Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

For me, the idea of God is largely an aesthetically pleasing one.  It is less of a comfort-and-fear issue.

Yes, humans get stuff done, and yes, they do a great job overall.  I'm a humanist.  It's certainly no contradiction with my religious beliefs.

For the record, my God is also a humanist.  Go, monkey, go!

(You'd expect the Mormons to be the biggest supporters of human advancement.  Isn't a core tenet of their belief that God wants to have equals?  I might be misinformed.)

[MrWiggles]

For me, the idea of God is largely an aesthetically pleasing one.  It is less of a comfort-and-fear issue.

Yes, humans get stuff done, and yes, they do a great job overall.  I'm a humanist.  It's certainly no contradiction with my religious beliefs.

For the record, my God is also a humanist.  Go, monkey, go!

(You'd expect the Mormons to be the biggest supporters of human advancement.  Isn't a core tenet of their belief that God wants to have equals?  I might be misinformed.)

Oh no, being a humanist isn't contradictory with a god belief. It would be for me, though I am an atheist, but my philo. is much closer to secular humanist with a scientific skeptical outlook.

As for Mormons, unless you aren't white! But LDS do an awesome thing an edit their holly book to be better fitting with the times. Sorta cheating and yet oddly neat. God word isn't fallible, but amenable.

[Sowelu]

I've got a friend who's elevated Prometheus to the level of personal deity.  He's also about as close to "secular humanist" as you can get, and is a full believer in science being the one true savior of humankind.  The corner between "religious", "silly", and "insane" really blurs out around this region.  Me, I consider myself firmly in the "religious" instead of "silly" category, but some core values are pretty similar all around.

Yeah, Mormonism is weird.  I like the religion a lot more than I like many of its followers, because many of them are totally crazy for non-religious reasons.  I like them because they keep beautiful, gorgeous Utah from getting too overpopulated with their weird laws about caffeine.  The religion is a mix of "wow this is awesome" and "*facepalm*".  Most of the Mormons you find outside of Utah are pretty good though, and two of my favorite sci-fi writers are Mormons (although I'd still be tempted to kick one of them in the balls if I ever met him in a dark alley, because his personal and political views are atrocious).

[Sordid]

I believe this thread has made me think about the world and I hope some other people thought about it too. However, many people find this topic a bad one and one that shouldn't be discussed, at least not here.

I am now asking a moderator to please close this thread, then.

I don't recall anyone objecting to this thread at any point, looks to me more like you don't feel like dealing with the can of worms you opened and are looking for a way to chicken out. It won't work, though, because I'm going to ask you for the third time and hopefully this time you will answer: What are those things you mentioned in the OP that you consider perfect and so evidence of God? Come on now, speak up, let everyone see just how well you've thought out your position. Or lock the thread and remove all doubt.

[LegoLord]

Here are my thoughts:

Neither atheism nor religion are in and of themselves stupid.  There is insufficient evidence to disprove either of those.

However, atheists that think an omnipotent being doesn't exist because the world is imperfect are stupid, because there's nothing in most religions saying "god" is going to come in to save people all the time.  They normally say that "god" is going to us to our own devices and see how far we can get.  Stupid legends like the Tower to heaven (where God is forced to seperate everyone's languages so they cannot build a tower to heaven) and Adam and Eve were written by people, it must be noted.

On the other side of the coin, religious people who think all the stories in their religious documents tell them all about what really happened are also stupid (going back to the thing about religious legends).  They might say that their "bible" (I use this because Christians are the only people I ever meet that are guilty of this; though I know there are non-Christians doing it as well) is contradicted by evolution; it is not.  They are stupid for vehemently arguing against something using a religion that they don't even know as evidence for prosecution of something that has been scientifically determined to be true.

Now, talking about smaller details of a religion - those that do not concern the actual existence of a god - that's alright.  Those are really more like moral discussions than anything else.  But just going out and saying other people are believing the wrong thing, without evidence, that's just wrong.

[Sordid]

Neither atheism nor religion are in and of themselves stupid.  There is insufficient evidence to disprove either of those.

That does not, however, make both equally likely, valid, or worth taking seriously. Just because there's no evidence to suggest there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the middle of my living room doesn't mean I'm going to entertain that notion with any degree of seriousness. And yes, gods are that ridiculous, the only reason we don't laugh at the idea outright is because we've been brought up in a world where belief in gods is okay and so we got used to it.

However, atheists that think an omnipotent being doesn't exist because the world is imperfect are stupid, because there's nothing in most religions saying "god" is going to come in to save people all the time.

Actually yes, the monotheistic religions do insist that the god who is in chage of the world is impeccably good and absolutely powerful, so the problem of evil is a valid objection.

On the other side of the coin, religious people who think all the stories in their religious documents tell them all about what really happened are also stupid (going back to the thing about religious legends).  They might say that their "bible" (I use this because Christians are the only people I ever meet that are guilty of this; though I know there are non-Christians doing it as well) is contradicted by evolution; it is not.

Actually, yes it is. Unless of course you're willing to interpret "God made animals, plants, and people" to mean "God sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and watched the show".

Now, talking about smaller details of a religion - those that do not concern the actual existence of a god - that's alright.

In other words discuss the tapestries and compliment the china set while politely failing to mention the elephant.

[LegoLord]

Religion is not ridiculous.  Humans have a natural tendency to want something to believe.  It's a common reasoning behind why we even have religion in the first place.  It's also part of why Obama did so well.

And all monotheistic religions really only say is that God is omnipotent; assuming that this means he will do something about every little bump and scrape could actually be considered selfish.  Again, nothing saying he's going to jump in and break physics to fix every little mistake we make like some over-protective parent.

Saying that God making animals denies evolution doesn't make any sense; It's like saying that since in DF, you pressed the "create new world now" button, Toady didn't design the human town.  God, if he does exist, could be described as the programmer of the universe.  Anyway, I already told you, that was written by a man - Moses, I believe, who was born and raised in Egypt, where he could have no knowledge of how things began.  Besides, can you see someone trying to explain evolution to someone from 3000 BC?  That would have seemed far more ridiculous to people from that time than religion would to you.

"minor details" . . . You failed big time on that one.  It made me briefly think that you might have been being sarcastic (in the entirety of your post).  No.  Not remotely what I meant.  And you should be able to see that.  I meant things like their rules concerning morals.  Look, it's even right there in my last post.  "Those are more like moral discussions than anything else."

If you are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe?  Well?  Find for me something that PROVES religion is wrong, and then you can say that those who believe in a religion are wrong.  Until then, shut up.

Oh, and the thing about an invisible pink unicorn:  If it is invisible, it has no color.  Therefore that specific thing does not exist.  On top of that, it is possible to move through that spot and no detectable respiratory byproducts can be detected (it doesn't even make a sound).

[Idiom]

That does not, however, make both equally likely, valid, or worth taking seriously. Just because there's no evidence to suggest there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the middle of my living room doesn't mean I'm going to entertain that notion with any degree of seriousness. And yes, gods are that ridiculous, the only reason we don't laugh at the idea outright is because we've been brought up in a world where belief in gods is okay and so we got used to it.

I daresay it isn't alright to never move out of your mother's basement either or laugh at the guy who wears elbow AND knee pads while biking or mock the guy who checks his apartment for hidden cameras. Actually, that was one of the better analogies I've heard. It's ridiculous in ways, but IS there a hidden camera monitoring your behavior right now? Respect the opinions even if they aren't yours.

Don't start another reason to have a thread locked. Having lengthy and pointless religious threads on a forum is one thing, but having locked ones is just embarrassing. Your posting manner reeks of aggressiveness I don't want to have to sit here and try to balance things (slight OCD).

Actually yes, the monotheistic religions do insist that the god who is in chage of the world is impeccably good and absolutely powerful, so the problem of evil is a valid objection... Actually, yes it is. Unless of course you're willing to interpret "God made animals, plants, and people" to mean "God sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and watched the show".

Remember most religious texts (or at least all the ones I consider remotely valid) might of well have been written by Martians due to the extreme changes over time. Few were ever even originally recorded in anything resembling modern Western languages. God only knows (pun intended) what exactly was meant.

[Sordid]

Religion is not ridiculous.  Humans have a natural tendency to want something to believe.  It's a common reasoning behind why we even have religion in the first place.  It's also part of why Obama did so well.

Humans are very good at wanting ridiculous things. Sometimes that's a good thing, in the case of religion it isn't. But just because we want something a lot does not mean that it's any more true. Or reasonable, for that matter.

And all monotheistic religions really only say is that God is omnipotent; assuming that this means he will do something about every little bump and scrape could actually be considered selfish.  Again, nothing saying he's going to jump in and break physics to fix every little mistake we make like some over-protective parent.

Considering that he made the laws of physics, yes, that is exactly what I would expect of him, especially if he really is that caring father figure the proponents of these religions would have us believe. No, wait, let me rephrase that: I would expect him to make the laws of physics more hospitable to life in the first place.
But that does not matter, the responsibility falls on his head either way. If you have the power to help and prevent a serious harm you are morally obliged to; and that's not just my idea, for example not providing first aid is a crime, at least where I live. God lets people die in droves every day. Personally I hope there really is nobody up there. I hate being a dwarf in somebody else's DF game.

Saying that God making animals denies evolution doesn't make any sense; It's like saying that since in DF, you pressed the "create new world now" button, Toady didn't design the human town.  God, if he does exist, could be described as the programmer of the universe.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
No, Toady did not design that human town.

Anyway, I already told you, that was written by a man - Moses, I believe, who was born and raised in Egypt, where he could have no knowledge of how things began.

And yet he felt perfectly justified in writing about just that. And it's not just that, the Bible can't even get the small things right. It claims Tigris and Euphrates flow from a common source and that bats are a kind of bird. Really, if these people couldn't even get basic geography right in their single most important book, how can you belive anything they have to say? Especially things concerning the nature and purpose of the universe?

Besides, can you see someone trying to explain evolution to someone from 3000 BC?  That would have seemed far more ridiculous to people from that time than religion would to you.

The fact that individuals are born similar yet slightly different from their parents is perfectly obvious, and I do believe even in Moses' time people were already breeding livestock. Evolution, in its principle, is really very simple. Unlike, say, quantum physics. Or hell, even plain old hundred years old relativity. I still have trouble wrapping my mind around that.

"minor details" . . . You failed big time on that one.  It made me briefly think that you might have been being sarcastic (in the entirety of your post).  No.  Not remotely what I meant.  And you should be able to see that.  I meant things like their rules concerning morals.  Look, it's even right there in my last post.  "Those are more like moral discussions than anything else."

Well since these morals are supposed to be given by the elephant, I think ignoring the elephant and squabbling about the morals is, well, just that.

If you are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe?  Well?

I don't care what my immediate family and friends believe, let alone anonymous strangers on the internet. If you mean why I'm participating in this discussion, the answer is because I find it entertaining.

Find for me something that PROVES religion is wrong, and then you can say that those who believe in a religion are wrong.  Until then, shut up.

Find for me something that PROVES invisible pink unicorns don't exist, and then you can say that those who believe in them are wrong.  Until then, shut up.

Oh, and the thing about an invisible pink unicorn:  If it is invisible, it has no color.  Therefore that specific thing does not exist.  On top of that, it is possible to move through that spot and no detectable respiratory byproducts can be detected (it doesn't even make a sound).

Well gosh darnit, you figured it out, Sherlock! Good job, have a cookie!
Nah, seriously. That's the whole bloody point. I will explain at length, then. The invisible unicorn is undetectable and unknowable, just like God. But just like those who believe in God, those who believe in it claim to know its properties (ie the color pink). Get it?

I daresay it isn't alright to never move out of your mother's basement either or laugh at the guy who wears elbow AND knee pads while biking or mock the guy who checks his apartment for hidden cameras. Actually, that was one of the better analogies I've heard. It's ridiculous in ways, but IS there a hidden camera monitoring your behavior right now? Respect the opinions even if they aren't yours.

That's not a very good analogy. Hidden cameras are known to exist, perfectly plausible, and their presence is a falsifiable hypothesis. The existence of God, on the other hand, isn't.

Don't start another reason to have a thread locked. Having lengthy and pointless religious threads on a forum is one thing, but having locked ones is just embarrassing. Your posting manner reeks of aggressiveness I don't want to have to sit here and try to balance things (slight OCD).

I don't mean to be aggressive, only direct and to the point.

Remember most religious texts (or at least all the ones I consider remotely valid) might of well have been written by Martians due to the extreme changes over time. Few were ever even originally recorded in anything resembling modern Western languages. God only knows (pun intended) what exactly was meant.

I wasn't referring to holy books, I was referring to the doctrines of contemporary religions. I find it quite noteworthy that in the past gods were a lot more badass and assholy. God's bodycount in the Old Testament is quite impressive (several hundred thousand at least).

Woot, textwall!

[MrWiggles]

It would be redundant if I posted my point by point rebuttal, wouldn't?

[LegoLord]

Sordid, when the idea of animals changing even slightly over time (Darwin) was first introduced, people were confused and angry.  That wasn't even full blown evolution.  You think you find mocking other people entertaining?  Well then I don't think you're in any position to say what an omnipotent being, much more knowledgeable than you, and certainly more mature, would do.  And you said "invisible" - which merely defines it as not being visible (ie - undetectable with eyes).  A unicorn is not an omnipotent being and could be detected by some means.  The idea behind an omnipotent being is that it has no real tangible form.  Again, you should now what you are talking about.

Yes, you are mocking religion.  Your "straight and to the point" way of talking, as you put it, is not really straight and to the point but rather fairly mocking and aggressive, hence why people get angry about what you are saying.  It's hard not to be mocking when you call a large number of people's beliefs ridiculous when you have no tangible reason to say that.

Science is about disproving things, not proving.  The idea of being able to do some of the things that happen in some popular sci-fis is somewhat ridiculous, but there are some things we cannot disprove the feasibility of (faster than light travel - it could be that we just don't know the easy way to do it, but looking at our current technology, it's ridiculous).  If you claim to have any real knowledge about this whole discussion, you must realize that, and accept that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.  Not the other person (while it is, of course, possible that they may be wrong).

This is what you do not do and the main reason for me even posting here once to begin with.

You realize that it could be said that everthing just exploding out of a point in nothing spontaneously is ridiculous without some driving force, right?  Has any one said that? 

I personally don't believe the idea is ridiculous, but that is all a matter of perspective and frankly, just because you think you are a logical person who automatically comes up with the least ridiculous hypothesis does not mean you actually are.

[Andir]

Religion is not ridiculous.  Humans have a natural tendency to want something to believe.  It's a common reasoning behind why we even have religion in the first place.  It's also part of why Obama did so well.

Ah, this is where I disagree.  I was raised in a non-religious manner.  I have no belief whatsoever that any form of a "God" exists.  I fully feel that humans want to believe because they were taught to believe.  You are raised as a child to think that good things will come your way as if by magic.  If our children were taught the truth (that we cannot and will not know) you will see religion disappear in a record breaking time.  I also fully believe we have religion because some leaders thought it would be a good way to control stupid people and keep them complacent.  What better way to control the attitudes of people than to place the "fear of God" into them.  I don't think it's coincidence that all religions follow the same basic guidelines either.  It's taken decades for the leaders and kings to come up with a winning combination of gods and lessons that people will believe.

God, if he does exist, could be described as the programmer of the universe.

If that is the case, "God" could have been no more mortal than you or I.  There's no evidence that such a being still exists, or did exist.  I still believe that the Universe is infinite and the big bang evidence points to some cataclysmic event, but not the creation of our part of space.

If you are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe?  Well?  Find for me something that PROVES religion is wrong, and then you can say that those who believe in a religion are wrong.  Until then, shut up.

I care because religion is used as a tool to control people and forge the will of religious leaders to all men.  Before the other thread was locked (The non-Atheism thread) I pasted laws that state that no non-believer may hold office of civil job for some states.  Some of them even deny the right to testify in court.  I'd say those laws affect us all, not just the religious ones.  They've weaseled there way into politics to gain an advantage.  It's like Democracy gone bad.  Get enough people behind the idea and you too can control the world and it's people.  Once you are there, you can genocide whoever else remains.

Oh, and the thing about an invisible pink unicorn:  If it is invisible, it has no color.  Therefore that specific thing does not exist.  On top of that, it is possible to move through that spot and no detectable respiratory byproducts can be detected (it doesn't even make a sound).

If you heard it make a sound, you'd be dead.  The sounds it would make are so overwhelming that any human that hears them would be vaporized by the sheer force of them.  We also know that it's pink because we are formed with his skin and our insides are pink.

Yes, you are mocking religion.  Your "straight and to the point" way of talking, as you put it, is not really straight and to the point but rather fairly mocking and aggressive, hence why people get angry about what you are saying.  It's hard not to be mocking when you call a large number of people's beliefs ridiculous when you have no tangible reason to say that.

So is it not considered mocking or aggressive to cast out non-believers and deny them from holding office or presiding over those that would be religious?  (See state laws above)  Religious people have no tangible reason to say that there is a "God" as well.

Science is about disproving things, not proving.  The idea of being able to do some of the things that happen in some popular sci-fis is somewhat ridiculous, but there are some things we cannot disprove the feasibility of (faster than light travel - it could be that we just don't know the easy way to do it, but looking at our current technology, it's ridiculous).  If you claim to have any real knowledge about this whole discussion, you must realize that, and accept that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.  Not the other person (while it is, of course, possible that they may be wrong).

And you have to realize that you may be wrong.  And very much are.  Science is about finding answers.  A scientist comes up with an idea and tests to see if it's possible.  If you believe Science is about disproving things, we wouldn't be living in America right now because the sailors would have fallen off the Earth and not found the East Indies.  We would still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and someone's crazy idea that we might revolve around the sun would never had been explored.

You realize that it could be said that everthing just exploding out of a point in nothing spontaneously is ridiculous without some driving force, right?  Has any one said that? 

There are several theorists trying to prove what I stated above.  That the "Big Bang" wasn't creation, but continuation.

[Idiom]

I wasn't referring to holy books, I was referring to the doctrines of contemporary religions. I find it quite noteworthy that in the past gods were a lot more badass and assholy. God's bodycount in the Old Testament is quite impressive (several hundred thousand at least).

And what were the doctrines ripped from? The problem with many contemporary religions is they take things too literally, or not literally enough.

That's not a very good analogy. Hidden cameras are known to exist, perfectly plausible, and their presence is a falsifiable hypothesis. The existence of God, on the other hand, isn't.

Hidden as in you don't know and can't find, no falsifiable hypothesis in what I was implying. Like right now, you sitting at the computer, without being able to get up or look around or even look away from the monitor, is there a something watching you?

Alternatively: Is someone actively monitoring your internet activities (presuming you don't do anything that should deserve such attention)?

Are spy satellites looking at you right now?

Are we being monitored from space?

Even more abstract: Are we being monitored beyond our current abilities to detect?

Religion to me has always been like waving or smiling at the security cameras you pass: "I don't care if you're an ass, a good guy, or what I've heard you claim. Hi there. I'm willing to be cooperative. Don't blackmail me for stealing that pen if anyone there saw that."

It comes down to: What is in the dark (just outside of our perception)? Either you just walk straight through because you've yet to encounter anything, or you dance a your little jig as you go just in case. Dancing a jig is ridiculous from a perspective just as is asking to be caught flat-footed.

Look, you can see what I was getting at?

Or boiled even further down:

Problem: THERE'S NO FUCKING ABSOLUTE ANSWER!

A) DO SOMETHING!
B) DON'T DO ANYTHING!

Both A and B are stupid.

[Andir]

The fact that individuals are born similar yet slightly different from their parents is perfectly obvious, and I do believe even in Moses' time people were already breeding livestock.

.. and breeding dogs for specific purposes.

[LegoLord]

@ Sordid & Andir:  You realize that those laws denying nonbelievers office are "blue laws" - most of which are ignored now?  The reason being, there is no constitutional way to enforce them in America?  And no court will waste time doing anything about them for that reason?  Religion is not in and of itself a political tool.  That people use it as such is the fault of those people, not the religion.  Frankly, I don't give a damn about the pope.  Of course, I'm protestant, but any sort of religion getting into politics is a bad idea, it has never worked very well, and a lot of people are actually angry about religion getting into the government.  Those that demand laws forbidding the education are a small minority of those stupid religious people I was talking about earlier. 

I don't cast out atheists, unless they are trying to prove religion wrong.  It's fine if you don't believe, but acting like you are right about it is arrogant bigotry, just as casting out atheists is arrogant bigotry.

And you realize that to find an answer a scientist must first perform a series of test that disprove any other logical possibilities?  Yeah.  You realize that they disproved the flatness of Earth, something previously accepted as fact even though no one tried to disprove the roundness of the Earth?  You should.  Where the hell in what I said did I make out that what people thought was how things are?

You realize that I did not use the words "big bang"?  You realize that there would have to be some point where everything was produced, big bang being the start or not?

You realize that belief doesn't automatically refer to omnipotent beings?  You realize that small children will believe there are monsters under their beds, even if no one has told them such?

You realize that in my first post I already said religious people can't find tangible evidence of God's existence either?  So that, in part, you just agreed with me?