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.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Not in the Constitution as far as I'm aware.

But...

In a society of laws, there is a basis in morality and justice that has its roots from somewhere. Just where might that be? What gives us the guidance to know that murder, theft, rape, and fraud are wrong and subject to consequences? Shouldn't we all just be beholden by the rule of nature? Are other beasts judged as we are? Why not?

To ignore the uniqueness of human existance is to ignore its creator. For if there is no creator, why all the laws that bind us? By following the letter of the law you are already acknowledging a moral code that did not evolve from the primordial ooze.

Are you seriously going to lay out the case that murder is illegal only because it's prohibited by the bible? Does this mean that atheists cannot recognize that murder is reprehensible and wrong?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

There is no prohibition in endorsing a religion. Only prohibition in preventing the practice of religion.

I think you'd better read this again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Brock

Are you seriously going to lay out the case that murder is illegal only because it's prohibited by the bible? Does this mean that atheists cannot recognize that murder is reprehensible and wrong?

No I'm not. But aren't you the least bit curious where those feelings of right and wrong originate?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

No I'm not. But aren't you the least bit curious where those feelings of right and wrong originate?

Who says they "originate" from anywhere but inside the person who feels them?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by donkhater

No I'm not. But aren't you the least bit curious where those feelings of right and wrong originate?

Seriously hold to your beliefs if they make you happy, however please avoid trying to revise our history to validate those beliefs~

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Brock

I think you'd better read this again:

Perhaps you should.

To be clear, I also agree there should be a separation of church and state, mainly because I don't want the state to have anything to do with how I practice my faith, which is the clear intent of the first amendment.

Using the state to dictate how, where and when someone practices their faith is nowhere to be found in that document.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Perhaps you should.

To be clear, I also agree there should be a separation of church and state, mainly because I don't want the state to have anything to do with how I practice my faith, which is the clear intent of the first amendment.

Using the state to dictate how, where and when someone practices their faith is nowhere to be found in that document.

You are dick dancing and nothing more. From your post above where have I said anything false?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Perhaps you should.

To be clear, I also agree there should be a separation of church and state, mainly because I don't want the state to have anything to do with how I practice my faith, which is the clear intent of the first amendment.

Using the state to dictate how, where and when someone practices their faith is nowhere to be found in that document.

He doesn't need to. He understands the amendment. You were wrong.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Brock

Who says they "originate" from anywhere but inside the person who feels them?

I refuse to believe you aren't a deeper thinker than that. Where do you think your feelings and sense of right and wrong come from? Randomly organized molecules? Why don't every other animal species on earth have that same feeling? How is THAT encoded in our DNA?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Perhaps you should.

To be clear, I also agree there should be a separation of church and state, mainly because I don't want the state to have anything to do with how I practice my faith, which is the clear intent of the first amendment.

Using the state to dictate how, where and when someone practices their faith is nowhere to be found in that document.

You're going off the rails here. The state is prohibited from endorsing any religion. That's a statement of fact. All else is irrelevant to what i'm saying.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by listopencil

He doesn't need to. He understands the amendment. You were wrong.

Yes he is as are all that take his side are. It is amazing the effort these people will go to trying to avoid accepting the simple truth~

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

I refuse to believe you aren't a deeper thinker than that. Where do you think your feelings and sense of right and wrong come from? Randomly organized molecules? Why don't every other animal species on earth have that same feeling? How is THAT encoded in our DNA?

Perhaps it comes from my ability for abstract thought and empathy for other people, which animals do not have because they don't have a brain that operates on that level. I don't need religion to give me that.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by donkhater

I refuse to believe you aren't a deeper thinker than that. Where do you think your feelings and sense of right and wrong come from? Randomly organized molecules? Why don't every other animal species on earth have that same feeling? How is THAT encoded in our DNA?

What the **** does that have to do with the subject? I know what you think you know but it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing~

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by donkhater

I refuse to believe you aren't a deeper thinker than that. Where do you think your feelings and sense of right and wrong come from? Randomly organized molecules? Why don't every other animal species on earth have that same feeling? How is THAT encoded in our DNA?

No, it's encoded in your RNA. That's still not the point.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

What the **** does that have to do with the subject? I know what you think you know but it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing~

As it pertains to a specific religion, then, yes, a separation of church and state is appropriate. I don't believe I've denied that. I'm just merely suggesting that the laws of our society did not just evolve with us. Feelings of empathy and justice are not the result of random chance.

The absolute wall between the state and religion (in general, not a specific religion) is hard to achieve and I dare say impossible.