Really now? It seems to me your whole posting history for the past couple of years since you joined was built on the premise that you're an agnostic. It would be rather lame to merely play devil's advocate for a full two years. You can say that all the arguments presented thus far are flawed, and frankly many of them could use some philosophical refinement. You have not given an answer to my question, however, of what exactly would constitute good evidence for God's existence in any possible universe that could ever exist. Without being able to answer this question about possible evidence for God's existence that you believe does not in fact exist, your own philosophical justification for being an agnostic begins to look shaky because the premise that there is insufficient evidence for God's existence to believe in him is given little support.MomoAdachi (post: 1203972) wrote:I am a Christian, and always will be. I believe firmly that Christ was the Messiah who died for our sins. However I am playing the devil's advocate here to show you that all your arguments are flawed. If this is the best we can come up with to defend our faith, well, no wonder she's an agnostic.
This way of arguing that the world would be better off without religion, when reduced to raw logic can be stated as follows.Nate wrote:Momo, my question for you is, religion (Christianity in particular) has been shown throughout history to be the cause of, either directly or indirectly, many horrible atrocities and struggles for power. Now, I am aware you respect our beliefs, but my question is, do you personally feel, regardless of your respect for what we believe, that society would be better off without religion, and why or why not?
1. Institutions that have been shown throughout history to be the cause of horrible atrocities and power struggles should be abolished.
2. Religion is an institution that has been shown throughout history to be the cause of horrible atrocities and power struggles.
3. Therefore, religion is an institution that should be abolished.
For the defender of religion, the most obvious solution to this problem is to demonstrate the weakness of the first premise. As it so happens, since this premise is an independent ethical statement, we may apply its theory of justice in other areas to see whether or not the principle works. As it so happens, one such institution to which we may apply this first premise is government. To all students of history, government has, directly or indirectly, been shown throughout history to be the cause of many horrible atrocities and power struggles. Therefore, applying the same argument to the area of government, we find that:
1. Institutions that have been shown throughout history to be the cause of horrible atrocities and power struggles should be abolished.
2. Government is an institution that has been shown throughout history to be the cause of horrible atrocities and power struggles.
3. Therefore, government is an institution that should be abolished.
If the secularist whom presents this argument does not believe on the force of this argument that he should be compelled by reason to become an anarchist, he must abandon the premise by which he argued that religion should be abolished. If the secularist should retort that government is morally useful to preserve the greater good of society by protecting its social order, one may ask why we should not consider that religion is also morally useful to preserve the greater good of society by giving that society a sense of meaning and moral order within the universe. Religion also serves the greater good because it lends ethical decisions a higher source of moral authority than fallible humans and their often wayward cultures, which lends him moral ground to challenge injust practices and institutions. And then, religious violence throughout history so carefully mirrors political violence that I believe the two are indistinguishable.
