***** First, get out of the god muddle

Let's get one matter clear: until you specify what sort of *god* you're talking about, you'll simply slide from one concept to another and do nothing but indulge in the fallacy of equivocation all the while.

Are you going to limit yourself to the theistic divinity *God* who is said to be the personal male-gendered divinity claimed by jews, xians, and moslems? Or, will you opt for the *God* which the US courts refer to when defending the notorious phrase “In God we trust” and the more recent “under God” clause in our flag worship ceremony? It -- it has no gender -- is a deistic god which created the universe, set it running, and interacts neither with it nor with you. These are concepts of god which are familiar to anyone who has some Western Civ background from 1600 CE to the present.

Among ancient Greeks, the Stoics, Epicurus, Aristotle, and Plato had very different god concepts which unknown to many still influence so-called common sense ideas about divine entities.

Plato created a civic religion in “Laws” which held that the Sun was God. The other planets (in this geocentric system) were divinities too. To deny that the Sun was God was to punishable by death.

In late 5th C. BCE, the philosopher Anaxagoras was tried, convicted, and exiled from Athens for his opinion that the Sun was only a burning rock, not a god.

**** to bible worshipers and all like-minded fundies:

Don’t you understand yet what it means to beg-the-question? You can’t cite your ill-conceived concept of sin to support your equally ill-conceived fifth-rate fan fiction, theology.

Sin does not exist. Talking lizards do not (and did not) sell snake oil metaphysics in Eden. Augustine’s doctrine of inherited sin perversely glosses Paul’s even more perverse account of human nature.

That account took his own case as normal when in fact Paul was mentally ill. Probably a paranoid schizophrenic -- “why persecutest thou me?” says Paul’s auditory and visual hallucination.

Don't you understand yet? No matter what some madmen in magical texts tell you -- it's just wrong. There is no magic. There are no incantations. There is no theurgy.

Your non-existent divinity means zero. IT is one with Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, and Batman. God is the Joker.

“God” -- the pseudo-being you *pray* to -- is a psychological projection and shared delusion within your vile mega-cults. They exist and thrive because of cultural inertia, illegal government support, tax breaks, and their appeal to ‘sick noodles’ of whom thou art one.

bipolar2

let me say that making blasphemy a crime is obviously contrary to God's will, since it is clear God wants everyone to have a choice in the matter by the very way the world has been created.

Ex.20:7, don't take the lord's name in vain. Isn't that blasphemy? You seem to forget all the rules and punishments god imposed on his people. Clearly, he didn't want anyone to have a choice in the way they thought or acted.

God is not as evident, physically, as the Sun, but if God were that evident there would be no free choice in the matter.

I should add that God does seem as evident as the Sun, though of course in a different way, once the change of heart and mind has taken place.

So is he evident, or not? If physical evidence means no free choice, how do you explain his appearances in the O.T. and jesus' appearances in the N.T.?

Well, to the extent that God's existence can't be proven to every reasonable person's satisfaction, you could say it's not answerable for agnostics, but it's answered in the negative for atheists. But to those convinced of God's existence, there is an affirmative answer.

How could there be an intrinsic meaning of life when there is no consciousness behind the universe? Whilst there probably are some atheists who would answer that question with an affirmative answer most of us realise that for life to have a purpose we must make it up ourselves, some people make up a god to give them purpose while others come up with more worthy meanings of life.

Even if there were a god, following it wouldn't be much of a meaning of life.

Oncrn:

It's really hard to say what being consistent with there being no God means, since that is really an interpretation of whether or not the very existence of the universe calls for an explanation. I think it does.

The existence of the universe does require an explanation, but there is no good reason to suspect that explanation is an intelligent, conscious being which automatically makes the universe compatible with the non-existence of a god.

Besides, look at how successful science has been in explaining things without invoking a god along with how pitiful religion has been with a god.

Oncrn:

The second part about the observed universe being inconsistent with God's existence is not true, unless one is limiting oneself to the literal truth of everything in the Bible, which I am not.

You may not be but even those who claim to follow the literal text of the bible don't seem to actually do so, besides, you don't have to go all the way to a literal interpretation to get a God that is inconsistent with reality.

God is not as evident, physically, as the Sun, but if God were that evident there would be no free choice in the matter. Why does God give us free choice? Because it is good and makes each individual life have more value, I think...I don't know that I would call God "hidden" exactly, as I was able to come to recognize God's existence from considering the nature of the universe.

Aside from the problems of free will with an omni-max god and the incompatibility of the two...make up your mind. Does god hide from us to preserve our free will, or does he show himself to us so that people like you can come to find him?

Besides, do you actually use your free will to choose to disbelieve in Zeus? Why don't you choose to believe in Zeus for a day and tell us how it goes. Further, why would god be concerned with valuing our "free will" to "choose" to not believe if that is not a moral decision?

On the question at issue I have surmised it, based on the reason I gave.

So, you are guessing that this is what god wants?

Well, to the extent that God's existence can't be proven to every reasonable person's satisfaction, you could say it's not answerable for agnostics, but it's answered in the negative for atheists. But to those convinced of God's existence, there is an affirmative answer.

Really? What is it then?

It's really hard to say what being consistent with there being no God means, since that is really an interpretation of whether or not the very existence of the universe calls for an explanation.

So, wait. Are you arguing here that the very existence of the universe necessitates the existence of god? That would be god of the gaps reasoning and/or begging the question. There is no need for god to exist in order for the universe to exist. And, there is no overarching call for an explanation of the universe - we simply look for it because we are curious as a species. The reason that this universe is consistent with there being no god is because there is no need to invoke a god in order to explain this universe and the laws that it works within.

Besides, how do you know God's will?

On the question at issue I have surmised it, based on the reason I gave. But I'm not claiming to speak for God.

Most important question? It's probably not answerable.

Well, to the extent that God's existence can't be proven to every reasonable person's satisfaction, you could say it's not answerable for agnostics, but it's answered in the negative for atheists. But to those convinced of God's existence, there is an affirmative answer.

I'd be more inclined to call God non-existent myself, afterall, studying the nature of the universe shows something consistent with there not being a god and inconsistent with there being God (or at least the God of the bible, definitions can often be a bit of a problem).

It's really hard to say what being consistent with there being no God means, since that is really an interpretation of whether or not the very existence of the universe calls for an explanation. I think it does. The second part about the observed universe being inconsistent with God's existence is not true, unless one is limiting oneself to the literal truth of everything in the Bible, which I am not.

Going back to the original post and speaking as a theist (no, don't hit me!)

Hit. :-p

Oncrn:

let me say that making blasphemy a crime is obviously contrary to God's will, since it is clear God wants everyone to have a choice in the matter by the very way the world has been created.

Doesn't the bible say something against blasphemy?

Besides, how do you know God's will?

Oncrn:

God is not as evident, physically, as the Sun

That's a pretty big understatement.

Oncrn:

We get to discover ourselves the answer to the most important question of all: is there a purpose to the universe?

Most important question? It's probably not answerable.

Oncrn:

I don't know that I would call God "hidden" exactly, as I was able to come to recognize God's existence from considering the nature of the universe.

I'd be more inclined to call God non-existent myself, afterall, studying the nature of the universe shows something consistent with there not being a god and inconsistent with there being God (or at least the God of the bible, definitions can often be a bit of a problem).

The people who study the natural world and who are in the best position to determine whether a god is required tend by and large to be atheists which is not what would be expected if there were actual evidence of a god.

Oncrn:

I invite anyone interested reading a bit of my story to visit my blog to read "On the Breaking of Bad Habits Acquired in One’s Youth: Smoking and Atheism."

Religion could be likened to smoking and it is a bad habit acquired during youth.

The biggest difference I see with religion and smoking from the perspective of someone who has managed to avoid both is that smoking is harder to quit with people who want to quit often unable to while religion is easy to quit even if a previously religious person doesn't want to (which seems to usually be the case). Of course with both it is better not to start in the first place.

Though it does make me wonder how effective a direct attack on religion of the same scale as anti-smoking campaigns could be, I suspect it might be even more effective, if the religious don't get it banned.

They're an over-glorified bunch of security guards - they don't even send their men into combat zones with proper equipment (mainly do to reasons related to cost).

The same could have been said of the SS back around 1932 or so.

Blackwater are pretty trigger happy though so whilst professional soldiers might hesitate to massacre civilians Blackwater can be counted on to just go and do it.

Christopher:

Two words: blackhawk down. Even militaries equipped with the finest in hardware can be humiliated by a group of well-armed civilians under the right circumstances.

Shoot down the helicopter and the community that tries to resist will just get bombed by a fighter-bomber (from too high for a SAM to hit).

Besides, your typical dictator considers soldiers expendable.

Christopher:

Not all dictators have a majority backing them - in fact, more often than not they have only a very powerful and vocal minority fanatically dedicated to them. If all people in a community had access to similair levels of firepower this strategy would effectively be cancelled.

With the majority of people too scared to do anything about them (and a great many of them scared enough to collaborate with the oppressive government, say by telling them where you are).

Now if all people or even a lot of people had access to similar levels of firepower there might be chance but I think we both know that won't happen in the real world (and even those who do have firepower aren't as likely to use it as you might want).

Christopher:

I concur with you here, but the problem is that this barrier is impossible to erect: there will always be fools so ingrained into the mentallity of the herd that they will want someone else doing their thinking for them. I like having a "plan b" waiting in the wings in the inevitable circumstance that some group of loonies does succeed in instilling one...

Such people will always exist, we simply have to make them a minority (making the country prosperous seems to help there, dictators often thrive when things aren't going very well) while providing enough of a delay to recognise when the dangerous people are starting to get power so that the rest of the population can remove their power.

Running psychological tests as qualification for voting or holding office (to keep those with the wrong type of personality from voting or holding office) is a bit extreme though (even though it could possibly work acceptably well). Looking at what forms the followers and working to counteract it might be a better long term approach.

As for the plan B if a dictatorship does take hold, there's probably not that much you could do, at least not without outside help.

Ultimately to safeguard freedom we must have many nation-states so that if one becomes oppressive the others can help deal with it (and also hopefully take some refugees that realise what is happening).

They're an over-glorified bunch of security guards - they don't even send their men into combat zones with proper equipment (mainly do to reasons related to cost).

The same could have been said of the SS back around 1932 or so.

Blackwater are pretty trigger happy though so whilst professional soldiers might hesitate to massacre civilians Blackwater can be counted on to just go and do it.

Christopher:

Two words: blackhawk down. Even militaries equipped with the finest in hardware can be humiliated by a group of well-armed civilians under the right circumstances.

Shoot down the helicopter and the community that tries to resist will just get bombed by a fighter-bomber (from too high for a SAM to hit).

Besides, your typical dictator considers soldiers expendable.

Christopher:

Not all dictators have a majority backing them - in fact, more often than not they have only a very powerful and vocal minority fanatically dedicated to them. If all people in a community had access to similair levels of firepower this strategy would effectively be cancelled.

With the majority of people too scared to do anything about them (and a great many of them scared enough to collaborate with the oppressive government, say by telling them where you are).

Now if all people or even a lot of people had access to similar levels of firepower there might be chance but I think we both know that won't happen in the real world (and even those who do have firepower aren't as likely to use it as you might want).

Christopher:

I concur with you here, but the problem is that this barrier is impossible to erect: there will always be fools so ingrained into the mentallity of the herd that they will want someone else doing their thinking for them. I like having a "plan b" waiting in the wings in the inevitable circumstance that some group of loonies does succeed in instilling one...

Such people will always exist, we simply have to make them a minority (making the country prosperous seems to help there, dictators often thrive when things aren't going very well) while providing enough of a delay to recognise when the dangerous people are starting to get power so that the rest of the population can remove their power.

Running psychological tests as qualification for voting or holding office (to keep those with the wrong type of personality from voting or holding office) is a bit extreme though (even though it could possibly work acceptably well).

As for the plan B if a dictatorship does take hold, there's probably not that much you could do, at least not without outside help.

Ultimately to safeguard freedom we must have many nation-states so that if one becomes oppressive the others can help deal with it (and also hopefully take some refugees that realise what is happening).

"If Bush did manage to become dictator Blackwater is what you'd need to watch."

They're an over-glorified bunch of security guards - they don't even send their men into combat zones with proper equipment (mainly do to reasons related to cost).

Also bestonnet,

"A helicopter gunship or two should do the job."

Two words: blackhawk down. Even militaries equipped with the finest in hardware can be humiliated by a group of well-armed civilians under the right circumstances.

Also bestonnet,

"Besides, if a dictator got the popular support needed most of the people in that community are going to be on the dictator's side."

Not all dictators have a majority backing them - in fact, more often than not they have only a very powerful and vocal minority fanatically dedicated to them. If all people in a community had access to similair levels of firepower this strategy would effectively be cancelled.

Also bestonnet,

"The ultimate barrier to absolute power are citizens that don't want a dictator and ultimately all the others are just ways of buying enough time for the citizens to realise that they need to put that barrier in place."

I concur with you here, but the problem is that this barrier is impossible to erect: there will always be fools so ingrained into the mentallity of the herd that they will want someone else doing their thinking for them. I like having a "plan b" waiting in the wings in the inevitable circumstance that some group of loonies does succeed in instilling one...