Bible Thread

[ddrueding]

Since this topic was threatening to put my "Something Random" thread on a track (where it doesn't belong), I figured this would be a good place for some ranting.

 

[ddrueding]

My primary complaint about the bible has nothing to do with what it says; even if I completely agreed with what was written (which I certainly don't), I would still hate the book.

The root of it's evil is about what people think the book is. Many, many people around the world believe that it is either not of this world, the work of god, or at least that it describes a higher power. This belief has been the beginning of countless atrocities, murders, oppressive laws, and restrictions of personal freedoms. It really doesn't matter what it says; even the kindest of thoughts, if taken to this kind of extreme, will lead to bad consequences.

Of course, the Koran and Torah also hold this position, and the same degree of distaste from me; but the bible is a bigger target in this forum

 

[Howell]

What? The origins of a thing give a thing authority but are not the contents of a thing. The authority of a thing lends credibility but does not give instruction; that comes from the contents.

I don't think I understand your premise.

David, are you PUI or maybe PWS (... without sleep)?

 

[paugie]

I uprooted some quotes from the Random thread.

The bible has been used to justify centuries of criminal acts and generations of suffering for both believers and non-believers. For every supposed great work of art or charity, for every glorious human endeavor in its name, there have been countless times that some believer has used its passages in the service of tyranny.

May I say that there are many unsung good deeds, as well as unpublicized atrocities done in the Bible's name. It's the people producing them, not the teaching. I believe the teaching is good. The capacity of men to twist it and/or use it for selfish ends is mind-boggling and catastrophic.

You are right, the bible has been used in error for centuries to justify horrible behavior. It would certainly be difficult to quantify.

Yes, true. Better to say, impossible to quantify, because of extreme magnitude.

 

[Fushigi]

Taking the optimistic view, I believe the bible as well as the holy books of most religions can be boiled down to two words: Be nice. The new testament is the carrot: Be nice to achieve everlasting love and happiness. The old testament is the stick: Be nice or feel God's wrath/burn in Hell.

Fans of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure should readily agree: "Be excellent to each other." ;-)

It is unfortunate that the message has been twisted so often by so many. Be nice to those who are like you. Be nice when it is convenient. Be nice on Sunday from 10:00-11:30. Be nice except when driving. You're not being nice so we must have conflict (arguments, wars). You're not being nice by doing things my way (I mean, its so obvious that I'm nice all the time, right?) so we must have conflict.

It is also unfortunate that organized religion does not exist to promote the word of God. It exists to promote the continued existence of organized religion. Sure, some good may come to the people from that, but the real reason religion exists is to maintain religion's existence.

 

[Sol]

I think the problem is that the Bible doesn't boil down to "be nice". A lot of people take it that way and a lot of people preach it that way but that's not really how a literal interpretation reads.

The Bible advocates homophobia, racism (old testament more than new admittedly) and the murder (execution if you prefer) of people for crimes such as adultery, working on the Sabbath and talking back to ones parents.

The Bible is ostensibly the word of God and by all accounts God isn't very nice. As Thomas Jefferson said 'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.'.

It's sometimes cool to think that a 2000 year old collection of stories contains ideas and moral guidelines that are no less relevant to day. The unfortunate reality, however, is that 2000 year old collections of stories tend to contain morals and ideas which are, in fact, 2000 years old (which is not to suggest that much of the Bible actually is that old, what with translations and interpretations I suspect it is by and large far more recent, I do believe that it is still several centuries old however).

At any rate the tenancy to take parts of the Bible (the warm fuzzy bit's mostly) and use them to characterise the whole thing is entirely invalid anyway. If the Bible is a book of divine origin then it must be taken as a whole, if your going to cherry pick your moral code from excepts then you lose any claim of divine authority and may as well just use the moral code you used to determine which bits of the Bible you liked in the first place.

To be honest I think that people with a solid moral code will still go out of their way to help others regardless of weather they have religious reasons. I think the lack of religion would only help reduce the misguided attempts to help which have caused so much harm in the past (i.e. Missionaries infecting populations with diseases whilst trying to convert them, camps to make kids not gay).

 

[ddrueding]

Posting without sleep. Yes. Still am. I'll try again.

People are cattle. Religion (and as the physical object that represents it, the bible) is a very effective tool to drive these cattle, because those who have recognized it's usefulness have continued to reinforce it's "teachings" so they can continue to do things in their best interest at the expense of the cattle.

What is that quote? The Foolish see it as true, the wise as false, and the powerful as useful?

So yeah, it's more a condemnation of organized religion in general than the book itself, but the book serves as a symbol that is used too often for evil.

Hopefully this makes sense, and if it does, I'll be back to criticize the content of the bible when I finish work.

 

[Nitsirk]

People should know the difference between right and wrong without organized religion to "guide" them. The problem with organized religion is the same as the problem with all rules. People will continue to contort and twist these rules to work for their own best interests. After all, if you can just go to church on Sunday and pray for forgiveness everything is all okay and you are "saved" right? I have a better idea. Live you life in such a way that you don't need to pray for forgiveness. We all make mistakes and that is human nature but just because you go to church on Sunday doesn't wash away your sins or make you any better than those who don't.

 

[Mercutio]

Not too terribly long ago I had a student who, despite an quasi-ivy league education (education tends to cure religion, and he went to Northwestern), professed to evangelical christianity and vigorously attempted to convert me.

My student could absolutely not understand what factors could even possibly keep a non-christian from immoral behavior. Absent the threat of eternal damnation, what REAL reason would someone have to *not* commit murder, steal, lie etc?

My answer was that, as a social animal, human beings do have a comprehension of needs greater than those of one's self, and acting out against the needs of the pack/herd/trailer park is something that social animals instinctively understand.

Christians who require the continual threat of damnation to behave a certain way are not truly moral people. They are coerced into their behavior. If they accept the strictures of their holy book without question, they have essentially given up free will.

What is it about this faith that is admirable, again?

Another thing that I find reprehensible about christian faith: The 10 Commandments.

My problem with those rules is that if I had to come up with 10 essential rules for my creations to live by, four of those 10 would NOT be able stroking my ego. Sure, there are the big ones: No murder, lying or stealing. Greed is bad.
But rape is apparently OK. Slavery is fine. Pederasty is A-OK. There's nothing about tolerating differences between different people. It's perfectly alright to main someone as long as they don't die, but don't you DARE make a golden idol.

Seems to me that a random four year old could probably come up with a better set of 10 rules to live by.

And why are Scientology's space alien bad-thought monsters any more ridiculous than virgin births and burning bushes?

 

[Sol]

I too have been handed that disturbing "without God there would be no morals" argument... It's really, really creepy and disturbing to hear that coming out of someone's mouth and know that they have totally convinced themselves of it's truth...

 

[adriel]

My answer was that, as a social animal, human beings do have a comprehension of needs greater than those of one's self, and acting out against the needs of the pack/herd/trailer park is something that social animals instinctively understand.

I disagree that selflessness and teamwork are instinctive to human beings. From birth a human is a very selfish creature, impulsive, full of rage, "I want I want I want" and understands nothing of importance greater than Self. Make a baby wait 5 minutes or take away its toy and see what happens; imagine what would happen if it wasn't so defenseless.

Proper social behavior is taught. Teamwork is not natural. Recruits enter training in the military or sports as individuals; teamwork must be taught and drilled in.

It is not naturally instinctive for a human to sacrifice their own life to save others. That is why doing so is seen as going "above and beyond" and a thing to aspire to.

Christians who require the continual threat of damnation to behave a certain way are not truly moral people. They are coerced into their behavior. If they accept the strictures of their holy book without question, they have essentially given up free will.

I'll be quite honest with you: if I could be the Invisible Man, with zero percent possibility of anyone finding out my deeds, I would do some terrible, terrible things. It's really most of humanity that would behave selfishly were it not for the threat of getting caught, jail time, loosing face, societal comdenmation, professional embarassment, and punishment. Really, who is truly moral? I'll give someone no laws, no rules, no punishments, and you tell me they're going to be Mother Theresa? I don't believe it.

 

[CougTek]

I'll be quite honest with you: if I could be the Invisible Man, with zero percent possibility of anyone finding out my deeds, I would do some terrible, terrible things.

Share that power with me and I would give you quite a competition!

Like Markx said : Religion is opium for the people.

The Bible has been re-writen by St-Thomas d'Aquin in the 13th century (or was is the 14th? Whatever). He added Hell to it, something that didn't exist before in the Bible. The Church needed to put fear in the hearts of the ignorant mass in order to gain wealth and power during the Middle Ages. Gothic cathedrals everywhere in Europe prove they succeeded as well as Vatican's insane treasure. Then they tell us that religious men should not care for material goods. Bunch of transvestite liars, I say! Priests are like politicians : all they tell is told in order to keep them at the top or to reach it. Ask Palpatine (what's the name of the current pope? I always forget) to live in a shithouse from then on and you'll see the first ever pope resignation.

I agree with Merc about the 10 commandments.

No one should need an illusionary God to teach him the notion of Good and Evil.

 

[adriel]

...education tends to cure religion...

I don't think you would be able to substantiate that unless your definition of education is extremely narrow. One can be educated in, for instance, physical sciences, political philosophy, theism, and even religious studies. How does learning and becoming educated in the world's religions have anything to do with "curing religion"?

In addition, presumably there are religious institutions of higher learning where education occurs, and that includes students learning more about their own religion, not "curing" themselves from their own religion.

If your definition of education means a learning environment hostile to religion and is structured to deconstruct it, then that's not really a "cure" but an amusing game for some to the detriment of some others.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think you would be able to substantiate that unless your definition of education is extremely narrow. One can be educated in, for instance, physical sciences, political philosophy, theism, and even religious studies. How does learning and becoming educated in the world's religions have anything to do with "curing religion"?

Oddly enough, religious faith among seminarians is somewhat lower than in their congregant population as a whole, for many of the same reasons that other educated people lose their religious faith.

A fundamental part of most higher education is learning logic and the ability to think critically. There are fields of study that really learn neither, and those fields are unquestionably populated with more believers (say, art or literature or business management) than those that learn both (scientific disciplines).

It is unquestionably true that those who have received post-secondary education are less likely to be Believers than those who have not, and the rate of non-belief only increases with the level of education, which is the basis for my original statement.

I suspect, although I cannot prove this, that even a high percentage of those who have been granted PhDs in Divinity are often doing nothing more than paying lip service to their faith. It is certainly true that those who make up religious leadership tend to engage in cynical manipulation of their faithful.

In addition, presumably there are religious institutions of higher learning where education occurs, and that includes students learning more about their own religion, not "curing" themselves from their own religion.

Most mainstream seminary instruction is conducted in the same academic manner as other higher learning. A certain emphasis is usually placed on comparative studies, original sources and material found to have minimal bias. This may not be true for fundamentalists, but it certainly is for Catholics and mainstream protestants.

If your definition of education means a learning environment hostile to religion and is structured to deconstruct it, then that's not really a "cure" but an amusing game for some to the detriment of some others.

I would argue that almost any field of academic study will ultimately lead to some reason to call faith or organized belief into question. Religious belief is founded on faith. Knowledge of how or why something happens or how it came to be is the essential antithesis of faith.

 

[Mercutio]

Proper social behavior is taught. Teamwork is not natural. Recruits enter training in the military or sports as individuals; teamwork must be taught and drilled in.

Some behavior is taught, certainly. But teamwork is a very different thing from basic social behavior. Societies don't form where members are constantly in danger of killing one another, yet human beings do form societies even in the most isolated places on earth. On some fundamental level, we understand that being in a group is in fact a good thing.

It is not naturally instinctive for a human to sacrifice their own life to save others.

Acting for the good of a group is not the same thing as ultimate self-sacrifice, either, and you know it.

Really, who is truly moral? I'll give someone no laws, no rules, no punishments, and you tell me they're going to be Mother Theresa? I don't believe it.

I'm not suggesting that at all. However, I do fully believe that there are certain things that no morally responsible person will persist in doing, even absent external punishment. Are you telling me that if you knew you'd never get caught, you'd walk around raping and killing, just because? Would you lose basic empathy just because there was no one but yourself to judge your actions?

There's a word for that: Psychopathy.

 

[mubs]

It is not naturally instinctive for a human to sacrifice their own life to save others.

Really? Does not a parent readily sacrifice him/herself to save the child?

Really, who is truly moral? I'll give someone no laws, no rules, no punishments, and you tell me they're going to be Mother Theresa? I don't believe it.

You are who you are, and I neither judge you nor condemn you. But please don't apply your yardstick to judge me. My beliefs and values are dictated by who I want to be, not by fear of punishment here or in the afterlife. You may not believe it, but your beliefs do not alter the reality that there are people like Mercutio and me. We may be in the minority, but we do exist.

 

[Sol]

It would be interesting to know how people who believe God is the moral fibre that hold society together explain animal social interactions... Do ants have morals handed down from god to stop them killing and eating each other? Do canines have a divine code or monkeys? Did God say to the clown fish "thou shalt cooperate with the sea anemone"...

On education as a cure for religion. Mensa carried out a meta-analysis of 43 studies into the relationship between religion and intelligence and education. All but four of the studies concluded that 'the higher
one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be
religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'

 

[timwhit]

On education as a cure for religion. Mensa carried out a meta-analysis of 43 studies into the relationship between religion and intelligence and education. All but four of the studies concluded that 'the higher
one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be
religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'

Do you have a link to this?

 

[Mercutio]

No, but a quick google shows a site that also cites the study Sol mentioned.
The article more or less agrees with my thesis about the correlation between religious belief vs. intelligence and education. It's a fun read.

 

[ddrueding]

I have also had the understanding that intelligence removes the need for a god.

Just look where the "bible belt" is in the USA and that should clear it up

 

[RWIndiana]

I have also had the understanding that intelligence removes the need for a god.

It's funny you should mention that. The Bible actually talks about this idea rather specifically in 1 Corinthians 1: "21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

So yeah, the Bible itself tells us that the Gospel of Christ *will* seem like foolishness to those educated of the world. Indeed, my own experience of salvation would sound like foolishness to those on here who have not experienced it, or don't feel it.

It also says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. That makes sense (to me anyway), of course, because it seems the more we learn about the world and the universe, the more we realize how little we understand of how it all works.

Just look where the "bible belt" is in the USA and that should clear it up

It also fairly well coincides with what is known as the "bread basket." Just to be fair.

 

[ddrueding]

It also fairly well coincides with what is known as the "bread basket." Just to be fair.

Since when were wheat farmers known for their intelligence?

 

[Mercutio]

Some farmers certainly are very well read. Depending on where they live they might spend five months basically "on vacation", which gives them a lot of time to pursue whatever interests they have.

But generally, yeah, people in rural areas don't exactly have a broad and expansive range of interests.

I grew up in a farming "community" with a population of 100. My childhood home was bordered on two sides by cornfield and one side by horse pasture... and I lived inside the city limits. It's not like I'm not qualified to comment on that.

 

[RWIndiana]

Since when were wheat farmers known for their intelligence?

Never said they were. Just saying they do know how to produce the most important product we have: food. And really, the fact that they aren't as "educated" as some does not always mean they aren't as smart. Some of the most educated people I know are also some of the dumbest. The reverse is also true in many cases.

 

[Sol]

If anyone needs some further convincing of the non-existence of God I can recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. For me it hasn't contained anything revolutionary but it is a fairly well put demolition of most of the arguments used to try to justify the existence of religion, focusing on monotheism and Christianity in particular.

I have to disagree with that Corinthians quote though... The Greeks knew way more gods than the Christians despite their search for wisdom...

More seriously though Martin Luther was also proponent of the flat-out rejection of reason. He has been credited with such great quotes as 'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.' and 'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'.
I won't suggest that he or Corinthians is wrong on the topic just that I wouldn't have though so many people could come to the conclusion that religion, although diametrically opposed to reason, was in fact right... Most, I suspect, don't really thing about it but some clearly do and still take that stance...

 

[Howell]

It is logically and empirically impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins doesn't even claim it.

In order to logically prove that God doesn't exist you would have to have fundamental knowledge of all things. YOU would be God. Dawkins claims that God's existence is very unlikely.

 

[Howell]

It is important to understand that the study of religion is a field of rigorous academic study. You can not-believe in it but still know about its tenets and and how to make arguments. Religious graduate schools are full of people who want to learn more about religion irrespective of whether they believe in it.

On The God Delusion,

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster…critics of the richest, most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook.

 

[ddrueding]

But my argument is not about what the religion is. Even in there were a god (or many; I'm an agnostic), I still think that organized religion is a mistake. Even if heaven and hell exist (pretty confident this is a no), living well and not being evil should be enough. The crap that people do attempting to be more that turns evil is why it has, as a whole, a negative effect.

 

[Howell]

Since many here are more likely to have read Richard Dawkins book:

This review will focus upon Dawkins’ treatment of the arguments for God’s existence, for according to Professor Dawkins: ‘there is no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis.’

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm

Search for "Dawkins and Natural Theology" and begin reading there.

The article rebuts Dawsons treatment of:
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
Religious Experience
The Moral Argument
The Anthropic Argument

Conclusion

‘The reviews have been mixed – it’s the luck of the draw whether or not you get a religious person.’ – Richard Dawkins[76]

Dawkins’ only reviews a subset of the available arguments for God; but having swiftly dismissed these arguments as ‘vacuous’[77], he invalidly concludes that there is therefore ‘no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis.’[78] Even if Dawkins’ critique of the arguments he examines were sound, this conclusion simply would not follow. In point of fact, Dawkins’ critique of the arguments from God is unsound in each and every one of the cases reviewed above. Dawkins repeatedly depends upon blowing over ‘straw man’ versions of his targets, and he offers objections that are themselves easily revealed as ‘vacuous’. Indeed, Dawkins’ rebuttals are self-contradictory on several occasions. Moreover, Dawkins’ supposedly ‘unrebuttable rebuttal’ to the God hypothesis is, as we have seen, anything but.

Far from wanting to warn anyone against ‘even opening a book like this,’[79] I recommend that believers and non-believers alike apply their ‘native intelligence’[80] to reading The God Delusion. However, I suggest doing so with help from a list of logical fallacies. Readers can then enjoy a stimulating game of ‘Eye Spy’. In particular, look out for examples of: self-contradiction, begging the question[81], attacking a straw man[82], data picking[83], wishful thinking[84], appeal to ridicule[85] and various ad hominim attacks[86] from simple name-calling[87] to ‘poisoning the well.’[88] Blowing away houses made from philosophical straw is a praiseworthy endeavour; but Dawkins’ frequent substitution of straw houses for the real thing means that his critique of religion has more puff than bite.

 

[Howell]

No, but a quick google shows a site that also cites the study Sol mentioned.
The article more or less agrees with my thesis about the correlation between religious belief vs. intelligence and education. It's a fun read.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001527.html
The US is the only country that couples a high mean IQ (98 ) & GDP-per-capita with a relatively high level of religiosity (59%). Religiosity being people who identified religion as being very important.

Worldwide there is a much stronger correlation between religiosity vs IQ. However, when you compare that data to the correlation between IQ vs GDP per capita it is difficult to tell which affects IQ more, religiosity or GDP per capita, thought the current data does lean slightly toward religiosity.

 

[Howell]

But my argument is not about what the religion is. Even in there were a god (or many; I'm an agnostic), I still think that organized religion is a mistake. Even if heaven and hell exist (pretty confident this is a no), living well and not being evil should be enough. The crap that people do attempting to be more that turns evil is why it has, as a whole, a negative effect.

Maybe it would be helpful to get yor definition of organized religion to be sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[ddrueding]

Maybe it would be helpful to get yor definition of organized religion to be sure we are talking about the same thing.

Did a quick google, and I think I can settle on this one:

Organized religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power.

Belief in anything is fine with me, institutions are something I'm allergic to.

 

[Howell]

More seriously though Martin Luther was also proponent of the flat-out rejection of reason. He has been credited with such great quotes as 'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.' and 'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'

Given Luther’s critique of philosophy and his famous phrase that philosophy is the “devil’s whore.” It would be easy to assume that Luther had only contempt for philosophy and reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. Luther believed, rather, that philosophy and reason had important roles to play in our lives and in the life of the community. However, he also felt that it was important to remember what those roles were and not to confuse the proper use of philosophy with an improper one.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/luther.htm
Scroll down to "Relationship to Philosophy".

 

[Howell]

Did a quick google, and I think I can settle on this one:

Organized religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power.

Belief in anything is fine with me, institutions are something I'm allergic to.

Should I assume you also went to the trouble to look up the definition of institution? You can't possibly be against organizations in general. Organizations are the natural outgrowth of being social creatures.

 

[ddrueding]

Should I assume you also went to the trouble to look up the definition of institution? You can't possibly be against organizations in general. Organizations are the natural outgrowth of being social creatures.

Not all institutions for all reasons I suppose. But it seems the biggest thing that organizations do is suppress independent thought. Government, religion, universities, fraternal organizations, etc. all seem to seek conformity. All of these have some use (charity, knowledge, getting people to not eat pork, etc), but also seek conformity and consolidation of power.

 

[mubs]

I don't consider myself religious by any stretch of the imagination. But the couple of times I saw videos of Dawkins, he came across as a pompous and self-important ass. There are things he doesn't know that he doesn't know. I have no desire for more of his stuff.

 

[Sol]

Yeah Dawkins does definitely come across as, extremely harsh and confrontational. I think this is a fairly deliberate attempt to point out the hypocrisy of treating religion in a way which no other subject would ever be treated (well perhaps a few others come kinda close these days like any form of discrimination real or imagined). You would never respect someone's view on war or taxes if it was clearly contrary to the very reality in which you believed (for whatever reason) so why should arguments about the supernatural be any different?

I won't even claim that Dawkins approach doesn't make me kinda uncomfortable sometimes. But when I consider it rationally I find I need to put it with all the other things like homosexuality (can't think of to many other examples) which I know I have no rational reason to be uncomfortable about.

Dawkins doesn't really go into theology for the very simple reason that without any sort of supernatural realm theology is really just a subset of psychology. If your arguing against the existence of any sort of supernatural existence at all then your hardly going to get into a hypothetical discussion of the implications if it were to exist.

I wouldn't begin to suggest that he makes his arguments in a pleasant way but I've yet to hear even an implausible rebuttal for the major point of his book (The concept that proposing a God to explain existence makes the issue more not less complex) and I've been looking since long before I heard the name Richard Dawkins...

I certainly have to go with Dawkins over Alvin Plantinga on the ontological argument based on the above link. Using linguistic confusion to attempt to score a point is a school yard tactic.

The argument:
1. By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
2. It is possible that God exists
3. Therefore, God exists

Does not follow because it relies on two different versions of the term possible. It is possible that God exists only in the sense that we don't know it to be impossible. That doesn't mean it isn't impossible just the we as yet can't prove it either way, thus point 2 must become "It is potentially possible that God exists." for it to be consistent with point 1's idea that everything that is possible exists.
It is somewhat telling that the argument can apply equally to anything which has not yet been disproved. To give such an argument any credence would reduce theology to an arbitrary choice of which un-disproved concept you'd like to believe today since all of them must be right despite much mutual-exclusivity...

 

[ddrueding]

Good post Sol; queue the flying spaghetti monster...

 

[Howell]

I certainly have to go with Dawkins over Alvin Plantinga on the ontological argument based on the above link. Using linguistic confusion to attempt to score a point is a school yard tactic.

At the university level religion falls under the philosophy department and Anselm/Platinga's defense of the ontological argument uses concepts that are now taught in Philsophy 101 classes. I've only taken one philosophy class and that's where I learned it.

One thing that may be happening is that you may be thinking of a particular description of God rather than thinking of God as a philosophical concept. In philosophy there are qualities that God (aka, a greatest possible being) has by definition. This is not necessarily the Christian, Buddist, Taoist or American Indian definition of God. One of these qualities is that God has an intrinsic maximum property.

Your reservation was proposed by Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Anselm. That is to say between 1000 and 1100 AD.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm#SH2b

 

[Howell]

Dawkins flamboyance doesn't bother me. Evaluate the message not the messenger.