To "Well said Andrew"

Submitted by Leah (United States), Sep 1, 2006 at 11:48

What a silly people we are to fight and kill, or even argue over something so totally intangible and unreal as a god. First prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these gods exist, then let them fight over who is the correct one. It is as the Flying Spaghetti Monster wills, there is no strength but in th Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I agree that it is wrong to kill in the name of G-d, but not that it is wrong to argue in the name of G-d. Indeed, what you are doing right now is arguing about G-d: you are trying to prove He does not exist, and that is arguing. You are engaged in a debate about the existence of G-d.

When you say, "unreal," G-d is only unreal TO YOU. That word, "unreal," is entirely subjective and not based on any factual evidence.

Why is it wrong to argue over something intangible? Arguments over G-d have produced whole schools of theology and philosophy, as well as some of the greatest thinkers in the world, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, St. Augustine, and Ibn Ezra. Love is intangible; does that mean we should not have debates about its nature? Freedom is intangible. All concepts are intangible. Philosophy is based on concepts; therefore to say that it is ridiculous to argue over intangible things is to dismiss an entire field (ie, that of philosophy).

The concept of Gd has brought much comfort and inspiration to many individuals and peoples. As long as violence is not fought in the name of G-d (and, after all, violence can be fought in the name of anything), what is wrong with believing in G-d? The only thing wrong with it is that YOU don't believe in it. Becuase you don't believe in G-d, it's wrong for others to believe in G-d. That's your argument, essentially.

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".