Notice how many gods you reject.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Proof #28 - Notice how many gods you reject

There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

[Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary.

How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real.

If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc.

There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyze any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

I can see where you could come to that conclusion. I, on the other hand, have a different perspective.

I see the impact of divine influence on our ABILITY to make decisions about right and wrong. Whether or not they become the law of the land or morally acceptable is society's decision. However, the individual can come to a conclusion on morality faster than it is accepted by society.

If the Creator could simply decree that everyone knew the difference between right and wrong and acted accordingly, then this discussion would be moot. However, He created us with free will. Your decision to acknowledge and follow his laws and believe in Him are your choice .

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

huh? link?

Do you need me to link Bible verses?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Of course they have. Barely 200 years ago, I could have owned an African American. Modern Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years, yet I could legally own another person. If social laws don't evolve, then why am I unable to own another person today? Why have we let women vote? How do you explain changes like that to our laws?

We can point to things in the Bible itself, that were perfectly acceptable in the time it was written, but yet would be condemned and punishable by imprisonment or even death under today's laws. For that to exist, either the omnipotent all knowing God changed his mind, or our laws have changed independently of religion.

Feelings of empathy and justice are absolutely visible in nature. Countless non human species have visible hierarchies of order, and can observably tell "Right from wrong".

Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...rom-wrong.html

How would you explain observations such as the above?

The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

Well done. Simple yet elegant argument.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

It is a waste of time trying to debate with this poster. She is not sharp enough to understand how little she knows~

If'n you noticed he was not debating my point. He was saying how it supported his. But nice projection here since you just showed how unsharp you were being to understand it. Not to mention your typical use of the same logical fallacy you rely on. This is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
When you can no longer refute, you resort to this logical fallacies. You got nothing and have ceded the argument. Thank you for proving this point about atheists again.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by donkhater

I can see where you could come to that conclusion. I, on the other hand, have a different perspective.

I see the impact of divine influence on our ABILITY to make decisions about right and wrong. Whether or not they become the law of the land or morally acceptable is society's decision. However, the individual can come to a conclusion on morality faster than it is accepted by society.

If the Creator could simply decree that everyone knew the difference between right and wrong and acted accordingly, then this discussion would be moot. However, He created us with free will. Your decision to acknowledge and follow his laws and believe in Him are your choice .

The idea of divinely-granted "Free will" kind of invalidates itself though. If God has foreknowledge of all things, then free will can't really exist.

”Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

If man has free will, then God cannot know all things. And as such, he would not be a God. True free will, and an omnipotent God, cannot really exist simultaneously.

And getting back to the evolution of laws, we also have proof of moral evolution and ethics in our observation of indigenous tribes who have never had contact with the outside world. These people came to have a social hierarchy and an evolution of rules completely untouched by religion of any kind. If a species is to prosper, it must abide by certain basic rules, else it cannot prosper. We see this happen with countless species. If there is no basic social order, then species would simply kill each other aimlessly, and the species would fail. The most basic premise of life is to continue your species. All species abide by this. If there weren't some sort of base morality in all species, we wouldn't see any non-human species living in any groups or families.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

Who determines which is which? Show me how to separate the two and convince the majority that you've done so...

[BWillie]

I practise BWillieism. Everything I do is in the best interest of myself. In fact, I have a theory that everybody, everywhere, is acting in their best interest. If someone help the poor, they feel good because they are helping them. It is impossible to do something that is intrinsically selfless if it is a voluntary action.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Who determines which is which? Show me how to separate the two and convince the majority that you've done so...

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution determine which is which.

The "evolution of law" is the reason the Constitution was designed to be amended.

The necessity for freedom to be derived not from man but from transcendent "law" (the laws of God and Nature - note that our founding father's used BOTH, not just one) is the reason the Declaration of Independence enumerates our INALIENABLE rights.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

The idea of divinely-granted "Free will" kind of invalidates itself though. If God has foreknowledge of all things, then free will can't really exist.

If man has free will, then God cannot know all things. And as such, he would not be a God. True free will, and an omnipotent God, cannot really exist simultaneously.

I guess if your idea of a God is that he knows or cares about every day-to-day decision in your life, then I can see how you would believe that. That isn't inconsistent with the apparent views of some people of faith who say things are done 'by God's will' or 'only God knows'.

Again, I take a different point of view. I see God as having set the wheels in motion, not only from the standpoint of man but as it pertains to the laws of nature. This is how I can reconcile believing in both an evolutionary and creationist theory of life on Earth. Once the wheels are in motion, God lets the will of man decide his fate. He reveals Himself and His intentions through His creations--both in their thoughts and actions.

And getting back to the evolution of laws, we also have proof of moral evolution and ethics in our observation of indigenous tribes who have never had contact with the outside world. These people came to have a social hierarchy and an evolution of rules completely untouched by religion of any kind. If a species is to prosper, it must abide by certain basic rules, else it cannot prosper. We see this happen with countless species. If there is no basic social order, then species would simply kill each other aimlessly, and the species would fail. The most basic premise of life is to continue your species. All species abide by this. If there weren't some sort of base morality in all species, we wouldn't see any non-human species living in any groups or families.

I'm not sure a social hierarchy is proof of morals, but your argument still begs the question: Where did this drive to propogate your own species come from? If we and other animals are derived from a mass of atoms, why would that evolved mass of atoms care if other masses of atoms even exist at all?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

I practise BWillieism. Everything I do is in the best interest of myself. In fact, I have a theory that everybody, everywhere, is acting in their best interest. If someone help the poor, they feel good because they are helping them. It is impossible to do something that is intrinsically selfless if it is a voluntary action.

That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Brock

That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

It is a theory, psychological egoism, and if true then there would be no altruistic acts because they would not exist. Among those chief complaints would be the examples of a hero selflessly falling on a bomb, mother giving the last bit of food to her child, etc. Psychological egoists describe that in terms of expected benefits or avoiding harm. The ones that they use to counter selfless acts is that they are avoiding the bad affect of guilt by performing these actions.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Brock

That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

You need to read more about these people, the type of people they were, what their friends said about them, and the circumstances surrounding what they did before commenting if you want to be taken seriously.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

How is dying in his best interest?

Psychological egoism is false.