the answer's in the last place you look.

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Apr 25, 2010 at 07:37

Nick - hard to see how this relates to the goings-on in Londinistan, but nevertheless you raise some points:

"

Yuval, you really must do your homework!

Someone once counted the number of people that were killed by God in the Bible. He came up with "2,391,471, which, of course, greatly underestimates God's total death toll, If the biblical god were omniscient and omnipotent, then how come he made such a mess of his creation? Seems like poor workmanship to me! He seems to agree with me, because he destroyed our planet once by flood, killing everyone on board except for eight adults he deemed worthy. ....I thought that he once had advocated that "Thou shalt not kill?"

Why stop at 2 million then?What do you consider 'God' to be or not be? Define your terms, please. If 'God' is all that ever was and all that ever will be on every dimension from the macro universe down to the infinite sea of superstrings existin in 20 dimensions simultaneously that we currently postulate as our ground of being - then you may as well say that 'God' has killed every human being - and every other being - that has ever lived. Not directly - but through one means or another - since 'time' began. And on the quatum level 'time' does not really exist. So, whether it was war, bacteria, poisoning, volcanic eruptions, asteroid strike, drought, famine - animals killing people, or people killing other people - basically it was all due to natural laws - and if you can call 'God' everything that ever was or ever will be and then some - - then it's all God's fault isn't it? But what alternative should there have been? Any ideas? Would non-existence be a better alternative?

"You seem to suggest that morality on Earth would not exist unless a god were there to provide it. Morality came about when man realized that he had to get along with his fellow man, or perish. Humans still have a long way to go, of course, but we're doing our best, even if it's a slow process."

Could it be that 'morals' are innate in humans and universal - the same way smiles are - but are in many cases twisted and perverted by cultural mores? So what was natural becomes codified into a truly sick set of rules and cultural expectations giving power to particular subgroups (eg.. Islamic men) - like burkhas , stonings, limb amputations and female genital mutilation?

".....We're here on Earth by ourselves, Yuval. We have to stand on our own two feet. There is no performing wizard up in the sky to call upon when things go awry."

I understand the aversion to the anthropomorphic external Santa Claus idea - but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. What if 'God' was personal enlightenment? Or one's deepest self? Or experiencing life itself with a sense of harmony with oneself and therefore automatically oneness and inclusiveness with the 'external' world - without the chattering mind continually telling you what it thinks is reality? Wouldn't the idea of dismissing the idea of 'god' then become ludicrous?

"....It'll take time, but we have to rid ourselves of age-old, pagan superstitions, fairy tales, myths and legends, which have held us back for so long, and on which so many have misplaced their trust."

The 'problem' of 'god' will still continue to exist in 10,000 years time. No thought, group of thoughts - or way of thinking will ever be enough to quench human's innate quest for enlightenment

"...Growing up and using common sense is the first step!!!!!!!!"

Absolutely.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".