A good distinction between religion simpliciter (I would use the term faith) on the one hand and organised (I would add the adjective hierachical) religion on the other. It was the organised hierachy of the Church of Rome that tried and imprisoned Gallileo for daring to say that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. It was the same sort of organised Church that executed Joan d'Arc, not, as is commonly thought, for rebelling or for fighting but for dressing and acting as a man. Such was the sexism of the middle aged churches. And they haven't really improved. A woman can't be a priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope in the Catholic Church. Many Christiaon faiths discriminate against women. So do branches of Judaism, Islam and other Abrahamic religions. If there is a God, would that deity really care if the head person had a penis or not? Surely that deity would be more concerned with that person's faith and character, rather than their genitalia. The sexism of religions is one reason-one powerful reason-for arguing there is no God. As for proving God exists, why bother? You either believe or you don't. Proof is immaterial to the true person of faith.
How do we know that though? How can it be tested? How can it be proven? It is an assertion that, I believe, is impossible to prove.
Just because it's impossible to prove, does not mean it did not happen. I said I agreed with him, that is an opinion. Why are you searching for fact in an opinion? It seems like common sense to me that such an abuse of the population of the planet would hinder development. I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am
How is that a reason for arguing there is no god, it's unrelated? All it's proof of is man's ability to manipulate society in his favour...
Think about it. Would God allow such manipulation in his name? The fact of such manipulation is an argument against his existence.
Is it not a common communication that we have been "gifted" free will? In some of my recent musings, I've thought that if we were to follow some of the teaching of the bible (from the limited amount I know), the leader of the roman catholic church is a good definition for the anti-christ. There is not supposed to be any intervention - so god would allow anything, surely? Doesn't mean its happy about it! :sunny: To be fair, it's almost an argument I used previously. But thinking more about it, it's up to us what we do with it
Free will is the cop-out excuse whenever a logician protests about the evils perpetrated in God's name. Logically, free will and an omnipotent God are inconsistent concepts. But I get your point.
Really? Modern religions accept this? Was there an announcement? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that we have no way of knowing where we would be, scientifically speaking, if religion (organized or not) didn't exist. I agree that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That said, you did more that just agree with him. You said "the enslavement and manipulation of organised religion has slowed down human progression". There was no "I think" or "Perhaps". You put it forward a known, as a fact. I am saying that there is no way we can know that and any opinion to the otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
God is dead.All such musings are a discussion of his afterlife.A very boring afterlife floating around on a pink cloud for eternity,which somehow seems to be the Christian conception of heaven.
I believe that are many gods and if you look outside of he western box of manipulated religious thinking there is vast proof of their existence all over the eastern hemisphere in wall art, scrolls, etchings, statues and writings that were hidden from ppl by the catholic church. Still, in all cultures there is one that is most high over all over 'gods'. So myth and reality may meet here. All the writings etc all emulate the same thing. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE.. not the negativity of organized religious cults in their uneducated judgments of how it all came into development. There is so much knowledge now available through the internet. Take time to read how the ancients depict it in their life times, when gods walked among men. They wrote it all down, carved it in stone. Investigate, think for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. Use your logic. sh
Out of all the 300 million or so Hindu Gods, how do you know which ones are real and which ones are made up?
Hey, a few 100 million people worship a man with an elephant head and they made art about that guy. Ofcourse it's valid proof!
Really? If that is what you go off of there is just as much "physical proof" supporting the western (ie Christian) version, which you are apparently so quick to condemn. I mean, if I take your logic further, all I need to do is paint a picture of, say, some random dude, give him a name, call him a god, and that is proof enough that he is indeed a god.
So proof is whoever has the most numbers? A lot of people love the old videogame Monkey Island and its three-headed monkey. Because millions of people draw and write about a three-headed monkey is it proof that three-headed monkeys exist?
Which reminds me of this: if the bible is proof of God's existence, then a spider-man comic book is proof of spider-man's existence.