The God Delusion

#113 Posted by pinku on

So the basic premise is "stupidity of religions" that needs no more qualification and in your words "stands on its own merit"!!

Re #112 Posted by Urstruly on,
How many people are still suffering because of world war-I or world-war-II? People die even without killing but killing in the name of God is worst and most stupid of them all.

Religions are not bad because all killings and wars were created by them, but because they create the worst sufferings and pains for humanity for worst possible cause and for longest periods. And they create all those sufferings and lies to help God, who is all powerful???

The stupidity of religions is evident just by the existence of so many of them and by the definition of religion itself (a way to reach God, when God has already programmed everything perfectly).

God doesn't need any of them, so it is not atheism but thiesm without idiotic religions that is against religions. Religions deceptively hide behind theism when they are confronted by idea of religion less God (after all their business is at risk??).


Plus those who vouch for religions hinding behind the idea of God or thesim are evil, because they make God slave of these religions.

An all powerful God doesn't need books and idiotic religions. Such a God doesn't need anything, at best you can say that he needed to exist. No more.

Eklavya,

I do not agree with your thesis about asymetrical world view or your interpretation of my idea in #87. My position is this that an atheist does not have an argument at all to prove his thesis and absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Now take this article, eg., it takes the position that since all the war and mayhem is caused by religion therefore religion is bad and hence must be discarded (or there is no God). The basic premis of this argument that " all the war and mayhem is caused by religion " has no basis at all. The greatest mayhem that we have seen in the history of mankind is two world wars; religion is absolutely absent in these wars; even the genocide of jews is based on race but not religion. The genocide of Vietnamese by Americans, the genocide of Afghans by Soviets are all deeds of the so called secularist or atheists who have refused God any place in their life. The recent genocide of well over 1 million Iraqis, and several million Afghanis is caused by secularists and atheist Americans and their Western counterparts, but not the other way around.

So the basic premis of this article is that "I got frost bite in the snow therefore walking barefoot in snow is bad; my refrigerator makes ice, which is kind of snow, therefore my refrigerator is bad as well." Is there any limit to their innanities that they spew forth and then try to get away with it too by turning themselves into mirasis and bhaands?

Other than that do you see any merit is speghetti god argument. Is it an argument in the first place. My thesis is that by the very nature of it atheism cannot have an argument to prove their thesis. Its like being a mirzai - who cannot validate his own religion on its own merit unless he invalidate Islam. Compare this to Islam, which stands on its own merit - its self evident.

Re #110 Posted by Eklavya on
May all people rot in the Hell of their respective religion, good night:-)

Pinku, that is not true. LOL. Sorry. :) I will explain that as the last post of this evening for me :)

Given how Gandhi-Nehru have completely messed up the Indian mind, it is the Indics who need help, not semitics at all. For, there are only two logical positions to take, both compelling and powerful, in very different ways.

First is the semitic appraoch. According to it, one's own approch is TRUE and the rest are false, or less true. So a Christian considers Christianity to be the True path, and the rest either false or less true. And so on.

This is a perfectly valid approach, and there is nothing illogical about it.

The other approach is the (pre-Nehru/Gandhi) Indic approach. It says that All approaches are false, one's own approach being less false than others'. This is just the reverse way of thinking, and is valid and logical as well. In real terms, of course, this creates a very differnt kind of society.

What is neither valid nor logical is to mix up the two. That is to say foolish things like ALL approaches are true. That will create social turmoil, as we will incresingly see unless people stop wearing these silly glasses.

Chalo, goodnite, pinku bhai.

#100 Posted by Eklavya on

If they say every religion is false, then their own religion becomes false as well..... and as you know that it is too true to be false:-)... So that kind of statement can not be made by people who switch their reasoning as per convenience....

So what Hindus have been saying for centuries is now helping them and they are willing to accept it... all religions are true!!

oh rabia, urstruly was perhaps just a tad careless in expressing his perspective. Alternatively, think of it as a believer's view. To a Muslim, the Quran as the final world of God, Mohammad as the last Prophet of God, and Allah as the only true God are all self-evident facts, and so on.

A believer's perspective (once the believer has grasped it) is self-evident to the believer. It is not not expected to be self-evident to unbelievers (or else no witnessing for the Lord or performing dawah will be needed).

eklavya, your version makes more sense. Urstruly was saying that the believer's perspective was self-evident.

hamidm #102: While the universe may have been made by the spaghetti monster, you will at least admit that the moon is made of green (Islamic color!!) cheese.

This green cheese is obviously designed to strike terror in the hearts of Indians who come to chowk to prove the superiority of Poltergeists..I mean Polytheists.. over Mononucleosis..I mean Monotheists.

In fact, in semitic religions, proselytization is absolutely necessary, every single person's duty. It would be just unpardonable to have the TRUE knowledge (or path to true knowledge) and not share it (knowledge or path to the knowledge) with those who might benefit from it or who stand to lose much by staying ignorant.

(Note: This may also fully justify the use of force on some occasion, or for some people.)

rabia, Ustruly's idea, which is the quintessential semitic idea, is (and he may correct me if I am wrong) both suble and logical.

This semitic idea is as follows:

Atheists say that no god exists or none was needed to create/explain the universe. The universe can be rationally explained/understood in totally human terms.

Were that true, then all humans, equally, should be able to see that logic clearly. But believers can't see that human logic, on their own. So the atheist logic is not universal, and atheists should not propagage it.

A believer however does NOT expect the logic behind the universe to be self-evident to ALL humans. Rather, he or she relies on his or her religion (book) for cosmic wisdom.

Having found that cosmic wisdom in his or her particular book, and being absolultely convinced of THAT wisdom, THEN a believer has every right, in fact a DUTY to explain that cosmic logic to everyone who might not read his or her special book (or might not have understood it well enough).

So the situation is NOT symmetric, in the semitic view.

Re: # 87
this is a good argument against religious proselytization too..

Re: # 87

urstruly,

"Au contrair, a true believer's argument is self evident. He presents this universe as an evidence of the proof of existence of God. This argument is absolutely irrifutible. Its rational and absolutly logical. "

.... i hate to disappoint you, but this universe was created by the spagetti monster and his homosexual lover ..... sorry

every religion is true but some are more true LoL

"Every religion is true...."

Paradox, don't know your background but that is a foolish statement. Led by Gandhi/Nehru, in India we have been saying precisely that to no effect.

Do you want to make a real difference? Do you have the courage to make a difference?

Then tell everyone that every religion is FALSE.

#97 Posted by paradox on

Paradox, I am ok for all that. I am ok if Hindus and muslims of South Asia can convert to Christianity in just one day. That will make South Asia a very good place, irrespective of what Christianity is.

What I am not ok is with lies, you do all things wrong and then pretend as if everything is right?? I am not ok in saying that Islam doesn't have problem. It has serious problems and you can delay accepting it, but sooner or later this will be accepted universally.

Do you know what Pope tells people?? Religious leaders are more for religion than us. It is not a valid wish or thinking that Pope wil say you can accept any religion?? Unfortunately religious guys are not that intelligent, pretense is their way. They rely on pretense very heavily.

Even our educated guys are so god at pretense.