1. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #211050 by LateBloomer on July 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

NO! That is *precisely* the Abrahamic God!

Its just that you don't want to see that the emperor has no clothes and hence you seem to deflect the charges with the self-deceiving argument that this is not *your* god!

You want to paint your god in gentle and moral hues and edit out all the pernicious bits and say that this is *your* Christ or Allah or Yahweh....

In doing so you have demonstrated that you have a better sense of morality that the one handed down to you in the Bible (otherwise how would you know what to edit out). I hope you realize that.

So - my friend, please understand that that which you call *your god* is actually your conscience which has an internal moral compass. If you'd like to re-brand that as "Jesus" that is your prerogative.

2. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #205646 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm

It might be somewhat unfair to compare and contrast Eastern faiths and Abrahamic religions (unfair to both of them) on a single dimension of "sophistication".

I can speak with some knowledge about Hinduism (and to a much lesser degree Buddhism). Hinduism is scarcely a religion when compared to the Christian or Islamic faiths. It does not derive for a common book or a prophet with detailed prescriptions and proscriptions (although we have all manner of sacred texts and god-men).

Hinduism is more of a cultural practice that has "evolved" and "devolved" over extensive time and expansive space. As a result, 2 geographically separated groups with the same cultural lineage, now follow variations of each other's practices in their *version* of Hinduism. There are lots of similarities and also dis-similarities in ritual although main themes of faith remain almost the same.

These wide variations have generated an acceptance (albeit a grudging one) that there are many ways to do the same thing under the common umbrella of hindu identity. This acceptance becomes a firewall for many (though not all) absolutist positions. To that extent it might lend itself lesser to "fundamentalist" positions (e.g. divorce is wrong under any and all conditions because the good book says until death do you part).

This (relatively) liberal attitude has resulted in many faiths emerging from the bosom of Hinduism (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism). And it may be tempting to think that such an outlook is more "sophisticated" than a philosophy that is absolutist in nature, brooks no dissent and allows for no improvement.

But I think that this is an accident of fate rather than inherent "maturity".

When you look at "institutionalized apartheid" (caste system) as one of the central themes of Hinduism it is hard to see it as "sophistication".

I submit that Hinduism may have escaped the particularly wicked aspects of Abrahamic religions - but that is merely chance. Its design allows for many evil forms of cruelty and barbarism towards its own adherents.

3. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #205620 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 2:16 pm

It is my right to question religion because it is religion that is attempting to impose itself on me. If religion were merely a human pastime like sport or stamp-collection then I would not care.

But Religion purports to explain my role, destiny and indeed demands my obedience and hence it is eminently my right to question the credentials of religion in all the areas that it claims not only knowledge but also supremacy.

Religion wants me to be the paying customer but also wants me to accept the product as-is and without question.

4. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #205561 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm

We should not have to "believe". We should not have to keep "faith". We should only need to be persuaded on the merits of an evidence-based argument.

5. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #205560 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Yes religion might well have been useful - but that does not mean it is true. The tooth-fairy is a useful construct with which to soothe my 6 year old daughter. Does that make it true?

The insidious aspect of religion is that for it to be "useful" it has to be marketed as "truth" and this is where atheist objections lie.

6. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #205557 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm

So what? Chemistry owes its origins to Alchemy. Medicine owes its ancestry to witch-craft. Does that mean that these are not valid paths of human endeavor?

7. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #205554 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Why do religionists care to convert other people to their faiths if they are not affected by the "wrongness" of the other faith?

8. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #205551 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Saying that the earth is suitable for life is like saying the human face is suitable for sun-glasses with ears conveniently on either side and a nose-bridge in the middle to perch the glasses on. It is obvious that the glasses came to be that way because the features of the human face and not the other way around.

Admittedly there are phyisical constants which could have been something else and life as we know it would not exist. But so what? That does not automatically prove God exists? And that there are 10 things He does not want you to do. And that He has a son. And He was born of a virgin-birth? And that He walked on water raised people from the dead and fed villages with a single loaf of bread. And was killed and Himself rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Even if we were to indulge the fantasy that earth was His chosen creation, then the questions persist, "What about the rest of the universe? Who created all of that? And to what end?"

Given that the earth is a mere grain of sand when compared to the wider expanse of the universe with its numerous plants, stars, galaxies why would such a omnipotent being create so much of useless material if all He was interested in was the affairs of one specie that inhabits a small area of one small planet?

If I were a programmer that claimed to write an entire operating system which contained millions of lines of code but the only useful thing in this creation was the blinking cursor, I would at the very least be considered incompetent if not altogether fraudulent.

9. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #205536 by LateBloomer on July 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm

If one only knows something based on first-hand experience then how come Jesus knows how we should conduct married life?

How come the Catholic church knows homosexuality is sinful?