Standing up for God.
1) The focus of the a/theist argument should not be which version of God is correct, or which religion is good/bad, which members of which church did what etc … – some atheist thinking gets caught up here. The real question is, is it more likely that there is a God than not?
2) There is no conclusive argument to the contrary – “argument of evil” etc just doesn’t cut it. it is way too boring to work through the multitude of finely crafted cockamamie arguments.
3) The crux of the debate is the existence of a metaphysical realm – where God would exist - because if it exists, the existence of a supreme being, God or Gods (however the hierarchy turns out in that realm) is ...

Standing up for God.
1) The focus of the a/theist argument should not be which version of God is correct, or which religion is good/bad, which members of which church did what etc … – some atheist thinking gets caught up here. The real question is, is it more likely that there is a God than not?
2) There is no conclusive argument to the contrary – “argument of evil” etc just doesn’t cut it. it is way too boring to work through the multitude of finely crafted cockamamie arguments.
3) The crux of the debate is the existence of a metaphysical realm – where God would exist - because if it exists, the existence of a supreme being, God or Gods (however the hierarchy turns out in that realm) is but a small and likely next step.
4) There is considerable firsthand anecdotal evidence that a metaphysical realm exists. Some of the accounts may well be fabrications or outright cons, but can you honestly dismiss the rest?
So you have a choice. Believe in the opinions/reasoning of atheists or in the experiential evidence of theists.
But you say, if you can’t prove it exists it does not exist. Well then, as an analogy, would you advocate that all criminal convictions based on witness testimony be overturned? At some point you may choose to believe witnesses who have nothing to gain (often much to lose) by their evidence. If not you choose to believe opinions/arguments, for which there is also no conclusive proof.
It is about choice and perhaps even faith in your own judgement and that of others.

My concern is not for the persecution of the majority by the minority. Rather I speak out against religious intolerance, from whatever quarter. Christian religious intolerance is no different from atheist religious intolerance. Neither is acceptable and both have the potential to breed hatred and violence. Just because the voice of atheist religious intolerance is small does not mean it should be condoned by silence – it certainly should not encouraged.
I have no issue with challenging religion, or questioning the existence of God but seeking to suppress religion does not advance the cause.
There is little to be gained by drawing attention away from the injustices perpetrated in the na...

My concern is not for the persecution of the majority by the minority. Rather I speak out against religious intolerance, from whatever quarter. Christian religious intolerance is no different from atheist religious intolerance. Neither is acceptable and both have the potential to breed hatred and violence. Just because the voice of atheist religious intolerance is small does not mean it should be condoned by silence – it certainly should not encouraged.
I have no issue with challenging religion, or questioning the existence of God but seeking to suppress religion does not advance the cause.
There is little to be gained by drawing attention away from the injustices perpetrated in the name of religion and focusing on the professed religious affiliation of the perpetrator. I suspect the White House would not like to see the debate on Iraq focus on Iraq.
Better to muddy the water with Christian right conspiracy theory and take up media space criticising those who have “God on their side” rather than address the atrocities they commit.
Religion, race, football team etc are all convenient ways to demarcate the foe in what is usually a fight for power or resource – and often a way to justify the unacceptable.

Just as much carnage has been committed for the sake of nationalism or racism. And atheism: the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, both atheist, were responsible for murder on an even greater scale. It is a mistake to attribute to religion itself the behaviour of some of its extremist adherents.

I am continuing to read examples of people who claim that a general tolerance of religion is required, and that some atheists also do terrible things.
However, I have noticed a particular structure to some of these claims. Ultimately, many of the writers actually say, "The harms done by religion should be tolerated, because some atheists have done terrible things."
...this would be a lot like...

Just as much carnage has been committed for the sake of nationalism or racism. And atheism: the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, both atheist, were responsible for murder on an even greater scale. It is a mistake to attribute to religion itself the behaviour of some of its extremist adherents.

I am continuing to read examples of people who claim that a general tolerance of religion is required, and that some atheists also do terrible things.
However, I have noticed a particular structure to some of these claims. Ultimately, many of the writers actually say, "The harms done by religion should be tolerated, because some atheists have done terrible things."
...this would be a lot like claiming, "My crimes of murder, rape, and theft should be tolerated because I am not the only person guilty of murder, rape, and theft." It is a poor defense.
So, I want to make a deal. I agree that some atheists in the past have done terrible things - and some atheists in the present and the future might also do terrible things. However, I want to make it clear that nobody should, in any way, feel obligated to 'tolerate' any evil that any atheist is or will do. Never, will I argue, that any evil that an atheist is doing or will do should be tolerated in the name of tolerance.
However, ... on these same grounds, I hold that it is permissible to condemn any evil done by a non-atheist as well. The non-atheist who threatens the life, health, and well-being of others, in the name of God, shall be subject to the same condemnation as those who do harm to the life, health, and well-being of others by somebody who does not believe in God.
The idea that, because some atheists have done evil in the past, that no current or future evil done by a theist may be condemned, shall be just as freely disregarded as the idea that, because some theist has done evil in the past, that no current or future evil done by an atheist may be condemned.
Sound fair?
--Alonzo Fyfe

Go laceym! Atheists and theists, even Christians, should have a lot in common – it’s good to see you expressing some it!!! Christian and Muslin, you and I, we should all have anti-religion feelings when religion is used to justify or encourage the deeds you speak of. In truth, that is when they should be praying most earnestly to God that peace and right prevail – of course God helps those who help themselves, so they also need to get off their knees and be heard and seen protesting evil and the intolerance that provides the fuel for discrimination and injustice of any sort.
Of course laceym is right; we should all condemn evil acts no matter who commits them!
BUT, I would suggest there i...

Go laceym! Atheists and theists, even Christians, should have a lot in common – it’s good to see you expressing some it!!! Christian and Muslin, you and I, we should all have anti-religion feelings when religion is used to justify or encourage the deeds you speak of. In truth, that is when they should be praying most earnestly to God that peace and right prevail – of course God helps those who help themselves, so they also need to get off their knees and be heard and seen protesting evil and the intolerance that provides the fuel for discrimination and injustice of any sort.
Of course laceym is right; we should all condemn evil acts no matter who commits them!
BUT, I would suggest there is little to be gained by drawing attention away from the injustices or atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion (or whatever) and focusing on the professed religious (or non-religious) affiliation of the perpetrators. In fact that minimises the injustice/atrocity by trying to replace it with a nice sanitary, rational, realist debate about God and/or religion or ethnicity or whatever. Harm is harm, having “God on our side” is no excuse, nor is having God on the other side.

More people have died in gods name than all the empires of the world combined. So no religion cannot be defended

Amergin do you seriously think that if
religion were eliminated there would be no war, atrocities, or injustice? Are
you saying there is a unique causal link? Does religion cause war or is it, along with numerous
other catch cries, exploited by those bent on the destruction and subjugation of
others? Don’t you think that people will still form into groups and seek to
dominate others in their quest for power or resources without religion? If you are an evolutionist you should conclude that the ability to identify and exploit issues to enhance the position of your g...

More people have died in gods name than all the empires of the world combined. So no religion cannot be defended

Amergin do you seriously think that if
religion were eliminated there would be no war, atrocities, or injustice? Are
you saying there is a unique causal link? Does religion cause war or is it, along with numerous
other catch cries, exploited by those bent on the destruction and subjugation of
others? Don’t you think that people will still form into groups and seek to
dominate others in their quest for power or resources without religion? If you are an evolutionist you should conclude that the ability to identify and exploit issues to enhance the position of your group is a charateristic evolution would favour.

Shouldn’t we all focus on what actually causes the wars etc. Perhaps economic
globalisation and the unequal sharing of the world’s resources, or American exploitation
of resource rich under developed countries would be a more productive outlet for your
frustrations.

There maybe a god, but if he takes one look at the worlds religions he
will see nothing but organised ignorance and suppression of the human
spirit.

Great statement of the obvious, and your point is ... ?

My point is that people look for differences in each other.
Religion, nation, money and they stereotype. They believe their social group is the right one and refuse to see the others view.
[ America is an excellent exponent of this.]
Some even perceive a threat and move to eliminate that threat.
Evolution in action maybe, but more likely a flawed group of societies.
Religion is a strong reflection of this problem, where intolerance of other systems is rampant.
As to there being war without religion, yes there would be. But , not with the fervour of fanatics on both sides.
Lets face it, if you thought there was no heavenly afterlife would you be as quick to throw your life away.
What the wor...

My point is that people look for differences in each other.
Religion, nation, money and they stereotype. They believe their social group is the right one and refuse to see the others view.
[ America is an excellent exponent of this.]
Some even perceive a threat and move to eliminate that threat.
Evolution in action maybe, but more likely a flawed group of societies.
Religion is a strong reflection of this problem, where intolerance of other systems is rampant.
As to there being war without religion, yes there would be. But , not with the fervour of fanatics on both sides.
Lets face it, if you thought there was no heavenly afterlife would you be as quick to throw your life away.
What the world needs is a common purpose to survive.
In the next hundred years or so, science or the survival of humanity will become the main goal. Already the world psyche is beginning to change, the worlds Eco-system and it's problems have become mainstream.
Hopefully we can leave the shackles of organised religion behind and look back in history and think;
Were we that ignorant ?

I agree with all your points Amerigen, which may come as a surprise to both of us! What surprised me most perhaps is that with such a sane view your earlier comment was so full of negative stereotyping of those with religion – there are still shades of it your last comment.
Speaking out against the actions rather than the professed religious affiliations of the perpetrators focuses attention on the real problem and avoids unproductive debate. Yes it is unproductive to try and cull religion, people with a belief in an afterlife will seek those of common interest and meet and develop their thinking – just as atheists do. And faced with the weakness of atheist reasoning stacked against cre...

I agree with all your points Amerigen, which may come as a surprise to both of us! What surprised me most perhaps is that with such a sane view your earlier comment was so full of negative stereotyping of those with religion – there are still shades of it your last comment.
Speaking out against the actions rather than the professed religious affiliations of the perpetrators focuses attention on the real problem and avoids unproductive debate. Yes it is unproductive to try and cull religion, people with a belief in an afterlife will seek those of common interest and meet and develop their thinking – just as atheists do. And faced with the weakness of atheist reasoning stacked against credible first hand evidence that there is an afterlife there will always be believers and as neither case carries with it proof absolute acceptable to the other there is likely to be an ongoing a/theist debate.

If we participate in the debate, we have a role to play in fanning or dousing the flames of intolerance which create the climate for the injustices we both abhor. I know it’s much more fun to really let rip, I love to … but some people out there are hot headed and impressionable – a bad combination - open to exploitation by rabble rousers of any persuasion.