What is the weakest theist argument?

[Oli]

It is just a question. You stated ruling class attepting dominion over subjects (inferrence) by creating religion that states what ruling class has is not important? And you have cracked this ruse?

Inference?
You think the subject hasn't been studied?
I didn't crack anything, it's old news.
Try any course on sociology/ politics etc...

So you would compete with these men for what they have to obtain it, and a Robin Hood sort of way or to be them?

Now you're making inferences.
I gave an explanation and you thereby decide I'm going to compete for what they have?

The rest of that sentence makes no sense "and a Robin Hood sort of way"?

AND

? :shrug:

Why would I want to be them?
If that were what I wanted I would already be one of them.

And to answer your question;
no I don't recall ever competing for power over another man.
Control over others has never had any significance to me so why should I compete?

 

[rjr6]

I take it you've never had a brother or cared about getting a promotion etc?

Why would you like to know?

 

[Asguard]

norsefire the weakest argument that thiests make is "there is a god"

 

[rjr6]

Inference?
You think the subject hasn't been studied?
I didn't crack anything, it's old news.
Try any course on sociology/ politics etc...


Now you're making inferences.
I gave an explanation and you thereby decide I'm going to compete for what they have?

The rest of that sentence makes no sense "and a Robin Hood sort of way"?
? :shrug:

Why would I want to be them?
If that were what I wanted I would already be one of them.

And to answer your question;
no I don't recall ever competing for power over another man.
Control over others has never had any significance to me so why should I compete?

Power is intoxicating. It is all there is in this world, everything else is a decoration or a means. And Power and control are illusions. They are crack for the addict purveyed by the ultimate pusher.

 

[Oli]

Power is intoxicating.

Supposedly.

It is all there is in this world, everything else is a decoration or a means

Rubbish.

And Power and control are illusions. They are crack for the addict purveyed by the ultimate pusher.

Nonsense.
Actually, specious nonsense.

 

[rjr6]

Supposedly.


Rubbish.


Nonsense.
Actually, specious nonsense.

okay.

 

[Oli]

okay.

Okay what?
You agree?

 

[greenberg]

my post, number 10, is not to render a definitive opinion. just to give insight into different wasy of approaching the subject. different mindsets are involved and there is no denying that faith is a powerful facet to the human condition. There are positives and negatives alike, it is not for me to decide what is right and what is wrong.

But how do you live with yourself then? Don't you have a sense of right and wrong?

I'm not saying this to provoke you. It's just that I can relate to your position and we seem to be quite similar - but I myself don't find any peace in holding such a stance.

 

[John99]

I meant for other people.

 

[lepustimidus]

'Because my scripture says so' is perhaps the weakest theist argument in existence.

 

[rjr6]

Okay what?
You agree?

It seemed as if you were stating an opinion. I agree you have an opinion.
The statement I made about power was rather broad, and I should have explained my opinion more thoroughly.
My statement (on power) was made in response, and directed towards your statement on religion being created to subjugate people. That line of human experience (one attempting to control another), is based on power. It would seem you agree with me on that.
What I found ambiguous about your post was the acceptance or the importance it seemed to place on controlling wealth/people where at the same time condemning it.
Your post seemed to detract from religion, rather than the practice of subjugating another.

 

[Oli]

Your post seemed to detract from religion, rather than the practice of subjugating another.

Actually my post was questioning unsupported statements, viz:

It is all there is in this world, everything else is a decoration or a means

Mere speculation.

And Power and control are illusions.

So control is an illusion?
Hmm, it works, it has a real effect.
Please define "illusion".

My take on control or religion is irrelevant to the known facts about religion being a method of control.

 

[rjr6]

So control is an illusion?
Hmm, it works, it has a real effect.
Please define "illusion".

When you say "control works, it has a real effect" in what way do you mean?


[quote/]
My take on control or religion is irrelevant to the known facts about religion being a method of control.[/QUOTE]


Your "take" was what I was questioning.

 

[Oli]

When you say "control works, it has a real effect" in what way do you mean?

What do you mean "what do I mean"?:shrug:
If I have control over something it it does what I require.
How else would you define control?

Your "take" was what I was questioning.

For what purpose?
It's not germane to the discussion.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

How very entertaining... The weakest arguments I've ever heard have to be

"Don't you feel the Spirit moving in you?"-alwys made me think must be alot of indigestion in church

"If you first believe in him your eyes will be opened to the word of God"-I can see fine, thank you, and why in the world should I make the first move? Isn't this the same argument as the one for Santa Claus?

"Don't you want eternal life in heaven?"-to be honest. not really. never been big on the whole bowing and scraping thing. When I get there, I'm hoping God has an opening in Janitorial or Maintenance.

"Don't you fear hell?"-This is supposed to make someone believe? Are you kidding?

"E=MC2 therefore God must exist"-That's just silly. One might as well say I like jelly therefore God exists.

"Can you prove that God doesn't exist?"-Another poor argument. Not being able to disprove something does not make it exist.

"But God LOVES you!"-So does my cat, at least I can pet him!

and dat's what I have to say about dat

 

[Norsefire]

Mr. Hamtastic aren't you a theist?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

yep. I just know a weak argument when I hear it.

 

[rjr6]

The lower the involvement in the material world (or specifically, the lower the expectations) the easier it is for the ruling royalty/ priesthood to maintain control.
"OF course life is hard now and you have few possessions. But behave and you'll get your certain reward in the afterlife. Meanwhile finish cleaning the stables and then get that pyramid built".

So in opposistion, the higher the expectations of the "material world" the less control can be exercised over people?

 

[Oli]

If you let people have expectations they're harder to control, yes.
The more involvement with a personal life and the real world a person has then the harder it is to exert state control over them.
If all a person's information comes from a central source (holy book, communist diktat, whatever) the less chance they have to reason for themselves, especially if that information is only distributed by certain "licensed" people.

 

[rjr6]

If you let people have expectations they're harder to control, yes.
The more involvement with a personal life and the real world a person has then the harder it is to exert state control over them.
If all a person's information comes from a central source (holy book, communist diktat, whatever) the less chance they have to reason for themselves, especially if that information is only distributed by certain "licensed" people.

It seems like you are stating that establishing the parameters of a people's expectations is the best way to control them. The actual expectations are cultural, technological or just relevant to time/place.

So why would atheists, overtly denying God, not be exercising control in such a manner that some argue brought them to that belief?

Basically, atheists argument being "believe what you want but support that belief with this (scientific) doctrine?"