From unknown@nodomain.now.au Tue Oct 24 14:07:17 2006
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:07:17 +0100
To: wrh@whatreallyhappened.com
Subject: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"
Message-ID: <20061024130717.GA28051@teasel.arb.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Status: RO
X-Evolution-Source: imap://rah@teasel/
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: 

Dear Michael,

I would like to respond to your treatise on the existance of God, in
the comment on the story Why There Almost Certainly Is No God on
whatreallyhappened.com.

Your arguements are based on flawed assumptions.  You state that

   "Throughout history, a wide variety of religions worshiping Molech,
Baal, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Jehovah, Allah, Quetzalcoatl,
Coatlicue, Vishna, and others far too numerous to elucidate here have
come and gone.

The followers of each of these religions believed that theirs was the
true faith and contained within it the correct answers to life's great
questions."

Firstly, Jehova and Allah are two different names for the Almighty
God; they mean the same and refer to the same concept.  They are
simply different words; one based in Hebrew, the other based in
Arabic.  This is a small niggle, but I will expand on it below.

Secondly, and I assume that you meant Vishnu when you said "Vishna" as
that name refers to an element of Hindu faith, whereas "Vishna"
doesn't appear to refer to anything.  Central to the Hindu religion is
that it is not possible to know God; that all religions are simply
feeling in the dark and shedding light on one aspect of God.  Hindus
do not argue that Hinduism is "the true faith" and that they have "the
correct answers to life's great questions."  They argue that they have
their own faith and answers which you may or may not find useful in
your life.  They explicitly state that their answers cannot be
correct, and that if your answers differ, that is fine, as we are all
looking at a different aspect of this undefinable thing "God".  Vishnu
is not *a* God but, in their words, one face *of* God.

In both of these points, there is a clear demonstration of ignorance
when it comes to the philosophical treatment of religion.  It seems
that your views are not based on rational education and assessment of
religions or philosophy, but a dark desire to paint any kind of
religous endeavour as a heinous crime against rationality.  This is
ironic given the lack of rationality you yourself display.

You have written your views on whether or not God exists, but it isn't
clear what you mean when you say "God."  What do you mean?  What are
you referring to?  You cannot claim that you use it in the same sense
as religious people because what people mean by "God" is usually what
religions argue over; there is no single definition.

Without a clear idea of what you are talking about, one begs the
question: why are you talking?  Each time you comment on God or
religion on whatreallyhappened.com, I find myself asking: why is this
guy so strongly opposed to the pursuit of spirituality?  I'm not
arguing for organised religion, I'm simply pointing out that your
arguments against it aren't really arguments at all.  For the most
part they seem like angry noise, similar to religious zealots and the
irony in this seems to be lost on you.

To conclude, I would simply ask that you stop before commenting on
religious matters and ask yourself "have I researched this enough not
to look foolish?"  Your site has a relatively high profile amongst
those seeking truth rather than propaganda, and for good reason.  Your
comments on religion let it down, however.  I hope you will bear this
in mind in future.

Kindest regards,

Robert Ham
Bristol, UK