Comments on: Why You are Stupid for Believing in God

By: Euphorix

Euphorix — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:55:56 +0000

Shify –

Whatever development has occurred because of a conviction in God is irrelevant for his existence, and does not enter into this article. I agree that if people think they are divinely inspired, they will create in the name of that; art, music, literature — and whole societies; however this is irrelevant to a discussion of the existence of God. If a lunatic gets inspiration from his disturbed state of mind to spend forty years of his life building an identical replica of the Mona Lisa on a 1000:1 scale entirely out of thumbtacks, this would be admirable; but it would by no means prove correct whatever delusions occupied the lunatic’s head.

The same applies to morality (at the moment, I am a moral nihilist (although I was not at the time of writing)): one cannot argue that morality exists by assuming that God exists; and one cannot argue that God exists by assuming morality exists. One of these must first be proven in order to prove the other.

By: Shify

Shify — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:16:16 +0000

Very nice article and I agree with the fact that god does not exist. However, I would argue that morality, throughout the past, was laid on a Christian foundation, with God as that foundation right? Like you said “[I was] probably brought up religious and indoctrinated from an early age.” Thus, if one gives up the Christian faith, if we no longer believe we grew up believing, in what what system of values should we accept? Has in not much of philosophical history, used God as the foundation? I really think we should not ears god just yet or else we must erase our basis of think because most of our grammar, way of thinking, even the notion of having a leader, comes from the basis of a God.

By: Not here

Not here — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:24:51 +0000

This is the best thing I have ever read ever.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:05:17 +0000

And I in turn contest your logic that being omnipotent means he is not pure good

By: euphorixx

euphorixx — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:30:38 +0000

In response to Anon.

Exactly. I never said explicitly that God was not omnipotent; I said that he was EITHER not omnipotent OR he was not pure good (his decisions were not 100% good).

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:53:03 +0000

I contend that he can change his mind.

Being God, he can do whatever he wants, but why would he change his mind? He has already made the best decision, and diverging from that would be the equivalent of trading a quarter for a nickel.
Could you? Of course, but it would obviously be an unwise choice.

By: Virus

Virus — Sun, 25 May 2008 18:22:32 +0000

I dont read that text, too lazy now =D
but i read that title and thought: yes, my opinion =)
god/religion = war… like the holy war, the Holocaust or the Jihad….

By: DrumIt

DrumIt — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:20:12 +0000

dude i really like your essay. it’s pretty much how i think of the whole existence of god and deities or whatever u call it.

WELL DONE

By: euphorixx

euphorixx — Sat, 24 May 2008 17:36:55 +0000

In response to Anon –

The question is not why he would want to, but whether he can or not.

By: Nicki (Ahlto)

Nicki (Ahlto) — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:43:15 +0000

Very nice article indeed. As a big fan of both Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams I really like your arguments and… Well, your point of view.