[lngtones]

whydoesgodhateamputees.com

and for the relatively lazy:

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

Comment:

Religion is another name for cult which is another name for group of delusional people. In the words of Dr. Phil. Get Real.

[Dakar]

Trolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

[lngtones]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Trolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

GORRRRILLLLAAA!!!!!

[segovius]

The article linked above is a classic text-book example of wooly thinking and is riddled with fuzzy (un) logic.

God could have nothing to do with amputees for example because He is unaware of humanity who are mere microbes on a universal scale - or there could be several competing Gods resulting in a kind of good God/bad God scenario (which would also explain the differences in religions and why some 'Gods' behave so badly).

But surely the classic mistake (and somehow so characteristic) is to assume that the 'American God' = 'God'.

Even if we take these whole nonsensical gibberings as a working hypothesis, it is still ridiculous because all it does is prove that the American Conception of God is imaginary - something that is so obvious it is hardly worth the bandwidth waste of the site.

At least they didn't put much effort into designing it.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by segovius

But surely the classic mistake (and somehow so characteristic) is to assume that the 'American God' = 'God'.

Even if we take these whole nonsensical gibberings as a working hypothesis, it is still ridiculous because all it does is prove that the American Conception of God is imaginary - something that is so obvious it is hardly worth the bandwidth waste of the site.

I have literally zero idea where you get this idea of "American God". Posting from Spain of all places! The God idea they're discounting is a Judeo-Christian one, with a very long tradition in Europe and the Middle East. I happen to agree that it's an idea unlikely to be true, but it's a powerful one, and pretending otherwise is foolish.

If it's "so obvious" that this God is imaginary, why did it hold on so tenaciously for so very many centuries? You need to appreciate a little better the nature of historical context; things that you grew up thinking (like, say, "maybe it's not such a good idea for us travel around the world, enslaving native peoples and converting them to our religion") come easily to you because of your historical context, not because (a) it's obvious, (b) you're a genius, or (c) your moral compass is straighter than an average Spaniard's 500 years ago, but because the entire philosophical and religious fabric around you has changed, making some ideas "obvious" and others less so.

----

Anyway, I really enjoyed the site. Thanks Ingtones!

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I have literally zero idea where you get this idea of "American God". Posting from Spain of all places! The God idea they're discounting is a Judeo-Christian one, with a very long tradition in Europe and the Middle East. I happen to agree that it's an idea unlikely to be true, but it's a powerful one, and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Well, I just read the article and deduced that the Christianity and the God the writer was describing may best be described in that manner.

For example: America is a consumerist society and clearly the writer was displaying a subtext that showed he was thing in this way - ie God is something to be judged as to the way he responds (or not) to petitions presented to him.

This is a purely commercial mentality and not a religious one. I admit it is not purely American but it does have it's greatest expression there in the phenomenon of 'televangelism' and 'mega-churches' not to mention the essentially anti-Christian 'prosperity teachings'.

None of these things derive from europeans theological conceptions of Christianity.

If it's "so obvious" that this God is imaginary, why did it hold on so tenaciously for so very many centuries?

As I said - it didn't. the traditional European Christological thought is very different from what the author of that article perceives as Christianity. We can call it 'American' or whatever label you choose but the two are vastly different things.

It is the perceptions of God that the writer is attacking that I am calling illusory not the conception of the Christian God itself.

You need to appreciate a little better the nature of historical context; things that you grew up thinking (like, say, "maybe it's not such a good idea for us travel around the world, enslaving native peoples and converting them to our religion") come easily to you because of your historical context, not because (a) it's obvious, (b) you're a genius, or (c) your moral compass is straighter than an average Spaniard's 500 years ago, but because the entire philosophical and religious fabric around you has changed, making some ideas "obvious" and others less so.

Well, maybe so. My point goes beyond that though - 'God' as a concept could be many things (on a basic level it could be Islamic, Christian or Hindu for example) therefore we need to clarify the terms. The writer didn't do this - and that is what undermines his argument.

Otherwise you might as well say 'dogs will attack you' and prove it by showing a dog that will behave in this way. All I'm saying that if this guy is going to venture into the theological arena then it's better for him to play by the rules.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Well, I just read the article and deduced that the Christianity and the God the writer was describing may best be described in that manner.

For example: America is a consumerist society and clearly the writer was displaying a subtext that showed he was thing in this way - ie God is something to be judged as to the way he responds (or not) to petitions presented to him.

This is a purely commercial mentality and not a religious one. I admit it is not purely American but it does have it's greatest expression there in the phenomenon of 'televangelism' and 'mega-churches' not to mention the essentially anti-Christian 'prosperity teachings'.

None of these things derive from europeans theological conceptions of Christianity.

As I said - it didn't. the traditional European Christological thought is very different from what the author of that article perceives as Christianity. We can call it 'American' or whatever label you choose but the two are vastly different things.

It is the perceptions of God that the writer is attacking that I am calling illusory not the conception of the Christian God itself.

Well, maybe so. My point goes beyond that though - 'God' as a concept could be many things (on a basic level it could be Islamic, Christian or Hindu for example) therefore we need to clarify the terms. The writer didn't do this - and that is what undermines his argument.

Otherwise you might as well say 'dogs will attack you' and prove it by showing a dog that will behave in this way. All I'm saying that if this guy is going to venture into the theological arena then it's better for him to play by the rules.

excellent points. I esepcially like the distinction between American "commercial" theology and the un-named European "add-an-adjective" theology you espouse as more religious.

This sounds to me like it could/should be the basis for some Christian factionalism. Wouldn't that be great if American evangelicals decided to go to Europe and start converting the pre-existing "Christians" to the American brand of Christianity. That would be a hoot to see happen.

And those of us on the sidelines who think ALL religions are suspect will continue in our smug, self-righteous ways while religious people continue to demonize other religious people for their religion.

[gadster]

I have to agree with ingtones. It's like the WWF of imaginary friends. People, THERE IS NO GOD. There is only us. Deal with it.

[Spliffdaddy]

One of us will be rotting in hell...

[OldManMac]

Let us know what it's like.

[Millennium]

Why do I put faith in a god? For much the same reason you put faith in no gods, and with roughly the same validity if certainty is what you're after. Those who admit to the uncertainty of the matter are braver men than you or I.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by gadster

I have to agree with ingtones. It's like the WWF of imaginary friends. People, THERE IS NO GOD. There is only us. Deal with it.

Jesus loves you.

[Persephone]

Is God real? Or is he imaginary?

Hmmm, let's see, ALL historical cultures and tribes believed in gods, spirits and demons that completely reflected their geographical and societal reality.

Well, OF COURSE the Judeo-Christian god would be the only "possible" reality.

Once again, - no (objective) proof, no evidence, NO WAY.

That's all.

[Millennium]

Why do so many atheists treat this matter as though it were blindingly obvious? At least other forms of faith admit that they're putting faith in something uncertain.

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by Millennium

At least other forms of faith admit that they're putting faith in something uncertain.

If all cultures throughout history would have had the exact same "faith" and "religious concepts" you might have a point.

But the fact that they were highly varied and "ethno-centric" leads me to "believe" that it is highly probable that religion is man made, and that the Judeo-Christian God is just "ex pluribus unum". Only another religion.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Persephone

Once again, - no (objective) proof, no evidence, NO WAY.

It is true, there is very little we can go by in the way of proving the Bible beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a fair amount of coroborative evidence that supports some parts of the New Testament.

For example, I've heard of wanted posters (or some equivalent) describing Jesus, accusing Him of blashpemy and sorcery, and saying how He would be stoned. Which really makes a lot of sense, because crucifixion was not a Jewish thing, (AFAIK) but a Roman thing. (In fact, if the document said "to be crucified," it would be a little too convenient, and IMO, lose credibility). The document also testifies to Jesus' miracles--a hostile source would say that His Godly powers were satanic ones. How can a hostile source be considered biased towards Christ?

For a while, there was no evidence that Pilate existed, and the anti-Biblical community pointed to this--the Crucifixion must have been made up, and the entire NT and OT fall apart. But recently, a large stone (used for constructing some building) turned up engraved with the text, "From Pontias Pilate to the Good People of Ceaseria." I'm not sure if this is the exact translation, but it was something to the same effect.

Other ancient historians also corroborate some of the things Jesus did, or at the very least His existence.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by loki74

It is true, there is very little we can go by in the way of proving the Bible beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a fair amount of coroborative evidence that supports some parts of the New Testament.

For example, I've heard of wanted posters (or some equivalent) describing Jesus, accusing Him of blashpemy and sorcery, and saying how He would be stoned. Which really makes a lot of sense, because crucifixion was not a Jewish thing, (AFAIK) but a Roman thing. (In fact, if the document said "to be crucified," it would be a little too convenient, and IMO, lose credibility). The document also testifies to Jesus' miracles--a hostile source would say that His Godly powers were satanic ones. How can a hostile source be considered biased towards Christ?

For a while, there was no evidence that Pilate existed, and the anti-Biblical community pointed to this--the Crucifixion must have been made up, and the entire NT and OT fall apart. But recently, a large stone (used for constructing some building) turned up engraved with the text, "From Pontias Pilate to the Good People of Ceaseria." I'm not sure if this is the exact translation, but it was something to the same effect.

Other ancient historians also corroborate some of the things Jesus did, or at the very least His existence.

This from a person with a Norse diety as his screen name.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

This from a person with a Norse diety as his screen name.

yeah, yeah... I know. Norse diety of mischief no less! ..or something like that. Basically my brother decided that I looked like a character in a videogame by that name (i never really saw the resemblance) and it stuck. So yeah thats kind of my nickname nowadays. *shrug*

[Mithras]

It's like the old saw: Do you believe in Zeus? In the divinity of the Buddha? In Baal? In Ganesh?
Well, neither do I. Moreover, I don't believe in whatever God you happen to.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Why do so many atheists treat this matter as though it were blindingly obvious? At least other forms of faith admit that they're putting faith in something uncertain.

The same reason so many Christians treat the existence of god as though it were blindingly obvious: they not willing to have their world view shaken up.

I for one prefer not to waste my time bothering to consider whether there is a god or not. As it can't be proven either way (unless God wants to reveal Himself to me, I suppose) there's nothing to be gained by spending time thinking about it.

If pressed, I'll admit there's a possibility that there's a god though I doubt it. However I'd still say I'm an atheist rather than an agnostic because I really don't think about it at all. It's completely irrelevant to my life.

[Spliffdaddy]

Christian-bashing is sooo last year.

All the really cool people are bashing Muslims now.