To any theistic members.

I have a challenge for you. Come up with a cohesive, rational argument as to why all gods other than your own do not exist, that cannot also be used to argue that your god or gods do not exist.

Zeronos wrote:

I have a challenge for you. Come up with a cohesive, rational argument as to why all gods other than your own do not exist, that cannot also be used to argue that your god or gods do not exist.

You can feel my god holding you down with his noodly appendage. What now huh?

I believe theres lots of gods, but my god doesn't get along with them, so he says they don't exist.

I believe there is one god, but also many. The one god JHVA is supreme, the others are DAEMONS (lesser gods or idols).

Liche wrote:

I believe theres lots of gods, but my god doesn't get along with them, so he says they don't exist.

I believe there is one god, but also many. The one god JHVA is supreme, the others are DAEMONS (lesser gods or idols).

So you're a henotheist who just holds his god as superior for no logical reason. Gotcha. Explain why you believe this?

Amon Ra is the Sun, we already know that the Sun is not a god, maybe an appendage of god but not god.

Zeronos wrote:

Liche wrote:

I believe theres lots of gods, but my god doesn't get along with them, so he says they don't exist.

I believe there is one god, but also many. The one god JHVA is supreme, the others are DAEMONS (lesser gods or idols).

So you're a henotheist who just holds his god as superior for no logical reason. Gotcha. Explain why you believe this?

Well, JHVA is the main god but I hold Odin at the same level. Its just, most people agreed JHVA is supreme in the Dark Ages. Many gods are just as powerful. But JHVA has the power of man, and many other religions have transfered there faith to him (Jews, Arabs, etc...)

and yes I agree I am a henotheist (and I thank you, I never before heard this term ).

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

I know officially declare WeiWuWei one of the best anarchists ever, including..Liche, and Black_Cross of course!

But, seriously, i agree to this statement as in context of religion, not "State/bourgeoisie"

Liche wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

Liche wrote:

I believe theres lots of gods, but my god doesn't get along with them, so he says they don't exist.

I believe there is one god, but also many. The one god JHVA is supreme, the others are DAEMONS (lesser gods or idols).

So you're a henotheist who just holds his god as superior for no logical reason. Gotcha. Explain why you believe this?

Well, JHVA is the main god but I hold Odin at the same level. Its just, most people agreed JHVA is supreme in the Dark Ages. Many gods are just as powerful. But JHVA has the power of man, and many other religions have transfered there faith to him (Jews, Arabs, etc...)

and yes I agree I am a henotheist (and I thank you, I never before heard this term ).

....You haven't by any chance been reading American Gods, have you? e_e

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

Agreed, comrade.

god is just something human needs, so they dont get depression. the only way to kill it is to wait, dont argue with them etc, they will slowly realise there is no god but. but this is like in about 500 years.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

Amen to that!

Do you read Cntrl-alt-del, Zeronos?

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

Definitely disagree. I believe religion to be a matter of personal freedom as long as it has no negative effect on third parties.

Zeronos wrote:

....You haven't by any chance been reading American Gods, have you? e_e

No, I never heard of that. Why?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

Definitely disagree. I believe religion to be a matter of personal freedom as long as it has no negative effect on third parties.

This. While I am against hierarchal religions (eg. In the Church, with the Pope and such), religion is a personal matter. Certainly, I'm not desperate to get rid of things like Liberation Theology, regardless of the fact that it does ignore parts of the Bible (which capitalist xians ignore other parts).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

I consider myself extremely antitheist, and I genuinely believe that our struggle against religion is just as important as our struggle against the State and the bourgeoisie, if not even moreso.

Definitely disagree. I believe religion to be a matter of personal freedom as long as it has no negative effect on third parties.

I feel like what you're talking about here is "faith", not necessarily religion. Religion is more like the institutional form of faith, and it's a difficult institution to overcome; it bases its legitimacy and authority from a being whose existence can never be proven/disproven.

Faith isn't inherently bad, although it of course could be made so - though I would argue that it is certainly inherently irrational, and perhaps inherently silly. But I do think religion is inherently bad; I think that's what happens when you're brought up Catholic.

Well I am very liberal with my religious views.


and I wouldn't know because I was brought up Atheist.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I feel like what you're talking about here is "faith", not necessarily religion. Religion is more like the institutional form of faith, and it's a difficult institution to overcome; it bases its legitimacy and authority from a being whose existence can never be proven/disproven.

I'd dissociate "religion" from "institution". Indeed I oppose religious institutions which are indeed dangerous as they harness power based on people's faith. However, religion by itself doesn't imply institution. Religion is a series of beliefs and practices determined by said beliefs, religion could be even considered a cultural trait.

Religious institution can be easily attacked even from a theistic point of view. I personally have been able to convince some catholics and jews against their church without attacking a single bit of their faith or religion.

Religious practices by themselves are not bad at all. If a man feels himself liberated and happy by walking on his knees a couple of miles over a road of shattered glass, as long as it hinders no one else's integrity I don't see why that should be attacked. If a bunch of guys feel emotionally realized by going to a place to sing in hebrew, grow giant beards and fast a couple of times during Septmeber and October, since it harms no one I don't see why that should be attacked.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Faith isn't inherently bad, although it of course could be made so - though I would argue that it is certainly inherently irrational, and perhaps inherently silly.

I personally like to be convinced that I'm more than just a bunch of electrochemical reactions. It gives me a sense of real freedom. You know why? Because it's the only way in which I can feel that at least my moral integrity cannot be artificially altered by some bioengineer. It makes me feel that I'm worth more than a rotting tomato.

Now, is that rational? I'd argue it is. Why? Because I often try to base my beliefs in science, and so far the more science advances and the more science discovers the more doubts appear. There are many things that scientists have found incomprehensible and other things that are inherently unpredictable. There's still a lot to discover and even more to understand.

In my view it is as irrational to state that god exists as stating that doesn't exist because there's no way to prove either claim, just as you said earlier in your post.

The most important, in my view, is the ethical code we have as individuals and that we keep our beliefs to ourselves, maybe share them just as we share our opinions, but never imposing.

WeiWuWei wrote:

But I do think religion is inherently bad; I think that's what happens when you're brought up Catholic.

Well, I think we're employing three core concepts here: "Faith", "Religion" and "Institution". I think they are three different concepts that, while linked, are not necesarily interdependant.

The most independant of these is "faith" which is absolutely general, basically just a set of beliefs. "Religion" would be dependant upon faith and its difference would be that it implies a whole culture around said faith: practices, rituals, language, prayers, etc. "Institution" would be dependant upon either merely faith or religion being a complete hierarchy and even legal/coercive structure based on them.

If we part from those understandings, I think that we agree that actually the only really problematic part of those is the Institution and in some very specific cases religion (in case of practices that affect 3rd parties) but not in general.

Those are my views.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Do you read Cntrl-alt-del, Zeronos?

...The postulation is taken from there, but it's still a question they need to be able to answer....<< >>

Which no one has. Well, there that Odin mention, but....

...I'm so confused.

did I start something?

Okay, Odin and JHVA, whoever the hell that is.

yes what about them?

that doesn't answer my question

Zeronos said "...The postulation is taken from there, but it's still a question they need to be able to answer....<< >>"

I was answering him that no one had answered his original question.

oh k...I get it more.