Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

God is a Self-Contradictory Notion
God means the conscious being who is all-powerful and all-good and with whom a relationship is possible. That seems to make it simple but it is part of a bigger dimension. As God is related to morality you would need to make a list as long as ten arms about how you understand God. For example, is God okay with abortion to save a life? What does he feel about telling a white lie to an ugly bride?
Too many believers have never considered the possibility that their religion is based on the notion of a God that is incoherent They are not told by their conniving clergy just how bizarre the doctrine of God is. If they knew there would be less believers and less cash in the coffers of the Church.
Assuming God exists or needing him to exist doesnít prove he should be assumed or that the idea is coherent. It has nothing to do with it.


A spirit God is an abstract one.  An abstract God is really an attempt to fake devotion to a personal God so that you can be the boss not God.  It dilutes God into little more than an idea. If that is what you have to do to believe in God then that is another reason for saying that if God is good then you are being inconsistent.


A contradiction means you refuting yourself.  If believers in God are self-contradicting then they need to be told what they are: people who do not realise that they do not in fact belief.  Habit often is taken for faith.

The more "educated" believers think that God is non-physical - that is, he is spirit.
God for Christians is a being without parts - that is spirit because nobody made him but he makes all things. God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good. A being who is not all-powerful is not God. It means he is not supreme over all things and there are things he cannot control. A being who is not all-perfect is not God either for he cannot be fully trusted and also he is not fully in control. No being however great can be entitled to worship if he is merely a superhuman entity. If Superman really existed and was the kindest and most powerful person in the universe we would not worship him. We would be demeaning ourselves if we did.
The danger with the idea of spirit is that we think of God as a gas that is not made up of atoms or parts. But then this gas would just consist of one part. It is its part. This part does not consist of any other parts. Do you see the implication of all that? A God without parts is no more existing than a square circle. He is a something that is a nothing. The idea that nothing consists of two or more nothings would make more sense than that for something can never be nothing to any degree. Christianity degrades children by playing conjuring tricks with words. The idol worshipper adores a god of wood or stone or so the Christian says. They bemoan how demeaning that is. But how much more is it demeaning to adore nothing and call it God? At least the idol worshipper adores something real. And he adores something that is more understandable than a being that is supposed to be pure spirit. Christianity demeans all whom it gets to adore its God. To the mind of a child, God is just like pretending the naked emperor is wearing clothes as in the children's tale The Emperor's New Clothes. It's pretending that something that cannot be seen or examined or verified by the senses is real. The God concept is disrespectful and therefore an abuse of the mind of a child.
People feel they want nothing that is something and omnipotent and looking after them to exist. That is, their belief in spirit is not belief at all but a feeling that they hypocritically disguise as a belief. 




God has many perfections and no perfection in God is less perfect than any other or less valuable.  That is what God being perfect means.  But it makes no sense.  God being perfect at maths cannot equate to God being perfect at determining right and wrong as moral concepts.  Better a God of pure love than one of both love and justice.  That is the bottom line - the talk about the perfection of God is nonsense and it is not good for our moral perception to say otherwise or worship him.




How is moral perfection possible without omniscience and omnipotence?  You need to know what moral is as in 100%.  The more certain you are that x is right the more moral or decent it is to do it. In that way morality is not black and white.  You can be moral as ever without having the power to act on it.  In this way morality cares more about what you can do than the quality of what you do.  It is narcissist to worry so much about God being the representative of morality or as the same as morality.  How?




"Godís knowing is not distinct from Himself.

God and His knowledge are one. God is His knowledge. Godís knowledge is God. Once again, there may be vast difficulties for the mind in actually seeing it so, but there is no great difficulty in seeing that it must be so. For if Godís knowledge were not identical with God Himself, then there would be some distinction between God and His knowledge, something that God has and that His knowledge lacks: but that would mean that His knowledge would not be infinite: which is impossible.  A momentís reflection will show us that the same line of thought, which leads us to see that God and His knowledge are one, applies to all the other attributes of GodóHis love, His justice, His mercy, any you please. Godís mercy is not something God has; it is God.  If His mercy or His justice were in any way distinct from Him, it would mean that there  was something in Him that they lacked, and so His mercy or His justice would not be Infinite, and that again is impossible. Thus there is no distinction between Godís attributes and God, and therefore no difference between one of Godís attributes and another. Godís justice is God Himself, and Godís mercy is God Himself. Infinite justice and infinite mercy are not two opposing tendencies in God: they are one same God."


"Spirit is the being which has its own nature so firmly in its grasp that it can never become some other thing."


Comment: This is utter rubbish.  God having the property of wisdom and God having the property of being able to produce stunning forms of art is nonsense for it would mean that as God is one simple being that wisdom is artistic. Wisdom is an umbrella term not for one thing but for many different forms of wisdom.  Notice how he does not explain how knowing the dog has vomited is the same as making sure John gets a fair reward for what good he has done.  He says God must be his knowledge for it would follow that if he wasn't there would be something he does not know - in other words, it would not be infinite.  But that is like arguing, "John and Bert must be the same person for the evidence says that John pulled the trigger and shot Paul but other evidence just as good says it was Bert."  It is choosing the desired conclusion and working back to it.  Logic bans that for it is worse than a circular argument.  Justice is an umbrella term so in reality there are infinite justices.  It follows that if you think it is fair for God to send a baby to Hell forever just for fun then you have the wrong God even if everything else is fine.  The definition of spirit is interesting.   It follows that if it is true that our spirits are sinful from conception then if baptism takes away that sin then we are not the same person.  If our spirits are good then sin must not touch us at all and have no meaning.  The nonsense about God totally debunks any doctrine that God and morality or justice/love are somehow the same.
Religion says that God has attributes or qualities but each of them are different aspects of the attribute of divinity.

Believers say the most accurate way to talk of God is to say not what he is but what he is not.
He is not hate. He is not visible. He is not unfair. He is not stupid. He is not human. He is not matter. He is not controlled by anything else. He is not fiction. He is not abstract in the way that a number is abstract. He is not limited by time or space. He is not complex. He is not changing.
It has been pointed out that you cannot tell the difference between this negative God and a non-existing God. Thus God is also unknowable so to talk about him and worship him is a waste of time. You donít know what you are worshipping or serving.
God is not really God to you even if there is a God for you don't really know what you are talking about. And you are a deceiver for talking and acting as if you do.

We need logic and cannot avoid using it. When we are being illogical we are still logically trying to be illogical. Logic can be understood in a holistic way as in respecting yourself enough to avoid contradicting yourself.
Does God make the rules of logic or does he discover them?
If he makes them then he could make it possible for a dog to eat a dinner that consists of non-existent dog food.
If he discovers the rules then the rules matter and he does not if there is a choice. He would not be God - God by definition is that which comes first in everything and to be valued totally.
The Christians reply that this is a false dilemma and the solution is that logic is an eternal part of God's nature. But logic cannot be part of God's nature for if there were no God or anything 1 and 1 would still be 2. And we can ask, "If logic comes from God's nature, is God's nature what makes logic logic or is logic logic regardless of whether there is God or not? Does God's nature create logic or discover it?" It is not a false dilemma.
If God is an incoherent and anti-logical concept then no evidence for his existence is any good. And he is. 




There is a link between gratitude and forgiveness.  You will not forgive x unless there is something about x to be grateful for.  And what about being grateful for the opportunity to move on?  The idea of God being grateful to us is mad but is implied by how we ask him for forgiveness and love.  Religion says he can't be grateful for he gives us all that we have.  And yet without the stirrings of thankfulness how can we learn to love God or forgive or ask his mercy?  Christian love for God is really a disguised love for a humanised version of God.  Its an idol and we are pretending that we don't think we deserve anything from God.  In fact we think God should be about us.  We think God owes us everything.


God does not have feelings or passions for feelings and passions are what happen to you so you are passive in a real sense. But God as creator, maker of all from nothing, is self-sufficient and is always active. Nothing can happen to him but only because of him.  Would you thank a robot that has no feelings even if it simulates them or pretends it has them?  You would be damaged or crazy if you did.  The idea of thanking a being who has no feelings and who cannot understand or experience feelings shows that believers are not thanking him at all but an idol version of God in their heads.


To sum up: there cannot be a God who is relevant to us. Such a God is not truly a God to us.

Goodness would exist whether God existed or not. So would 2+2=4. These things are not dependent on a God to make them. They are necessary truths. God knows that goodness exists and that the 2+2=4 is true so he is the knowledge of these. He is goodness and he is 2+2=4 for these are part of his existence. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for they would have to be separate from him and are not things but concepts. To say that God is not a spirit or a substance but just abstract truth, in other words just to call things like goodness and truth and mercy and maths God, is to be an atheist. This shows us how many thought they were not atheists and they were!

Goodness would have to exist for God to exist. If God is goodness then it has nothing to do with him that he is good but it is just the way he is. He is good by nature. The Christians wonít be keen on that for it ruins the freedom defence argument. The freedom defence argument says that because we cannot be good unless we can sin God has to give us free will for he wants us to be good. It blames sin and suffering and death on human evil or the misuse of the freedom thus getting God off the hook.
Goodness then makes God and this is absurd for it denies that God is the Supreme Being or sovereign and goodness is not a thing or power.

 How do God and goodness connect? Three solutions have been proposed.

* Descartesí view is that God is sovereign and nothing controls him or limits him. God is the Supreme Being. So he gives himself his properties instead of the properties being independent of him and controlling him and him conforming to them. They donít make him the way he is. This is bizarre for God is outside time and cannot change. We are told that God invents the properties and conforms to them. So God could have been evil if he had wanted to be only we would have to call it good then.
* Others say that there is no such property as mercy or knowledge so God is the way he is and is sovereign and supreme because there are no properties. But of course there are properties. If blue does not exist the property of blue can still exist.

* Aquinas solved the problem by saying that God has a nature and in him his essence and his attributes are one and the same. It means that God is not a personal being but an abstract like goodness. It is nothing like the personal God of the Bible.

Those who have tried to solve the problem of God say that God has a nature which is made up of properties but God and his nature are not one indivisible thing. It is like my property of white skin and me are not the same thing. I am consciousness and whiteness is not a part of that. This denies the doctrine of simplicity but replaces it with a God that is made of two spiritual forces.

The notion of a personal God is silly in this day and age. Some say that since we accept one another as persons or minds and not machines without proof we should do the same for God (page 88, Doing Away with God?). But God is different for we cannot see or hear or know him like we do other people. It is more rational to regard them as minds than God for we can sense them with our five senses. It is more rational to regard a stone as a mind than God for we are surer the stone is there than that he is.

Aquinas held that Godís existence is his essence (chapter 21, Summa, Book One). Existence is not a quality. For example, if nothing existed goodness would still exist but the thing called existence does not exist for it is not a power but a concept. Aquinas did not realise it but he was really saying that God was existence which is lunacy for existence is independent of God Ė for example, if there were no God there would be the existence of nothing so existence would still be there - and if God is an abstract thing that is not even a power like existence then God is not a being or anything but just an idea. He exists only in the imagination. Aquinas turned the Church towards confused and garbled atheism. 

Religion says that God is aware of us and all things. He sees and hears all. Take an eye. An eye is a material thing. It is very unscientific to hold that a stone cannot see the sun rising and to hold that something that is non-physical can. How can it when it has no eyes? It makes more sense to say that a stone can see.
Much of the research has been gained from The Concept of God. See its chapter 7 called Simplicity.


To create is to make something out of literally nothing. It means not that nothing is a material from which things are made. It means that what does not exist comes into being - it now exists. The Church says it means that God made all things from nothing and not from his own power or energy or himself. It says his power is as unchangeable as himself for it is him. It says that if God made things out of his power he would be making it of himself and that would be mutation not creation (Question 650, Radio Replies, Vol 1; Summa, Book One, chapter 17).
All the Church is able to say in refutation of the fact that if God is an infinite creator then he must be the creation is that experience proves we are not God who is a being without composition or parts which is what they mean when they say that the solution is in the fact that our being, our existence is different from Godís (page 145-6, Aquinas). But if this God exists our experience is misleading us.

God is his attributes so if he is a logically necessary being then everything he does is necessary and as necessary as he does for he is what he does. It follows that even the most useless grain of sand on a far distant planet is logically necessary for it was logically necessary for him to make it. But this is ridiculous. Even if God could be logically necessary this observation would cancel out this argument and show that there was some big misunderstanding in our reasoning that led us to think God necessarily exists.
If you want to make God an explanation for creation then you have to show that the idea of God makes sense but you cannot prove that and indeed there is proof that it does not make sense. Also, nobody denies that if there is a God he is a mystery and the way he does things is a mystery. This means you cannot be sure if you are talking nonsense or not when you talk about your faith in God. Many religions have got people to accept nonsense as true by telling them it is a mystery.




Religion says a miracle is far-fetched but we can still believe if the evidence is still good enough. 


Believers say even a grain of sand is a miracle. But it is a material thing. What if you were to say that a being without parts would be a bigger miracle?  That would require massive evidence.  And evidence for nonsense is not evidence at all.  No evidence is ever good enough to justify belief in nonsense.  A God who does miracles would have to be the biggest miracle of all.  An unlimited God is an unlimited miracle.  Thus it is unreasonable to believe in God and unreasonable to suppose that the idea of spirit even makes sense.  Evidence for something that you are only guessing makes sense is as bad as evidence for outright nonsense.  No evidence "for" outright nonsense would be better for it is more easily demolished.




All, believers and atheists, seem to agree that there is noting necessarily contradictory in saying there is no God.  If that is true then it is possible that God is contradictory though we do not know how for the doctrine is loaded with mystery.  Reason says then that to adopt belief in God is irrational for it is taking a risk with coherence.




Idealism is the doctrine that spirit is real but it does not stop there.  It says that all things despite how it looks are spirit.

Bertrand Russell thought that whether true or false idealism is not absurd. But it is absurd for you cannot just say that non-material powers and beings and spirits may exist for by definition you can only assume that. You cannot just assume a dragon lives in the volcano. That would be mad but assuming the possibility of spirit is worse. Thoughts might seem like non-material things but we see something non-material and magical in beautiful places on beautiful days. If thoughts can be non-material that does not mean living beings such as God or souls can exist. Trees being alive does not mean stones have to be alive.


The point is that if we cannot show idealism is false then the reason is that we are assuming spirit makes sense in the first place.  We assume it may simulate material things and forces.


We should not be assuming spirit or idealism in the first place. Problem solved!


The fact that there is a problem shows that we should not be assuming spirit is possible.  There is and can be no evidence so it is just like, "I am so infallible that I can decide that spirit exists just because I want to believe in it and my want to believe in it makes it sensible to believe in it."


Assuming leads to circles and incoherence.

There is no God. The belief is incoherent. It is therefore opposed to correct thinking which means it is opposed to people for we need to think correctly for our own self-confidence and our welfare.  That is our answer to fools who say, "Being anti-God makes as much sense as being anti-square circle."  God is not treated as a square circle though he is and that is where the problem is.  What about the notion that God may make no sense to us but still make sense?  There is no such thing as taking a risk with a view.  You cannot say it is okay to take a risk.  It is incoherent to say what may be incoherent is true or coherent.  It is a lie. 

A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SHATTERED VISAGE THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, Ravi Zacharias, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Tennessee, 1990
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and New York, 1997
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
CITY OF GOD, St Augustine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1986
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE, John Hicks, Fontana, 1977
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND EVIL, Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING, Philip St Romain, Liguori Publications, Illinois, 1986
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland, Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
HUMAN NATURE DID GOD CREATE IT? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1976
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
Philosophy of Religion for A Level, Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate, Nelson Throne Ltd, Cheltenham, 2004
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
SEX AND MARRIAGE Ė A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE, John M Hamrogue CSSR, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING, Alan Hayward, Christadelphian ALS, Birmingham, undated
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? LG Sargent, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? Misc, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1985
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970
WHY WOULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990