Mercurialbroad wrote:
Dave asks: > You mean: it has mostly got away with its crimes, therefore
this PROVES
it never did anything wrong? Can you see the problem with this argument
I am a "weak atheist." Meaning, I lack a belief in god(s), but do not
affirmatively assert that none exist.
Well, evidence does exist that god does not exist.
Archaeology has debunked the idea that the OT is history,
there was no Egyptian captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering,
no bloody genocidal invasion of Canaan by Moses and Joshua, the supposed
cities destroyed by Joshua were screaming ruins centuries before
any Israelite could have been in the area.
God here, so firmly attached to these tall tale stories does not then
exist. No exodus, no god on the mount with Moses giving us "the Law".
No ten plagues etc.
God is merely a non-existant character in a bad novel passed
off as history by liars.
The god of Judaismn Christianity and Islam is hereby disproven.
The ancient Greeks gave us the idea of a single, prefect, omni
everything god, whose omni-perfections could be logically derived
from the proclaimed perfection of god.
We know that does not work. Ominipotence clashes fatally with
omnibenevolence, free will and omniscience cannot co-exist.
Consider, can god do the impossible, the illogical, create a square circle?
Or deeper, is god the creator of all reality, its rules, laws and logic,
or is that all beyond god and outside of god?
If god can do the impossible, god could create a world where man
has free will and freely chooses to do only moral good, moral evil
would be such an alien concept we could not be having this conversaion,
evil would be an unknown concept.
But evil does exist. Many silly xians tell us this is because we
need free will. But a god who can do the impossible because
that god creates what is possioble and impossible mus therefore be
accounted the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
That god must be unspeakably and totally evil, which is the opposite
of what we are told god is, omnibenevolent.
So no, god does not create evil, he cannot control what the laws, the
rules, the logic of the Universe is.
That debunks the idea that god is the greatest thing we can imagine.
(So much for Anselm's ontological proof also.)
And the Univers eat lrge, so powerful, so limiting, must be not only beyond
god, but must therefor also preceed him.
So much for the claim god created the Universe and all in it.
God losses his proclaimed grand creatorship.
God is limited by the laws, the rules, the logic of the Universe.
But can a god even exist? The rules of the Universe seem to rule out any
sort of entity with will and ability that is not made up of matter, energy
and subject to the rules of physics.
That rules out supernatural gods.
At any rate, the omni-everything god is down for the count, destroyed by
one innocent little question, Can god do the impossible, create a
square circle, a four ssided triangle?
Note that this goes deeper. The methodology of making an assertion, god
exists and is perfect, and deriving other sub-perfections, omnibenevolence,
omnipotence and so on, is deeply faled and leads us to disprovable claims.
Theology's methodology is unacceptably flawed and is a failure.
So there, god is disproven and strong Atheism wins.
Some may say that this is not so, we have not ruled out all gods,
but fact is, we strong Atheists don't have to rule out all gods, just the
ones that everybody really belives in. The ones that are the problem.
Archaeology debunks the bible god, who is no great loss, being cruel,
stupid and nasty.
And logic rules out the Greek perfect god, who's perfections soon
create impossible contradictions.
Or you can stick with a god who is rather problematical but at least has
been shown to be unutterably and unspeakably evil to start with.
Any god created to avoid such problems is so weak, so unlikely, nobody
cares, except maybe a hand full of voodoo worshippers.
Just so, in the absence of evidence,
I do not see that Scientology is a criminal organization. Convictions
would constitute evidence that might alter my lack of belief that
Scientology a criminal conspiracy. Your error is in misreading me to be
affirmatively insisting that Scientology is a not pure organization, when
I merely have lacked a belief that it is criminal due to lack of
sufficient evidence.
Actually, however, warrior posted a link to a scholarly article that
provides compelling evidence that at its RPFcamps, the CoS routinely
commits criminal acts. Therefore, I am several degrees closer to accepting
that it is a criminal organization per se than I was before.
--Mona--
--
Losers to the right of me, losers to the left of me
and the air is filled with kooks.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
