Can You Patent God?

[Ted]

gmc

I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.

None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?

You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.

Shalom
Ted

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Ted

gmc

I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.

None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?

You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.

Shalom
Ted

These ones are always brought up. At least they never claimed to have the moral right to do what they did in the name of god. Compared to the suffering caused by religious wars it's a moot point which is worse. What would you prefer? being killed in the name of god or of political expediency? Hitler's anti semitism had an awful lot of supporters in some surprising places he was playing to the prejudices that were already there. It's one of the lessons of the nazis-prejudice against anyone for any reason should be condemned. How to stop what it is another question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States

In 1952 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. [13] The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 - 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others.[14]

The pope could have stopped hitler had he wanted to, The notion that he powerless to do so with millions following his lead is absurd. He chose to say nothing and if that's god's will

Come to that how often have different religious groups been living in harmony with each other and some church or other decides this is no good and must be stopped and the unbelievers stamped out.

I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.

Have you been preaching love your fellow man again? People just read in to things whatever they want don't they?

None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?

Of course they do. Why would they not? Unless you hold to the absurd notion that you need religion-and specifically monotheism- to teach morality.

[Ted]

gmc

Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.

BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.

I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.

Shalom
Ted

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Ted

gmc

Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.

BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.

I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.

Shalom
Ted

No one ever claimed they did. trouble is many religious people seem to want to ignore the historical reality and pretend religious wars never happened. OK religion wasn't the sole cause and there are usually political and economic factors at play (you can have great fun arguing about what was the most important) and a thoroughly cynical manipulation of religious belief and there still is and it is still going on. If you can't appreciate what happened in the past you don't see it happening now. If all christians were christians and all muslims were muslim there would be no wars since both advocate tolerance and understanding. (Leaving aside the absurdity or otherwise of religious belief)

Why on earth do you think the individual is dead? Fascism, communism, theocracy (however disguised) all put the rights of the individual secondary to the state be it religious or non religious, with a few at the top in control and making all the decisions. (supreme leader or king anointed by god if you accept anothers right to absolute power you are no longer free) that's why I find myself opposed to all three. Though all have some good points that are worth paying attention to. The individual is only dead if people give up and accept what they are told and start to believe they have no rights to question things, or the social order or even to demand social change. You don't owe your freedom to kings or armies or religion but to people standing up saying I'm not accepting this I have as much right as you do.

I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.

Why would they not be? I don't understand why you need to ask the question. A belief in god or not has nothing to do with morality. You don't need religion to have a moral sense. People were talking about these things long before monotheism came long. Please don't tell me you are one of those that believes someone without religion is amoral.

Off topic perhaps but fun.

[Nomad]

Well in a sense the various religous sects have patents. If you dont subscribe to their specific ideaology then you suffer being excluded from the church.
__________ has exclusive rights to their teachings and printed material and any profits rendered.

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

I've realised from the response that patent was a poor metaphor for the idea I wanted to explore.

I believe that if you worship a God who is 5'6" with red hair and webbed feet then you cannot comment on someone who has a God who is 7'3", bald and has six fingers. They are so obviously different concepts that bear no relationship to each other that there is no overlap in the concepts.

My personal belief is that the different Gods that humans worship are different aspects of the one true God and that the differences between them are a result of man's lack of understanding and comprehension of something so far beyond us that we cannot hold the totality in our mind.

We cannot understand what drives God, the motives and intentions behind the actions. It follows, therefore, that we cannot tightly describe or constrain God to any single model and deny the sanctity of any different model. To condemn another for having a different definition of God is to demean and belittle a God who is beyond our definition.

It saddens me that I cannot put my thoughts in order well enough to put the question in a meaningful way but I do believe that no man has the right to tie God into a rigid image or to condemn any person for having a different view of God.

I have read this thread over and over, and this post seems to be the juxt of your thread if I am correct so I settled here.

I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Jester

I have read this thread over and over, and this post seems to be the juxt of your thread if I am correct so I settled here.

I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.

Given the number of Bibles in existence (even within the Christian religion there are several mutually exclusive versions) and the number of descriptions of God across the religions, then your statement can only be a matter of personal worldview, probably instilled as part of upbringing - a matter of your personal faith.

Given the closeness of you highlighted statement to "there is no God but the true God; and Mohammed is His prophet" it is even clearer that different worldviews are not only possible but are held with as much belief and faith as your own.

God has revealed himself in many ways to different people at different points in history - it is his right and his privilege. Whilst you can make a statement of your faith and lay out hat you believe, you have produced nothing to show that other faiths and beliefs have no validity.


As I said in my previous post, God is greater than any mere human and is beyond our comprehension - we have not right or power to constrain Him.

[RedGlitter]

Originally Posted by Jester

I have read this thread over and over, and this post seems to be the juxt of your thread if I am correct so I settled here.

I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.

I hope all that falls under "as laid out in the bible" and not as a general statement.

[ShawnG]

I see we have had the tired "who killed more" argument going on here. It's by and large a bogus point. "religions have caused wars" has long been a refrain of the anti-theists, but it's an argument that is as misleading as the "stalin defense" that inevitably follows. Inevitably people lie, steal and kill because of either greed or fear. Whether a person rationalizes the act by claiming devine right or collective ideology, is immaterial to the actual cause. Thus we have seen that the reasons change, but the killing does not slow or falter.

What my spirituality and beliefs have meant to me is that I'm less constrained by want and fear. If you can reach that space without belief, that is a more worthy goal than denigrating a set of belief systems that have not only given us the crusades, but also Ghandi, Mother theresa, and Martin Luther King.

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

Given the number of Bibles in existence (even within the Christian religion there are several mutually exclusive versions) and the number of descriptions of God across the religions, then your statement can only be a matter of personal worldview, probably instilled as part of upbringing - a matter of your personal faith.

Given the closeness of you highlighted statement to "there is no God but the true God; and Mohammed is His prophet" it is even clearer that different worldviews are not only possible but are held with as much belief and faith as your own.

God has revealed himself in many ways to different people at different points in history - it is his right and his privilege. Whilst you can make a statement of your faith and lay out hat you believe, you have produced nothing to show that other faiths and beliefs have no validity.


As I said in my previous post, God is greater than any mere human and is beyond our comprehension - we have not right or power to constrain Him.

Given the closeness of you highlighted statement to [size=-1]"there is no God but the true God; and Mohammed is His prophet"

Yeah they stole it. I wonder if I can get them on a patent infringement charge?

God defines Himself as He reveals Himself. Those are the parameters He chooses to operate by so we can trust and understand Him.

Pretty much all my life folks have told me that God does not exist and He is a lie. but say the opposite, that God is truth and all others false and I get a few folks up in arms!

It is just as easy for me to say nothing else is real as it is for other folks to say God isnt real. You have no valid proof for your statements.