “God” does not exist, whereupon you attempted to somehow explain that, since we cannot easily “prove”- whatever that means in this case- the existence of an abstract term describing a condition, that therefore the unprovable abstract concept of God must exist.
The following repartee` then discussed the use of the term logic and it’s definition, additional citations for the nonexistence of a deity, and was rather wide-reaching in it’s content. It was also something of a hijack, but these threads do that.
Simply put, I do not argue the “proper role” to worship a deity, since I have found absolutely no evidence, no matter how vague, for the existence of a deity of any kind. Thus, such worship is largely a waste of time, akin to a football fan yelling at the quarterback shown on the big-screen TV. I find my time is better spent pursuing activities of substance.
So my argument, then, is for the former- the existence or nonexistence of a God.
-And upon what do you base that assumption?
As I have said before, generally speaking the Christian thinks the Muslim is condemned to burn in Hell. The Muslim believes the Jew will be cast from Heaven by Allah. The Jew feels the Christian will remain forever in a formless limbo.
All of them cannot be right, (unless you are willing to entertain the possibility of multiple Gods, which all three firmly deny) but all of them CAN be wrong.
The assumption that one or the other is “right” is in itself erroneous, and a question I have asked here on this board at least three times; a question that no theist on this board has yet dared to answer.
And that question is: How do you know your particular religion is the “correct” one?
-You apparently disagree with yourself.
My original post made a case against religion in general (thus answering the OP in that, without a deity or god-concept, the Universe has no morals or emotion, which would be necessary for the concepts of “justice”) and to that post you replied with a somewhat rambling attempt to discredit the idea if logic itself, and by doing so, open the door to the possibility of God.
It is not a different game, it is merely one of many possible moves on a complex playing field.
I would also like to note that you have, yet again, skipped over a great many salient points from the previous posts, and instead continued to worry a few irrelevancies. Do you, I ask again, have any argument at all?