SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Stevil]

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Things that are good can be used for bad. You of all people should know that.

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

The atomic bomb that landed on Hiroshima may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The alternative would have been a horrific struggle to the bitter end by the diciplined Japanese who valued honor and valour above their own lives. I would hate to think how many World Wars there would have been if not for the invention of the atomic/nuclear bomb.

[The Magic Pudding]

It's a bit early to say nuclear weapons have on balance benefited humanity through their deterrent effect.
Give it a few more hundred years and maybe a reasonable judgement could be made.

[Asmodean]

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Hiroshima isn't an atomic bomb either. It's a city on which one of those weapons was deployed. The Hiroshima bombing was certainly a disaster, however, the bomb which was used to achieve it was a great discovery. See the difference..?

In wake of nuclear weapons, we have nuclear power plants and a whole branch of science which actually helps us better understand the world and develop new gadgets and gizmos and things for me to stuff blue diodes in.

[Achronos]

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Einstein on the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."

Sure justification there however he also said: "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life."
http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm

But yes the atomic bomb sure is a great thing for us.

[Achronos]

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Hiroshima isn't an atomic bomb either. It's a city on which one of those weapons was deployed. The Hiroshima bombing was certainly a disaster, however, the bomb which was used to achieve it was a great discovery. See the difference..?

A great discovery that if fallen into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes may just be the end of all of us.

I'll quote Einstein again: "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!"

The thing Einstein had wrong with that assertion is there will be no rocks at the end of WWIII. It may have stopped Japan in WWII, but we would be very ignorant to say it's usage in WWIII (if it occurs) would not be near apocalyptic.

Hiroshima, I would hope, would be a warning sign of the catastrophic effects of what could happen when they are used. I am fortunate, even in the midst of what I would argue as a tragedy, that it didn't get worse than that.

[Heretical Rants]

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

[Asmodean]

A great discovery that if fallen into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes may just be the end of all of us.

The greatness of a discovery needs not be diminished by the results of its use. THAT diminishes the greatness of humans as a specie... In my book, at least.

Same goes for disasters. A disaster is a disaster even if something good comes of it. The good is a testement to the fact that humans can, on occasion, turn tables to productiveness, but it does not diminish the disastrous part of the disaster.

[The Magic Pudding]

Great only sometimes means good.
From Wordweb, not the definitive definer of words, but it is useful:
1) ]Relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind
2) Of major significance or importance
3)Remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect
4)Very good

After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great

Ye that is a Harry Potter quote, makes as much sense as St.Theophilus of Antioch.

[Ihateyoumike]

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

Exactly. This guy is far to dense to understand that though.

[Gawen]

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

That's pretty much true if one believes in an omnigod (omniscient).

[Sophus]

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story.

Are you serious? Of course it is. Do you think historians ignore written accounts of alleged events as not constituting evidence? That's ridiculous.

The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

No it doesn't. The Oz analogy fails in a number of ways.

:|

[Voter]

:|

Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

[Asmodean]

Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

Is there one single factual account of Jesus..?  

[Voter]

Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

Is there one single factual account of Jesus..?  

Aside from a priori rejection of certain aspects of the gospels, they fall more to the factual account side of the continuum than to the fiction side.

[Achronos]

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

If He doesn't exist then why bother debating over Him, because obviously He doesn't exist.

If we Christians merely believe in a lie, why are all the atheists in such a huff? What will they gain if they do convince us?  And what will we gain if we are convinced?  Their desperation?  A lack of meaning to our lives? Their conviction that the only thing to look forward to is the grave?  Then what is the meaning of "our lie" (if we pretend for a moment that it is a lie), if God doesn't exist, and there is no meaning behind the word "truth"?  Are they perhaps trying to help us see the truth?  What truth? What do they have as a point of reference for "truth"? To what end, and for what reason, if "purpose" and "reason" do not exist in the universe?

So, let us assume that God does not exist. Let us assume that Christians are struggling in vain, and that in the end, they too will acquire what everyone does:  "a grave", and nothing more. So, do Christians really have something to gain?

Yes, they do. Because naturally (although it is not the basic reason for their faith), if God exists, they will gain the heavenly kingdom (Glorification). But if God does not exist, they again will have benefited, because they will feel solace throughout their life - they will have someone to tell their woes to in times of ultimate desperation, when other people are unable to console them. They feel that they have someone to protect them during their fears, and a life that feels like it is worth something and is meaningful. And yes, people like these are much happier than others, who don't believe.  So what if they don't live with all the comforts? So what if they don't get to savor everything? At the moment of death, none of the things that they savored will remain.  But for the faithful, the moment of death is something that they have anticipated, with hope and with courage, and not with fear and disappointment. And that is what true FREEDOM is about: not the hopelessness that the pessimist author and philosopher Kazantzakis had labeled as "freedom" (On his tombstone reads: "I HOPE FOR NOTHING. I FEAR NOTHING. I AM FREE"). To the faithful, their entire life is pleasurable, because they live it with faith and hope, without any fears and desperation; because even when confronting death in the person of a loved one, they remain steadfast to the hope that they will meet again. If the universe is just a coincedence (as Atheists want it to be) and truth is something relevant (as modern trends try to persuade us) then why doesn't this make a man of faith happier ?

These words are not a mere theory.  I myself had carried out my own personal research some time ago. I started to ask people of various ages and faiths to tell me how they would characterize their life in one or two words. The responses that I collected were very many, but the conclusion was only one:  I did not record a single believing person who declared himself to be miserable. And not a single faith-less person that declared himself to be blissfully happy!

So again I'll ask if God does not exist, in any religion, why debate over Him? You are merely debating over something that does not (in the atheist view) exist. So you are essentially wasting your time arguing over a non-existent entity, that to me sounds alot more foolish than someone who does believe in God or a god.