Disproving the Existence of God

[Wildcat]

The post you quoted was entirely about your attempts to justify your absurd declaration that:

 

"that no religion actually believes in an all powerful God"

 

By denying that the repeated use of the line "There's nothing my God cannot do" in a popular Christian song indicates a belief that the Christian God can do anything.

 

Given the ludicrousness claims you've been making maybe you should go back and study some more until you learn not to make universal claims about the nature of all religions which are flatly contradicted by the most common varieties of religion in our society today.

 

Regardless of what you claim to be the origins of Christianity the fact is you are flat out wrong about the nature of the god the predominant varieties of Christianity concern themselves with today.

 

Maybe rather than form opinions from children's songs some study might do yourself some good?

 

From Six4fives's earlier link:

 

For example, He cannot cease to be God (Deuteronomy 33:27); He cannot deny Himself (go back on His word) (2 Timothy 2:13); He is impervious to sinful temptations (James 1:13); He cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18).

 

That does not describe a God that can do anything.

 

The predominent varieties of religion so far as I am aware all include "Faith" a metaphysical conception of the relationship between the person and a Supernatural God. A being that of its nature is above and beyond the natural and any possible attempt at a precise definition.

 

Mysticism is the essence of religion, without it religion would be indistinguishable from any other a belief system.

[Wildcat]

Which rather suggests that some do. Which is the opposite of what you claimed. Thank you for confirming that.

 

Do you ever bother reading through what you post? If not, I suggest you try it.

 

Logic not one of your best points.

 

Look up the Fallacy of the excluded middle and re-read the post.

[flamingjimmy]

Mysticism is the essence of religion

 

You keep on saying this yet it is contrary to the views of hundreds of millions of religious people, a tiny proportion of whom I've met, and that which I used to be, so forgive me if I don't take it too seriously.

[onewheeldave]

I think you've got it backwards. Modern people pretend like it's all just mysticism in order to get around/deny relevance of any contradictions within their religion. It's a cop out.

 

In any case I would contend that there are literally millions, nay, hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion religious people who don't think that way, and for Wildcat to earlier suggest that 'no religion believes in an omnipotent god' (which was the thing that instigated this particular thread of the discussion) is complete nonsense.

 

 

The mystical roots of religion are not an invention of modern people- it's documented historical fact.

 

But I agree with you that most modern religious believers do not think that way. State religion is far removed from the mystically inspired original and has involved a lot of corruption and has been very useful as a method of control.

 

That's part of the reason why state churches have not been encouraging when it comes to members of the congregation delving into the mystical aspects of their religion.

[Wildcat]

Two things Wildcat and I have proved this from personal experience. There is no need to lie and if you do you end up implicating yourself. If you tell the truth for example about petty theft, the wrongdoers fight between themselves and may even tell more lies in order to shift the blame. All hell is let loose but after an investigation the truth always comes out. If God lied he would not be God, simple as. More to the point there is strength in truth.

 

The second point is about freewill. Mountain goats wandering the hills may think they have freewill to wander and do as they please but they only have freewill within their own small world and there are many who are greater than they. We have freewill to do as we please but it is only within our own environment which is limited to eating, sleeping, procreating and abusing others which isn't much different from mountain goats. We have some freewill granted, but not enough to make any difference to the big picture with God at the head.

 

response to first para) (I admit this is sort of an aside) I agree there is not much reason to lie, but I would do so if it would save someone's life. Suppose someone with a stress condition needing rest asked you about their health... would you tell them straight out that they were at deaths door perhaps hastening their death? or would you withold that truth because doing so would avoid causing the distress that could cause a death?

 

response to second para) It may not make much of a difference but it is sufficient to show God is not infact Omnipotent, thus avoiding the Epicurean Paradox.

[onewheeldave]

What was that research recently? Oh yes ...

 

Atheists know more about religion than believers.

 

Depends on the questions in the poll doesn't it?

 

Anyway, I was talking about the mystical roots of religion and, in my experience of threads like this, atheists seem to either know little about it, or totally discount it as relevant.

 

(To be fair, I'd say that the majority of religious believers on these threads, also seem to know little about it).

[Wildcat]

The mystical roots of religion are not an invention of modern people- it's documented historical fact.

 

But I agree with you that most modern religious believers do not think that way. State religion is far removed from the mystically inspired original and has involved a lot of corruption and has been very useful as a method of control.

 

That's part of the reason why state churches have not been encouraging when it comes to members of the congregation delving into the mystical aspects of their religion.

 

It may be diluted. But in the doctrine of Faith it still remains as the defining feature of religion.

[onewheeldave]

So if you weren't making yet another slanderous strawman attack upon 'New Atheists' which atheists specifically were you talking about when you said:

 

"Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?"

 

Please bear in mind you had mentioned "Dawkins supporters (and possibly Dawkins himself?)" a little earlier in your short post.

 

 

Don't you think all this holier than though self righteous guff would be slightly more persuasive if it hadn't not only come from someone with your history of making one dishonest attack after another upon atheists but as part of a post attempting to justify yet another dishonest attack upon atheists?

 

Your concern trolling is even less convincing than your absurd attempt to depict New Atheists as would be Mary Whitehouses.

 

?????????

 

I'd suggest you chill out a bit

 

I do at least back up the points I make and, I'm. certainly not on a vendetta against atheists

[onewheeldave]

It may be diluted. But in the doctrine of Faith it still remains as the defining feature of religion.

 

What does that mean?

[onewheeldave]

What about those who recognise that religions are a construct by men who seek to gain dominance over other men, but also recognise that they may have some good points.

Which camp do you put them in?

 

I'd say that it's useful to distinguish between the original mystical-inspired religion and, the end-resulting state religions.

 

And, as I mentioned before, I'd agree fully that state religions have been used as forms of control over others.