FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

>From: "Ken Davey"

>Why not be a realist?
>Does a God exist?
>Prove it!

It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to disprove God.
_You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.

I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
scientists and statesmen. ;-)

>I think not.
>A god is a natural invention of our specie. It was the easy way out.

Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism -- do not
believe in a god.

Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began in the long time
before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.

>Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this life.

Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed in an
afterlife.

>By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.

Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife. Ancient
Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.

You make too many assumptions.

>So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad number of ways -
>take your pick - can any one be right?) our faults and the way to overcome
>them - all this based on reward/punishment - same as training a dog.

Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics. The Greco-Roman
pantheon seems to have taken a long path.

If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.

>In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those incapable of
>independant thought or incapable of behavior acceptable to a close knit
>society an anchor - a base line so to speak - of proper conduct, and it
>gives the 'proper thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.

Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent thought
were most strongly adherent to those beliefs. John Bunyan was no conformist.
He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed right
to punish transgressors.

>Unfortunately mankind is never satisfied by something simple that works or
>more correctly something that cannot be used to subjugate those less
>fortunate or those who seem to have a natural (and obviously superior) way
>of dealing with the naturally occurring restrictions that come with living
>in a co-operating society.

What was that sentence I saw you with last night? ;-)

>Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe destroying several
>amazing civilizations in the Americas (The Conquistadores and the Jesuits to
>name two such forces).

And several native organizations -- including some of the Indian tribes
oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" -- joined with the conquerors in their
fight.

>Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means possible - including
>total annialation - sound familiar?) that 'their' way is the 'only' way.

Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is "religion" to be damned
for the bad and not commended for the good?

>Thus we find the Jews wreaking havoc in the middle east.

.. . . See above.

>Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
>superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that virtually
>all religions tell us we must not!

"Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll post a
few of their names.

You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as you do.

>Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action or inaction) of
>anyone is a false religion!

What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is that evil, or
mercy?

>By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that do not fall into
>this catagory.

Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.

>/> rant.
>Ken.

E. P.