Banker wrote:1. If this is true (his omnipotence) then he is also able to fail, since failing is just as much an action as succeding in doing something, and he can do anything, including failing.
See this is a circular argument. You make the presumption that God can fail and then use that to prove that he can. This, like most paradoxs, is simply an error in logic (on your part).
2. The teachings of the very religions that preach this "god" generally dont have a clue about how simple things in nature work, how could they possibly have a single fuckin clue about something that would defy both science and logic like a god would?
(Like you are so quick to point out)
Well given that you yourself don't seem to have much of a clue about how simple things in nature work I don't see how you can fault anyone else for a lack of understanding.
Also the core of religion is not in explaining nature, at least not in the way you are talking about. The stories of creation and such are not a major part of the belief. At the time the religions were started no one knew about these things, so each religion offered up its own version (generally taken from what the culture historically believed). If God would have said to Moses "I am the Lord God, I created this thing called DNA and from there it mutated to form all life, etc," Moses would have had no clue what he was talking about. The mythic part of religion is limited by contemporary science, it always has been. The spiritual part of religion however is divorced from the mythic part and is really the core of any religion. It is the spiritual aspect that is enternal.
3. If this god is all good and omnipotent, then why is there "evil" (as defined by said religions) in the world? "His ("god's") ways are" (whats the term in english? well, you can fill in the blanks I suppose) is nothing but an excuse for the lack of intervention.
Thus, stuff like omnipotent, allmighty, perfect, is nothing but boasting about how great your own "god" is, it's a commercial
of said religion so to speak...
Different religion have different answers. I do not presume to know what God thinks, but I know that stories without conflict are uninteresting. If God created man to keep him company/entertained (as in Judeo-Christian belief) then it would be natural that a level of "evil" would be neccessary to keep things interesting.
Also in the Judeo-Christian belief it is Man (or more correctly Woman) who is responcible for the evil (that is the fall in the Garden of Eden).
4. The teachings of said religions contradict themselfs almost everywhere in respective "holy book".
Generally in unimportant ways. If you actually study the books these contradictions generally work themself out.
5. Most of the teachings are small parts of other, polytheistic religions, that have been simply taken and copied for respective religion. The name Lucifer for instance was taken from the Romans,
who in turn, took it from the Greeks, where he was named Eosphoros. Then it was taken and applied to a "fallen & evil angel" to slander those religions. If that isn't disrespect for other peoples
beliefs then I dont know what is. And that isn't the only example.. There are LOTS of them.
I don't see how this is a bad thing. . . Science builds off past experiments to come to new conclusions as well. The fact that relgions are so interconnected seems to me to support the idea of religion. After all if every new relgion came up with a totally different idea of "truth" then none of them would seem very important. However since all major religions tend to expound similar core ideals it makes all religions look like they may be on to something.
6. Most religions have been made for a purpose, and not a divine one, but a clearly human one, alot of people today stick to their respective religion for that small chance they might get
to live again in the afterlife (heaven or whatever you want to call it), so fear of death is one reason for such religions, or rather making them not afraid of dying for their "betters" that command the "word and will" of respective "god" is a reason (thus making the priests etc VERY powerful), explaining natural phenomena they didnt have a clue about when the religions was MADE UP is another.. And the list goes on.
Actually these perversions generally occur well after the formation of the religions.
Gravity is not a theory, it's a force, and it was proven to exist before there was any theory as of how it worked. (Newton didnt discover Gravity, he gave it a name and a theory of how it worked.)
It was observed before Newton certainly, but it was not explained in a scientific way before Newton. In fact it is still not understood. The fact remains that a Theory in science is as close to fact as you will get.
You might need to read up, if you think gravity is nothing but a theory so here; its aimed at people like you. (Kids 8+)
You have consistantly told me to read up, when I have been correct. I think it is rather stupid for you to keep pretending like you have a clue what you are talking about when you quite clearly don't. Trying to make it look like I am the one who is wrong, only makes you look even stupider than you already do.
Yes, but I said freely..
Objects cant (atleast we believe so) move "back" (or to the sides, however that would work) in time so to speak, only "forward".
Well, there are actually some ideas about that, but whatever. . .