“Many facts are omitted from the record if they don’t serve God’s purpose.”
Pointing out the problem of talking about God in the third person can get old quick, so the focus here should be on facts, omission and purpose. The concept of omission alone is such a concrete way of saying, “Hey, we’re not going to use this!” In the case of God, facts and omission, the grouping sounds eerily like something one would hear coming from the CIA. Ultimately, this statement is not only a rationalization, that task of categorizing the unexplainable into the realm of “God works in mysterious ways,” but smacks of an agenda which functions on the principle of keeping people ignorant. If Eve really did bite into the apple, thus opening the door to knowledge, then the “facts” of medical science naturally follow in the wake of Eve’s actions. This must mean that the religionists are participating in sin every time they are seen associating with a doctor.
“The Bible is just like God; it is an all or nothing principle.”
Saying the Bible is like God is a matter of opinion, where either one is subject to being defined. People should be entitled to opinion, but the following phrase, “all or nothing,” it represents the kind of black and white thinking which hampers the progress of humanity. The world and its inhabitants, in its mass of diversity, is a hotbed of gray area; the church once tried to make it black and white, hence the reformation, the rise of atheism, etc.
“If you’re wrong about God, you are out a whole lot.”
This statement falls under the theory of Pascal’s Wager, which addresses the afterlife from a perspective of gambling.
“We need to understand each other.”
This passive-aggressive statement seeks to harmonize varying belief systems, which flies in the face of the “all or nothing” principle that was previously discussed. It sounds like something a spiritual-but-not-religious person would say, which is fine, until a religious group attempts to instill their “understandings” into the social system which governs us.
“I would even venture to say that atheism is almost developing into a type of trend or fad. It’s ‘old-fashioned’ to believe in God.”
So true. Call it what you will, but much like the day when people wandered around the deserts and valleys in soliloquy, convincing themselves that the presence of God was with them, so today people operate in the same manner, substituting the aspects of wandering and self-convincing with focus and factualism.
“In secularism, people worship man instead of a god.”
In secularism, people don’t worship anything. People consider humanity in secularism, with the hopes and intentions of bringing about peace through the principle of realism.
“Pity the poor atheist who depends on science to justify his disbelief. He is without excuse.”
This is one of those insider comments designed to reinforce the notion that thinking outside the lines of religious dogma is innately wrong.
“The assertion that there is no higher being is not a statement about right or wrong or how to live one’s life. In some sense, atheism is amoral, in that there is nothing about it that involves morality. Religion, on the other hand, is impossible to separate from morality.”
Addressing the morality question doesn’t do much for the aspect of the supernatural, the principle that all religion is founded on. Arguing about what morality is and where it comes from generally always detracts and digresses into realms of either intense philosophical rhetoric, or plain uselessness. The words then linger within the recesses of the Internet to remain in a sort of digital graveyard until someone comes along and revives the discussion.
“God does not need me to prove himself to you. Nor need he be interested in proving himself to anyone. Classical theism does not tell of a God who ‘needs’ anything.”
To think of God proving himself, I think of Moses and plagues; I think of staffs turning into snakes and entire seas that become split in two; I think of reviving lifeless matter and magic saliva; I think of talking donkeys and serpents. To think of God “needing” anything, I think of the countless lives lost because he didn’t get his way.
To more clearly address this statement, the billions of years leading up to the era when inventing myths and religion was like a “trend” or a “fad,” these epochs seem blank with acts of supernatural proof. Oddly, such acts are equally non-existent in the day and age of YouTube. The Dinosaurs didn’t record acts of magic; modern day humans don’t have magic; but around the time when mankind figured out how to put words on the page, it is loaded with acts of magic. The religions of today are founded on the pursuit of governance through fiction writing.
“Far more people than we realize are possessed to one degree or another by Satan’s demons. Many more, at the very least, are strongly influenced by Satanic forces and don’t even realize it.”
??????? Actually, the religionists, in this case, belittle themselves when they talk in this fashion.
“Do away with Islam, it is a false religion.”
This is the conundrum of which all religionists must contend with. Why is any one religion more or less “false” than any other? Where one group criticizes the other in displays of heated belief, the secularist has to stand on the sidelines and watch as they bicker and fight with each other. The idea that so many religions exist should be proof enough that people made the stuff up according to their geographical and cultural situations.