No no, what I mean is:
Is it necessary that a god
exists to in order to have
a universe? Could it all have
just happened naturally?

Necessary? Probably not.

More fun and more interesting if there was one? Yes.

Mental illnesses have a statistical occurrence in every given population and depending on the social and cultural norms of that population, a mental illness can be seen as a sign of God or as a disease that can be treated with medicine and therapy.

Except that having religious meaning such peoples recive additional power. That's positive selection about. And yep, church attracts lighting indeed, cause church usually highest building in the village :). (not if I make any conclusions from this fact :) ).

And even here, we are talking about mental illnesses with very obvious delusional symptoms, psychotic breakdowns and schizophrenia, not psychopathy which was your original claim.

Agreed, I made generalisation cause not too strong in forms of mental illnesses, I'm not psychiatr after all.

Perhaps a lesson for everyone that not even the churches word is absolute.

Can't refrain from such question then: why the church is needed then if even it's not absolute? :D

So why can't the church change? Why does it immediately become something 'other' as you say?

Cause it makes peoples believe in some absolute then change that absolute. Much easier not to come closer to such "absolutes" at all IMO.

Look, if you what you say is true, then creationism would have died out long ago and arguments on the internet would never persist. Objective reality would be recognized by all and only a few contrarians would resist it, most for the sake of resisting it.

Well, it worked well with literacy, at some time it will work here too. And one of reasons why it takes so long - the same church again... And such thing as inertia, that exists not only in physics. Even if church now officially accepts evolution there were quite long history and quite many generations that didn't.
Inertia...

Again the point was that only works if you are the first and only politician to do it like that. Which is not the case.

Nope, you incorrect here. It's work on bright emotional impression. It should not be the single and only one. Yep, it will not work so good if each and every will use it, but it's fine while only few (but not single or first) use it.

Except that having religious meaning such peoples recive additional power.

It hardly has a positive meaning in most countries. You are more likely to be seen as possessed by Satan/demons than you are seen as someone who is more holy and requires reverance.

Can't refrain from such question then: why the church is needed then if even it's not absolute? :D

Simply put? It offers a service that attracts people.

Well, it worked well with literacy, at some time it will work here too. And one of reasons why it takes so long - the same church again... And such thing as inertia, that exists not only in physics. Even if church now officially accepts evolution there were quite long history and quite many generations that didn't.
Inertia...

Literacy was stamped out because its an easy to learn skill that simply required people to go to school. There was no opposition from it by people who felt that knowing how to read somehow goes against what their religion tells them about the fundamental nature of this existence. Its a false equivalent.

Can't refrain from such question then: why the church is needed then if even it's not absolute? :D

Simply put? It offers a service that attracts people.

Yep, as every narcotic does :)

Literacy was stamped out because its an easy to learn skill that simply required people to go to school. There was no opposition from it by people who felt that knowing how to read somehow goes against what their religion tells them about the fundamental nature of this existence. Its a false equivalent.

Not say so... being able to read was blamed by very same church some time ago as diabolic art... So not so false equivalent as one could think...

Just a thought, is every one in here agreed that the universe needs a God?

No.

---

Мишель...

Believe we fundamentally disagree regarding the existence of God.

But... I appreciate your tone, and fairness.

Unlike some Fanatical, Anti-Religion Rants posted here.

Probably we do yes.

But thank you non the less :)

Also, have a +1 :P

I dunno, the fact that in certain places Atheists rank just above sex offenders of people who parents trust to look after their child doesn't say a lot of good about your public image.

Source for this statement? (And, if true, what does it say about those who have that view?)

The point is that the church gets criticized if it sticks to the old outdated social norms on those norms but just as much gets criticized by the same people if the church admits that parts of it were outdated and updates its views. People criticize religion because the bible contains some really messed up parts in the old testament but when the church says 'look, we know thats outdated thats why we no longer advocate parents stoning their disobedient children' those same people say 'but now you are just picking and choosing what parts of your holy book you take literally'.

Science updates itself based on evidence that suggests the previous idea was wrong and gets applauded for it, religion updates itself based on evidence that suggests their previous idea was wrong but it gets criticized for it. Oh yeah sure, it keeps believing in a supernatural entity. But is that wrong? No, no that is not wrong. Its something that falls outside the realm of science, but that doesn't make it wrong to keep believing in it.

This argument provides strong support for the atheistic view that religions and their gods are man-made constructs.

---

Also, have a +1 :P

If by that you mean that you prove your point on religion, then sorry no.
Theme just exhausted itself and all required explanations were given. Or maybe some another arguments?

Credo quia absurdum is best description of this.

Just a thought, is every one in here
agreed that the universe needs a God?

Old Testament God?

New Testament God?

Holy Quran God?

... God?

Just God will do for me... The Universe is divine on its own, not sure if it needs a God.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Let's agree to Respectfully disagree, and return to the original Topic.

Agreed, on both points! ;)

---

Source for this statement? (And, if true, what does it say about those who have that view?)

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

My bad, Atheists are a bit less trusted than rapists. Still a bad reputation to have. And sure, it makes no sense that people distrust atheists like this, but having people like Dawkins as your spokesperson is not going to win a lot of hearts and minds I think.

This argument provides strong support for the atheistic view that religions and their gods are man-made constructs.

So what? Being a man made construct doesn't make something evil or bad.

In a family conversation about one of our siblings, the question came up about what this person would do if it was found out that there was no Gad and every thing was headed down hill in the universe. We all agreed that this person would of course volunteer for the job of Universal Overlord. Now the question is asked if that person may find it overwhelming to think there is no God nor a need for one in a universe that runs just fine, naturedly.

There may be only the personnel God!



(Off topic, I'll go away now.)

---

In a family conversation about one of our siblings, the question came up about what this person would do if it was found out that there was no Gad and every thing was headed down hill in the universe. We all agreed that this person would of course volunteer for the job of Universal Overlord. Now the question is asked if that person may find it overwhelming to think there is no God nor a need for one in a universe that runs just fine, naturedly.

There may be only the personnel God!



(Off topic, I'll go away now.)

Your own personal Jesus, like the idea (and the song) Ian:) *tiptoeing out of thread*

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Source for this statement? (And, if true, what does it say about those who have that view?)

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

My bad, Atheists are a bit less trusted than rapists. Still a bad reputation to have. And sure, it makes no sense that people distrust atheists like this, but having people like Dawkins as your spokesperson is not going to win a lot of hearts and minds I think.

Surely that helps you understand why Dawkins - invited on to panel shows to explain evolution... and finding himself a target of anti-atheist garbage for doing so - might get a little riled? :) His earlier books and appearances where he did not attack religions is what got up their noses and brought out the hate speech against him. He at least delivers his responses with one eye on science at all times. But yes... I sense you don't like the man :) nor his followers :) does that include those that defend him? :) I hope not :) I like hearing diverse views to mine - gives me much more to think about than what I might otherwise do.

@John Neale :) good to see you posting here again :)
@Raistmer :) you too :)

edit:@ celttooth

Just a thought, is every one in here
agreed that the universe needs a God?

No :) and erm... getting everyone to agree on anything here is... well... very hard :))))

Do some PEOPLE need a god - seems so :)

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Of course we have to know right from wrong! It's called morals, or ethics, in a social point of view.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Psychopaths need a god to know right from wrong?! *blink* Are you SURE jannesetti? :)

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Psychopaths need a god to know right from wrong?! *blink* Are you SURE jannesetti? :)

Oh! *blinks back* They don't know and are not supposed to because if there were indeed a god, he or she or it would teach us right from wrong automatically I presume.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Psychopaths need a god to know right from wrong?! *blink* Are you SURE jannesetti? :)

Oh! *blinks back* They don't know and are not supposed to because if there were indeed a god, he or she or it would teach us right from wrong automatically.

*admire Julie's blinking* :)))) *then... admire Julie's thinking* :))))

Do we need one to know right from wrong - definitely not! :)

Some do. Psychopaths for instance.

Psychopaths need a god to know right from wrong?! *blink* Are you SURE jannesetti? :)

Oh! *blinks back* They don't know and are not supposed to because if there were indeed a god, he or she or it would teach us right from wrong automatically.

*admire Julie's blinking* :)))) *then... admire Julie's thinking* :))))

*admires Annie back* :) We're getting off topic here Annie:))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures