Being new here, I honestly have no idea what this will spark up, but I wanted to get a general average of people's religious beliefs here, and I'd like to know why you people believe what you do. :hmm:
I, for one, am Nothing. I live in the present, as I don't care what happens to me when I die. The closest thing to me would be Atheism, although I will nothe presumptuous enough to say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God. If there is, cool. If not, awesome. Even if there were a corporeal God I'd still lack the capacity to care. I am also far from Agnostic. I choose not to believe in the concept of anything religious.
That being said, go at it.
I fear you will suffer the most tragic fate of all, reprobate. There is no compassion left for you. A just world would see you succumb to torture and humiliation unto eternity, but we don't live in a just world so I shall take solace in your oblivion.
Who are you, again?
Edit: Well, aside from an unimaginative lout who thinks a corporeal god would possibly let him remain his filthy uncaring, unknowning, nihilist self.
New.
Edit: Are you always so hateful?
Well fuck you, nihilist.
I feel welcome :D
Well, my inability to follow through on projects unfortunately keeps me from fully expressing my virulent hatred of you but if it helps you can probably intuit the lengths to which I had planned to go in order to fill you in.
I think pantheist is probably the most accurate description of what I believe.
How'd you find this place, Zeus?
Ive known about this place for a while, just never posted or really read anything untill a couple days ago.
Quote from: Slargos on April 07, 2011, 11:40:03 PM
Well, my inability to follow through on projects unfortunately keeps me from fully expressing my virulent hatred of you but if it helps you can probably intuit the lengths to which I had planned to go in order to fill you in.
I think he has a crush on me :P
Quote from: Zeus on April 07, 2011, 11:31:02 PM
Edit: Are you always so hateful?
You really are new!
Yes, yes he is. He's a terrible, misanthropic excuse for a human being.
Slargos will want you even more if you're black or Muslim.
Quote from: Zeus on April 07, 2011, 11:46:00 PMI think he has a crush on me :P
Slargos hates himself and deals with it by directing the emotion outwards.
That's what you're going with, when I unwittingly served you up the gem at the end of my rant? I see that my first impression was spot on.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2011, 11:47:27 PM
Quote from: Zeus on April 07, 2011, 11:46:00 PMI think he has a crush on me :P
Slargos hates himself and deals with it by directing the emotion outwards.
Don't kid yourself, race traitor, I reserve my hatred for you. :hug:
Quote from: Slargos on April 07, 2011, 11:47:45 PM
That's what you're going with, when I unwittingly served you up the gem at the end of my rant? I see that my first impression was spot on.
I don't get it. You mean that there's some sort of innuendo to be found it you wanting to fill him in?
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2011, 11:49:53 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 07, 2011, 11:47:45 PM
That's what you're going with, when I unwittingly served you up the gem at the end of my rant? I see that my first impression was spot on.
I don't get it. You mean that there's some sort of innuendo to be found it you wanting to fill him in?
If he's going for the homo angle, sure. Your mind is addled by your perversion.
Here I'm selflessly working hard to vet the new guy, and all I get for it is grief. Ingrates. :(
I'm not giving you grief, you cretin. I was feeding you a straight line.
For the record, I am not addled by my perversion; rather, I find it invigorates and clarifies the mind.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 11:47:03 PM
Yes, yes he is. He's a terrible, misanthropic excuse for a human being.
That's pretty much par for the course here.
Depending on my mood I oscillate wildly between atheism, pantheism and discordianism.
If I was presented with an evidence of Jahweh actually existing, I would probably be some sort of a gnostic, considering him an asshole demiurge.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2011, 01:34:37 AM
If I was presented with an evidence of Jahweh actually existing, I would probably be some sort of a gnostic, considering him an asshole demiurge.
So you'd think yourself created in His image, eh?
Irreligious.
Its unknowable so why worry about it.
Unspiritual.
Quote from: Zeus on April 07, 2011, 11:22:39 PM
Being new here, I honestly have no idea what this will spark up, but I wanted to get a general average of people's religious beliefs here, and I'd like to know why you people believe what you do. :hmm:
I, for one, am Nothing. I live in the present, as I don't care what happens to me when I die. The closest thing to me would be Atheism, although I will nothe presumptuous enough to say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God. If there is, cool. If not, awesome. Even if there were a corporeal God I'd still lack the capacity to care. I am also far from Agnostic. I choose not to believe in the concept of anything religious.
That being said, go at it.
re Euros: Plenty of atheist Euros here, but that's a Euro trait. Like left-leaning governments, environmental awareness, or anti-semitism.
re Americans: most of the atheist posters here also identify themselves as "libertarians", yet display the same overeducated pretentiousness about atheism they despise in ivory tower liberal intellectuals, which is sorta funny. Kind of like people who claim to be bisexual, but for some reason only suck cock.
Protestant.
I'm Catholic.
If there is a god, I suppose it would have to be Me.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2011, 01:34:37 AM
Depending on my mood I oscillate wildly between atheism, pantheism and discordianism.
If I was presented with an evidence of Jahweh actually existing, I would probably be some sort of a gnostic, considering him an asshole demiurge.
What I've always thought. Your atheism is not rooted in your beliefs but whether or not you can suck cock.
I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to Stir The Pot & say that I'm Agnostic (insert "Shifty" emoticon here), so let's just say that I'm generally an Atheist with a few vague Superstitions & a half-baked belief in Karma (on a moral level, though, as opposed to any kind of literal belief that I'll be reincarnated as a goat or a sloth or some damned thing for passing that old broad that was driving 30mph in a 55mph zone & then slamming on my brakes just to scare the living shit out of her)...
:ccr
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 06:47:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2011, 01:34:37 AM
Depending on my mood I oscillate wildly between atheism, pantheism and discordianism.
If I was presented with an evidence of Jahweh actually existing, I would probably be some sort of a gnostic, considering him an asshole demiurge.
What I've always thought. Your atheism is not rooted in your beliefs but whether or not you can suck cock.
How many can honestly say their ideology is not predicated by convenience rather than morality?
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2011, 01:34:37 AM
Depending on my mood I oscillate wildly ...
There's some lucidity left in you after all.
-----
As for this 'new' member - is it hard?
G.
"religion is the uneducated's answer on why the Sun is rising East"
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 07:14:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 06:47:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2011, 01:34:37 AM
Depending on my mood I oscillate wildly between atheism, pantheism and discordianism.
If I was presented with an evidence of Jahweh actually existing, I would probably be some sort of a gnostic, considering him an asshole demiurge.
What I've always thought. Your atheism is not rooted in your beliefs but whether or not you can suck cock.
How many can honestly say their ideology is not predicated by convenience rather than morality?
Plenty, I suppose. The Catholic Church hasn't made kiddie fucking a virtue despite it's popularity amongst the clergy. For Protestants, I don't know. They changed ideology all the time suit them.
Pantheism comes closest, though I do believe that humans have the capacity to create a God (or gods) within themselves to help them during tough times. These manifestations are no less powerful than a spiritual being in the sky, imo, so equally as important.
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 07:58:38 AM
Pantheism comes closest, though I do believe that humans have the capacity to create a God (or gods) within themselves to help them during tough times. These manifestations are no less powerful than a spiritual being in the sky, imo, so equally as important.
By 'create' do you mean 'imagine' or do you believe that human belief can produce independent entities?
Bitter pyramid-church-scheme-hating atheist here.
I believe in a God of some sorts, but I am unfortunately somewhat skeptical....which from what I hear is unforgivable. :weep:
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:06:23 AM
By 'create' do you mean 'imagine' or do you believe that human belief can produce independent entities?
I believe that individuals can imagine a god, which then creates - for them - an independent entity.
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:06:23 AM
By 'create' do you mean 'imagine' or do you believe that human belief can produce independent entities?
I believe that individuals can imagine a god, which then creates - for them - an independent entity.
And by 'for them' you mean that they have a delusion?
Makes more sense than some man pigeon-holed in the sky, forever watching us all, judging and smiting at will.
Quick explanation: I straddle the line between atheism and agnosticism, because the way I figure it, either "God" is not omniscient or omnipotent, or "God" is evil.
Original sin: The way Christians tell it, God either made a blind spot in his rear-view mirror, or he created man just to be damned. Either way, I'm not gonna worship that bull.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 08:14:48 AM
Makes more sense than some man pigeon-holed in the sky, forever watching us all, judging and smiting at will.
Not really. What Meri's describing is just a halfway house between two enlightenments.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:06:23 AM
By 'create' do you mean 'imagine' or do you believe that human belief can produce independent entities?
I believe that individuals can imagine a god, which then creates - for them - an independent entity.
And by 'for them' you mean that they have a delusion?
I don't think it's a delusion at all. I think it's very real.
I plan on a deathbed confession. After I tell my vassals the crown goes to the strongest.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2011, 08:15:41 AM
Quick explanation: I straddle the line between atheism and agnosticism, because the way I figure it, either "God" is not omniscient or omnipotent, or "God" is evil.
Original sin: The way Christians tell it, God either made a blind spot in his rear-view mirror, or he created man just to be damned. Either way, I'm not gonna worship that bull.
I was going to say that it's not up to you to question GOD, but frankly, how the hell would I know that?
The way I see it, there is no doubt that Something is there, just out of immediately perceptible reach. What that is, and what it wants (if anything) are largely mysteries to me. Evil is just a word we use to describe that which we don't understand. Is it Evil to knock off a guy if you know that he will accidentally tip over a candle in a kindergarden tomorrow, and the result will be 20 dead toddlers?
Perhaps IT wants to be questioned. Perhaps IT demands servitude under ITS arbitrary rules. Perhaps IT is in fact a spaghetti monster. I don't know.
For the purpose of the Pixelonians, YOU are IT and you are omnipotent, yet you allow them (nay in fact perversely charge them) to walk into their deaths by the millions for the sole purpose of feeding your addiction. The genocide of Pixelonians is horrible and tremendous on the scale which humanity has never seen. Are you Evil?
All I know is that neither protestant nor catholic doctrine makes any fucking sense, and it is perhaps possible that the only way to truly Know GOD is to intuit IT. I've seen shit that you wouldn't believe ( Attack ships etc. :P ) and while I don't expect anyone else to understand or respect it, I know what I know and suspect what I don't.
In conclusion:
1. Fuck the pope.
2. All papists must fucking burn.
3. I find your position deeply immature. (Not in the pejorative sense. I'm just saying, it seems undeveloped.)
Why must we burn? :(
I foil Pascal's Wager by believing in various different pantheons on a rotational basis, just to be sure. This week, I believe in Osiris and company.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2011, 08:31:36 AM
Why must we burn? :(
Because you are all sinners by your own admission, obviously. :P
IE you're all going to your fictional hell.
The "everyone goes where they believe they will go" theory would be hilarious, because it would indeed mean all you catholic fucktards who secretly know that whatever you do there is no way you can go without sin will burn in perpetuity. :P
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:06:23 AM
By 'create' do you mean 'imagine' or do you believe that human belief can produce independent entities?
I believe that individuals can imagine a god, which then creates - for them - an independent entity.
And by 'for them' you mean that they have a delusion?
I don't think it's a delusion at all. I think it's very real.
But that's incorrect. Only certain things are true. Other things are untrue.
One only needs to ask for forgiveness to receive it & be allowed to enter the kingdom of God.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 08:35:40 AM
But that's incorrect. Only certain things are true. Other things are untrue.
Truth is goofy - too subjective. Fact is much more betterer...
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 08:34:30 AM
The "everyone goes where they believe they will go" theory would be hilarious, because it would indeed mean all you catholic fucktards who secretly know that whatever you do there is no way you can go without sin will burn in perpetuity. :P
Hell is even funnier than dead babies.
Slarg said "evil" is just a name for things we dont understand.
No. God(s) is the name for things we dont understand.
As science moved onward, it always reduced the reign of religion. Thunders, earthquakes, shape of the world, Earth's position in it, evolution, etc.
So, "God" "Gods" "magic" was always the stuff we couldn't figure out.
I have zero reason to believe that we have reached the peak, ie. we know everything there is to know about the world and any other gray area is God. That is the exact same position as people had when they thought a lightning storm was domestic violence up on Mount Olympos.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 08:14:48 AM
Makes more sense than some man pigeon-holed in the sky, forever watching us all, judging and smiting at will.
Good thing that's not how almost all religions view God then. :)
I choose to believe in Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 09:07:59 AM
I choose to believe in Jesus Christ.
Is belief really a choice though?
I could not, for example, "choose" to believe in something I do not believe in - it isn't really a matter of choice.
Could you choose to believe in Santa Clause? if you really, really, REALLY wanted to?
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:25:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 09:07:59 AM
I choose to believe in Jesus Christ.
Is belief really a choice though?
I could not, for example, "choose" to believe in something I do not believe in - it isn't really a matter of choice.
Could you choose to believe in Santa Clause? if you really, really, REALLY wanted to?
Well, yes, plenty of people make themselves believe in patently false things, so I imagine a person could choose to believe in Santa Claus (perhaps a poor example though, in the "yes Virginia" kind of reasoning".
Jesus is not someone who is patently a,d obviously untrue. It's ambiguous. So I think choosing to believe is the appropriate way to describe my faith.
WEll, I assume you mean "believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ" as opposed to believing IN Jesus Christ.
And of course, I would argue that believing in the super-natural powers of Jesus Christ is no more or less patently and obviously untrue than any other super-natural phenomenon, pretty much by definition.
I could not force myself to believe in Santa Clause, no matter how much I liked the idea of free gifts, and I cannot force myself to believe in a supernatural Christ no matter how much I like the idea of him, whether that be based on the idea of salvation or simply the comfort of the believing what my culture expects me to believe.
I realize, of course, that other people are not so constrained - but I don't really understand it.
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:38:14 AM
WEll, I assume you mean "believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ" as opposed to believing IN Jesus Christ.
And of course, I would argue that believing in the super-natural powers of Jesus Christ is no more or less patently and obviously untrue than any other super-natural phenomenon, pretty much by definition.
I could not force myself to believe in Santa Clause, no matter how much I liked the idea of free gifts, and I cannot force myself to believe in a supernatural Christ no matter how much I like the idea of him, whether that be based on the idea of salvation or simply the comfort of the believing what my culture expects me to believe.
I realize, of course, that other people are not so constrained - but I don't really understand it.
Heh, leave the man alone - if I can believe in Osiris, he can believe in Jesus. Fair is fair.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Well, no, actually it isn't a good point. Which is why you don't believe in it, I imagine.
Explain?
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 09:07:14 AM
Slarg said "evil" is just a name for things we dont understand.
No. God(s) is the name for things we dont understand.
As science moved onward, it always reduced the reign of religion. Thunders, earthquakes, shape of the world, Earth's position in it, evolution, etc.
So, "God" "Gods" "magic" was always the stuff we couldn't figure out.
I have zero reason to believe that we have reached the peak, ie. we know everything there is to know about the world and any other gray area is God. That is the exact same position as people had when they thought a lightning storm was domestic violence up on Mount Olympos.
So since you've ruled out the use of Snow and Sleet as different descriptors for "frozen H20" I guess we need to come up with an entirely new way to describe the weather, huh? :hmm:
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:48:03 AM
Explain?
Whatever argument you want to make about the need for a designer of anything can, by definition, be simply applied to whatever it is you are positing as the designer, and hence the problem is not actually solved by the posited existence of the designer.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Nein, it is a horrible point.
The body is an amalgam of lesser particles whose whole is, as they say, greater than the sum. Is this evidence of Intelligent Design? Don't be silly.
If anything, there's ample proof of evolution in the body, which in turn doesn't rule out ID since there could simply have been a point to that type of creation.
I was using it as a basis for all religion, not just one designer, but fair enough.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AM
I was using it as a basis for all religion, not just one designer, but fair enough.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how that improves your "point".
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 10:00:31 AM
If anything, there's ample proof of evolution in the body, which in turn doesn't rule out ID since there could simply have been a point to that type of creation.
Indeed. Hod may have given us each an appendix just so we would say "WTF?"
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 10:05:30 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AM
I was using it as a basis for all religion, not just one designer, but fair enough.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how that improves your "point".
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 10:05:30 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AM
I was using it as a basis for all religion, not just one designer, but fair enough.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how that improves your "point".
I was responding to Berkut when he said my point could be applied to any designer. Regardless, I'm an Evolutionist so it doesn't matter much.
Quote from: C.C.R. on April 08, 2011, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 10:00:31 AM
If anything, there's ample proof of evolution in the body, which in turn doesn't rule out ID since there could simply have been a point to that type of creation.
Indeed. Hod may have given us each an appendix just so we would say "WTF?"
Isn't it clear by now that the appendix has important work to do for the immune system? :hmm:
Anyway, it's obviously so. If the man decided to let Furries be, then I don't see why he wouldn't do stuff like that just to fuck with us.
I am non-religious.
I also plan a magnificent tomb complex for myself.
As a physicist and engineer my impression is that the only realistic way to design something like the human body is by evolution. You can't realistically write down the specs for humans and design a version 1.0 machine that meets them.
God made me an atheist.
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
As a physicist and engineer my impression is that the only realistic way to design something like the human body is by evolution. You can't realistically write down the specs for humans and design a version 1.0 machine that meets them.
Well, you are Swedish. I can certainly understand your natural skepticism about the viability of 1.0 versions.
WAD :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
As a physicist and engineer my impression is that the only realistic way to design something like the human body is by evolution. You can't realistically write down the specs for humans and design a version 1.0 machine that meets them.
See, this is why it's so important to keep engineers from managerial positions or really any position of power. A complete and utter lack of imagination.
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
As a physicist and engineer my impression is that the only realistic way to design something like the human body is by evolution. You can't realistically write down the specs for humans and design a version 1.0 machine that meets them.
See, this is why it's so important to keep engineers from managerial positions or really any position of power. A complete and utter lack of imagination.
Get back in the kitchen.
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 09:07:14 AM
Slarg said "evil" is just a name for things we dont understand.
No. God(s) is the name for things we dont understand.
As science moved onward, it always reduced the reign of religion. Thunders, earthquakes, shape of the world, Earth's position in it, evolution, etc.
So, "God" "Gods" "magic" was always the stuff we couldn't figure out.
I have zero reason to believe that we have reached the peak, ie. we know everything there is to know about the world and any other gray area is God. That is the exact same position as people had when they thought a lightning storm was domestic violence up on Mount Olympos.
So since you've ruled out the use of Snow and Sleet as different descriptors for "frozen H20" I guess we need to come up with an entirely new way to describe the weather, huh? :hmm:
:rolleyes: "snow" is a definitive state of frozen water. "God" is the definitive state of "stuff I dont know shit about".
And science is just one aspect of it.
The other main aspect is the comfortable illusion of having control.
Most people are mightly afraid of the fact that most of their lives is well outside of their control.
You can see this in the myriad of superstitions, like knocking on wood. It feels like you actually did something.
And of course in religions. "Make trades with God and hope he wont screw me over - I did all I could do" admittedly sounds better than "trying to live happily in a world which is wildly out of any organized control"
BTW, I do more or less believe in scientific determinism, ie. that pure randomness doesn't exist, merely the lack of capabilities to calculate.
I know quantum physics doesn't really approve that nowadays, but the "I doubt we know everything there is to know" applies here as well. Just because they can't see "down" enough, doesn't/shouldn't mean that there is pure randomness "below" the levels which they can work with.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 09:07:14 AM
Slarg said "evil" is just a name for things we dont understand.
No. God(s) is the name for things we dont understand.
As science moved onward, it always reduced the reign of religion. Thunders, earthquakes, shape of the world, Earth's position in it, evolution, etc.
So, "God" "Gods" "magic" was always the stuff we couldn't figure out.
I have zero reason to believe that we have reached the peak, ie. we know everything there is to know about the world and any other gray area is God. That is the exact same position as people had when they thought a lightning storm was domestic violence up on Mount Olympos.
So since you've ruled out the use of Snow and Sleet as different descriptors for "frozen H20" I guess we need to come up with an entirely new way to describe the weather, huh? :hmm:
:rolleyes: "snow" is a definitive state of frozen water. "God" is the definitive state of "stuff I dont know shit about".
And science is just one aspect of it.
The other main aspect is the comfortable illusion of having control.
Most people are mightly afraid of the fact that most of their lives is well outside of their control.
You can see this in the myriad of superstitions, like knocking on wood. It feels like you actually did something.
And of course in religions. "Make trades with God and hope he wont screw me over - I did all I could do" admittedly sounds better than "trying to live happily in a world which is wildly out of any organized control"
BTW, I do more or less believe in scientific determinism, ie. that pure randomness doesn't exist, merely the lack of capabilities to calculate.
I know quantum physics doesn't really approve that nowadays, but the "I doubt we know everything there is to know" applies here as well. Just because they can't see "down" enough, doesn't/shouldn't mean that there is pure randomness "below" the levels which they can work with.
You don't understand. Don't take it so hard, your genetic heritage works against you, and it's not your fault per se. :console:
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 11:10:37 AM
Most people are mightly afraid of the fact that most of their lives is well outside of their control.
You can see this in the myriad of superstitions, like knocking on wood. It feels like you actually did something.
And of course in religions. "Make trades with God and hope he wont screw me over - I did all I could do" admittedly sounds better than "trying to live happily in a world which is wildly out of any organized control"
When areligious people try to describe how religious people think it doesn't sound like any religious person I know...
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
You don't understand. Don't take it so hard, your genetic heritage works against you, and it's not your fault per se. :console:
It's ok, I know that on the far-right political spectrum, it is mandatory to showcase some level of religiousness. :console:
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 11:17:54 AM
When areligious people try to describe how religious people think it doesn't sound like any religious person I know...
The Taliban.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2011, 11:25:56 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
You don't understand. Don't take it so hard, your genetic heritage works against you, and it's not your fault per se. :console:
It's ok, I know that on the far-right political spectrum, it is mandatory to showcase some level of religiousness. :console:
I'm talking about your argument itself, not your ideology or lack thereof. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
As a physicist and engineer my impression is that the only realistic way to design something like the human body is by evolution. You can't realistically write down the specs for humans and design a version 1.0 machine that meets them.
Well, you are Swedish. I can certainly understand your natural skepticism about the viability of 1.0 versions.
:lol:
Well done. You've been doing well lately on matters that don't pertain to US politics.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 05:52:26 AMre Euros: Plenty of atheist Euros here, but that's a Euro trait. Like left-leaning governments, environmental awareness, or anti-semitism.
re Americans: most of the atheist posters here also identify themselves as "libertarians", yet display the same overeducated pretentiousness about atheism they despise in ivory tower liberal intellectuals, which is sorta funny. Kind of like people who claim to be bisexual, but for some reason only suck cock.
Self-identify as libertarians? I sort of recall in the old days I used to throw "libertarian" around as an insult, because it is, but maybe I'm misremembering.
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Anyway, I was effectively raised agnostically and have virtually always been an atheist (and for the benefit of the new dude, I've always been an American and evolutionary socialist).
Quote from: ZeusSeems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
Oh, yeah, there's nothing conceivably better than a piece of shit that doesn't repair telomeres, cannot regenerate limbs or organ systems, fails to take advantage of the full spectrum of the sun's light for vision, has an airway that crosses its foodway, is poorly adapted to the environment it has created for itself, and has a limbic system that handicaps its users as often as it helps them.
The human being is so slapdash--despite its advantages versus any other life form on the planet--that it seems incredible that anyone might have ever claimed it was made in God's image, or even as a work of a reasonably intelligent engineer. If there could be a class action, God would be best advised to settle.
It's telling, if unavoidable, that the only people claiming that have a bit of a biased opinion on the matter.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
(and for the benefit of the new dude, I've always been an American and evolutionary socialist).
And a carrier-lover. :mad:
Time marches on, my friend. :console:
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:25:24 AM
Could you choose to believe in Santa Clause? if you really, really, REALLY wanted to?
I believe in Santa Clause. -_-
It's written in small letters.
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:25:24 AM
Could you choose to believe in Santa Clause? if you really, really, REALLY wanted to?
I believe in Santa Clause. -_-
What do you mean by that?!? Are you insinuating that he doesn't exist?! :o
Quote from: merithyn on April 08, 2011, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:25:24 AM
Could you choose to believe in Santa Clause? if you really, really, REALLY wanted to?
I believe in Santa Clause. -_-
Yeah, but you believe that he springs into being because you imagine him or some other such fruitcake BS like that. Doesn't really count.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 05:52:26 AMre Euros: Plenty of atheist Euros here, but that's a Euro trait. Like left-leaning governments, environmental awareness, or anti-semitism.
re Americans: most of the atheist posters here also identify themselves as "libertarians", yet display the same overeducated pretentiousness about atheism they despise in ivory tower liberal intellectuals, which is sorta funny. Kind of like people who claim to be bisexual, but for some reason only suck cock.
Self-identify as libertarians?
Not really. Caliga and VM may fit that description but I think he's mostly talking about Berkut and Grumbler.
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 08:30:12 AM
I was going to say that it's not up to you to question GOD, but frankly, how the hell would I know that?
See, that's my biggest beef with God. This whole "mysterious ways" explanation is too convenient. If I were World President Of The United Nations, my first act would be to launch a fearless inquiry into what God has done for us lately. Was he behind the Japanese tsunami? And if not, isn't this omnipotence thing just false advertising? Shouldn't God be subject to the same scrutiny as us humans, if it indeed is so that he sees everything? And who voted for him? I think his rule, eternal or not, is fundamentally undemocratic, especially the issue of only those who believe in him get to enter his kingdom. That's just cruel.
My second act would probably be to be blown to bits by suicide bombers for insulting not just God and Jahwe but Allah as well.
And there, perhaps, is my biggest issue with religion. It's just symbolism to rally people for this or that cause.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:30:25 PM
Time marches on, my friend. :console:
Not for Me it doesn't. I remember things.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:30:25 PM
Time marches on, my friend. :console:
Not for Me it doesn't. I remember things.
Where did I pack my portable drill? Do you remember that?
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:30:25 PM
Time marches on, my friend. :console:
Not for Me it doesn't. I remember things.
But Tom Phillips didn't remember to ask for CAP. :menace:
However, the age of the carrier is over too, and probably was as soon as long-range nuclear cruise missiles came into being--we just never noticed because we never fought a major surface action after 1945. C'est la guerre. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
But Tom Phillips didn't remember to ask for CAP. :menace:
However, the age of the carrier is over too, and probably was as soon as long-range nuclear cruise missiles came into being--we just never noticed because we never fought a major surface action after 1945. C'est la guerre. :(
Yeah. It's very sad. The atomic bomb has really put a kink in industrialized warfare. It's a shame.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:30:25 PM
Time marches on, my friend. :console:
Not for Me it doesn't. I remember things.
Where did I pack my portable drill? Do you remember that?
Elizabeth May stole it out of your trailer, but she will escape prosecution for some Svend Robinson-esque reasons.
Only read the first page. Did the thread ever recover from Slargo taint?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 02:03:52 PM
Only read the first page. Did the thread ever recover from Slargo taint?
Not really - Berkut and me tried on page 5 or so to resusitate it, but with not many takers.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2011, 01:12:34 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 08:30:12 AM
I was going to say that it's not up to you to question GOD, but frankly, how the hell would I know that?
See, that's my biggest beef with God. This whole "mysterious ways" explanation is too convenient. If I were World President Of The United Nations, my first act would be to launch a fearless inquiry into what God has done for us lately. Was he behind the Japanese tsunami? And if not, isn't this omnipotence thing just false advertising? Shouldn't God be subject to the same scrutiny as us humans, if it indeed is so that he sees everything? And who voted for him? I think his rule, eternal or not, is fundamentally undemocratic, especially the issue of only those who believe in him get to enter his kingdom. That's just cruel.
My second act would probably be to be blown to bits by suicide bombers for insulting not just God and Jahwe but Allah as well.
And there, perhaps, is my biggest issue with religion. It's just symbolism to rally people for this or that cause.
In the post-massmedial age no one can stand up to scrutiny, not even God. :lol:
I think that's a red herring. Did he personally wake up one morning (does God sleep?) and decide to shake Japan? Maybe. I don't know. Did he set about the events that led to the quake? Perhaps. I don't know.
Am I going to second-guess the Almighty? No, that would be silly. I'm sure he had his reasons even if those reasons seem unreasonable. Or perhaps he didn't. Either way, it's not up to me to decide, it's just life.
Religion is "just symbolism"? No, Norgy. You are wrong, even if you will never understand it.
A friend of mine noted while I was having a discussion about a similar subject with someone, and was trying to explain the motivation behind a behaviour, "I see how it's possible to think that way; I understand, but I think some people simply can't."
And perhaps it's true, that some people simply are not able to understand no matter what manner of rhetoric or narrative you employ. I choose to believe, perhaps in my naivete, that this is not true and that you just need to find the correct narrative for enlightenment in any given situation. I think that the problem lies, however, in whether you will be allowed to work on the narrative long enough for enlightenment, or whether the other person will simply shut down.
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
Perhaps they're smart enough to not to get into a debate they know they can't win, and indeed don't really want to?
Quote from: Zeus on April 07, 2011, 11:22:39 PM
Being new here, I honestly have no idea what this will spark up, but I wanted to get a general average of people's religious beliefs here, and I'd like to know why you people believe what you do. :hmm:
I, for one, am Nothing. I live in the present, as I don't care what happens to me when I die. The closest thing to me would be Atheism, although I will nothe presumptuous enough to say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God. If there is, cool. If not, awesome. Even if there were a corporeal God I'd still lack the capacity to care. I am also far from Agnostic. I choose not to believe in the concept of anything religious.
That being said, go at it.
I know I'm late to this thread.. but talk about a lack of self belief? How do you have the self confidence to get up in the morning?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
But it doesnt really. Even if one accepts the Quantum Theory proposition that all possible outcomes exist in separate realities a believer is still stuck with the problem that God allowed all those shitty outcomes to occur.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
But it doesnt really. Even if one accepts the Quantum Theory proposition that all possible outcomes exist in separate realities a believer is still stuck with the problem that God allowed all those shitty outcomes to occur.
And why exactly is this a problem?
First of all, this was a terrible thread title.
Anyway, fundamentalist Christian here.
Quote from: TyrIts unknowable so why worry about it.
People often stereotype people of faith as unimaginative, uninquisitive, etc., but that takes the cake for being uninterested in learning new things. It also helps explain why Tyr is considered, as you'll find if you stick around, to be ignorant and provincial.
Quote from: Barrister
When areligious people try to describe how religious people think it doesn't sound like any religious person I know...
Yep. Which ties into the reason I tend to avoid these type of threads. I'm only here now for the benefit of the new guy.
Quote from: Ideologue
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy
It's hard enough to win people over to Christ without having to educate them on quantum theory first.
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
It's hard enough to win people over to Christ without having to educate them on quantum theory first.
Because once you teach people about science you knock out a lot of modern Christian beliefs...
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
It's hard enough to win people over to Christ without having to educate them on quantum theory first.
The people you should be trying to win to Christ wouldn't understand quantum theory anyways.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Neither. They're either Froglites or, in Neil's case, English-speaking wannabe-American gypsies. Same with BB, with less flannel.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Neither. They're either Froglites or, in Neil's case, English-speaking wannabe-American gypsies. Same with BB, with less flannel.
And yet you wish you were me.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Neither. They're either Froglites or, in Neil's case, English-speaking wannabe-American gypsies. Same with BB, with less flannel.
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Neither. They're either Froglites or, in Neil's case, English-speaking wannabe-American gypsies. Same with BB, with less flannel.
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
:lol:
2006 was a bad year man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2011, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Are we counting Canadians as Americans or as Europeans?
Neither. They're either Froglites or, in Neil's case, English-speaking wannabe-American gypsies. Same with BB, with less flannel.
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
:lol:
2006 was a bad year man.
Hey, I'll take the leg halo for a child bride any time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
Then start voting Republican.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
But it doesnt really. Even if one accepts the Quantum Theory proposition that all possible outcomes exist in separate realities a believer is still stuck with the problem that God allowed all those shitty outcomes to occur.
Basically, I set it out like this: If one set of physical laws, namely our own (which require quantum mechanics, and--accepting MWI as given--thus all possible outcomes), can produce intelligent life, then an omnibenevolent God must consider itself morally obligated to set up those physical laws, even though evil outcomes will be the result.
Now, I find this to be no compelling argument for the existence of God. But I think it's a pretty decent theodicy.
Quote from: dpsIt's hard enough to win people over to Christ without having to educate them on quantum theory first.
For these purposes, it's not too bad. "Have you ever seen Sliders?" "Yeah." "Close enough." MWI is substantially more complicated, but that gets the very basic idea across.
Of course, there are some that claim that MWI is not much more proveable (or disproveable) than God. Though, personally, from a materialist and logical perspective, Copenhagenesque wave function collapse vexes me greatly.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
Then start voting Republican.
Republicans support spending on time machine research?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 07:30:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
But it doesnt really. Even if one accepts the Quantum Theory proposition that all possible outcomes exist in separate realities a believer is still stuck with the problem that God allowed all those shitty outcomes to occur.
Basically, I set it out like this: If one set of physical laws, namely our own (which require quantum mechanics, and--accepting MWI as given--thus all possible outcomes), can produce intelligent life, then an omnibenevolent God must consider itself morally obligated to set up those physical laws, even though evil outcomes will be the result.
Now, I find this to be no compelling argument for the existence of God. But I think it's a pretty decent theodicy.
Why would an all powerful loving God be in any any way constrained by the natural laws of physics such that such a God must necessarily allow evil to exist.
Seems to me your solution has the same issue as the problem it tries to address.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
And yet you wish you were me.
No, no I don't.
I wish I was Ed Anger, circa 2006.
Then start voting Republican.
Republicans support spending on time machine research?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_viXLELpXe1s%2FSF_0o_3pNGI%2FAAAAAAAAACM%2FylPlo2t5mOE%2Fs400%2F65f4a1ec5a001a02396ac2d1baa8e31a.jpg&hash=b65bd3f416ba9969679e0f2274d2fa84bfb0acdb)
I am a deist, in the sense that I believe intelligent design makes more sense than anything else.
I don't believe in a driven universe or that things happen for ordained reasons. I guess I just never found it plausible; my father was an angry athiest himself, who combined this with getting quite worked up about the end times.
I have nominally intended to raise my children southern baptist, as I feel this does them a good service.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 07:33:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 07:30:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
Something I've always been surprised about is how smarter believers have generally failed to pick up on many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and apply it to theodicy, insofar as it is an absolute solution to the Problem of Evil, and also grafts a nice pro-life sentiment onto the Creation.
Btw, the vocabulary of the board's spellchecker is weak.
But it doesnt really. Even if one accepts the Quantum Theory proposition that all possible outcomes exist in separate realities a believer is still stuck with the problem that God allowed all those shitty outcomes to occur.
Basically, I set it out like this: If one set of physical laws, namely our own (which require quantum mechanics, and--accepting MWI as given--thus all possible outcomes), can produce intelligent life, then an omnibenevolent God must consider itself morally obligated to set up those physical laws, even though evil outcomes will be the result.
Now, I find this to be no compelling argument for the existence of God. But I think it's a pretty decent theodicy.
Why would an all powerful loving God be in any any way constrained by the natural laws of physics such that such a God must necessarily allow evil to exist.
Seems to me your solution has the same issue as the problem it tries to address.
Okay, rephrase: God is capable of creating all possible worlds. Failure to create all possible worlds, when omnipotence renders that creation trivial, would be to permit souls, or consciousnesses, to languish in oblivion. How could God fail to create all possible worlds if he is not also loving?
Alternatively, if you deny that it is immoral to fail to create humanity, our set of physical laws is the only one that allows life to exist, and our physical laws require the existence of admittedly crappier alternative worlds, then God is still required to do so in order to create the best possible world, with the rest--including, presumably our own--are logically necessary* side effects, although
not by necessity bereft of God's love simply because of their inferior state.
*Regarding omnipotence, I don't believe that omnipotence is meaningfully circumscribed by an inability to do logically impossible things, such as fashioning laws of physics which mathematically cannot create life, and then using those laws to somehow magically create life.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2011, 07:39:29 PM
I have nominally intended to raise my children southern baptist, as I feel this does them a good service.
It will certainly give all your gay children complexes, yes.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 07:30:34 PM
Basically, I set it out like this: If one set of physical laws, namely our own (which require quantum mechanics, and--accepting MWI as given--thus all possible outcomes), can produce intelligent life, then an omnibenevolent God must consider itself morally obligated to set up those physical laws, even though evil outcomes will be the result.
Why does benevolence require a being to create intelligent life?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Okay, rephrase: God is capable of creating all possible worlds. Failure to create all possible worlds, when omnipotence renders that creation trivial, would be to permit souls, or consciousnesses, to languish in oblivion. How could God fail to create all possible worlds if he is not also loving?
Alternatively, if you deny that it is immoral to fail to create humanity, our set of physical laws is the only one that allows life to exist, and our physical laws require the existence of admittedly crappier alternative worlds, then God is still required to do so in order to create the best possible world, with the rest--including, presumably our own--are logically necessary* side effects, although not by necessity bereft of God's love simply because of their inferior state.
*Regarding omnipotence, I don't believe that omnipotence is meaningfully circumscribed by an inability to do logically impossible things, such as fashioning laws of physics which mathematically cannot create life, and then using those laws to somehow magically create life.
Now you are getting around the problem by creating a God that is not all powerful but one that has constraints. I agree that makes the most logical sense but it is not an explanation for why an all powerful God allows evil to exist.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2011, 07:41:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 07:30:34 PM
Basically, I set it out like this: If one set of physical laws, namely our own (which require quantum mechanics, and--accepting MWI as given--thus all possible outcomes), can produce intelligent life, then an omnibenevolent God must consider itself morally obligated to set up those physical laws, even though evil outcomes will be the result.
Why does benevolence require a being to create intelligent life?
If (universal) life is, on balance, a pleasurable experience, then the trivial effort required to bring it into being morally requires God to do so. So goes the argument, anyway.
It's also a big if. Even ascribing a special, overriding value to sapient life--which is suspect at best--just the history of humankind has been of questionable utility. Without ascribing special value to sapient life, it's very probable that the utility of life, in terms of pleasure, has been substantially negative. However, life is young, compared to the expected longevity of the universe. With the extinction of all of Earth's biosphere save sapient life capable of escaping it, an event which will arrive in little longer than a billion or two years due to the increasing temperature of the sun, and with the economic power that a civilization a billion years hence would be expected to possess, it can be reasonably assumed that life's utility will rise sharply into the positive soon afterward. Because the physical laws of the universe permit if not mandate human-level intelligence and survivability, this general outcome is likely in many if not most possible worlds.
Quote from: crazy canuckNow you are getting around the problem by creating a God that is not all powerful but one that has constraints. I agree that makes the most logical sense but it is not an explanation for why an all powerful God allows evil to exist.
Well, think of it this way. If God could directly intervene in the lives of every human on Earth, and give them each food, shelter, and a harem of philosophical zombie sex slaves appropriate to their sexual orientation, either under the physical laws it has set up an alternative Earth where that did not happen,
or--and this strays from MWI and into logic and philosophy--it has
ignored a possible world in which
it did not intervene. It would then be morally obligated to create that world as well. If it intervened there, the possible world in which it didn't has failed to be created, and God has failed to live up to its moral obligation.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 08:52:49 PM
If (universal) life is, on balance, a pleasurable experience, then the trivial effort required to bring it into being morally requires God to do so. So goes the argument, anyway.
But we know that life is not on the balance a pleasurable experience.
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Actually, omnipotency is the core of the monotheist belief systems I think, not to mention God's standard on good and evil being the gold one, and if we are allowed to readily dismiss or bend those two, then we are basically free to twist and turn each aspect of a given religion as we see it fit and moral.
But then, how can one honestly believe that their customized God is anything more than the construct of their own personality?
:lol:
Ridå.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 03:50:04 PM
Religion is "just symbolism"? No, Norgy. You are wrong, even if you will never understand it.
Don't call me stupid!!! :mad:
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 03:05:18 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 03:50:04 PM
Religion is "just symbolism"? No, Norgy. You are wrong, even if you will never understand it.
Don't call me stupid!!! :mad:
I didn't. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 06:47:41 AM
What I've always thought. Your atheism is not rooted in your beliefs but whether or not you can suck cock.
Newsflash: atheism is never rooted in a belief.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Dude. Rotting teeth. Beer belly. Shit. Painful bowel movements. Ingrown hair and toenails. If human body is created by someone, then Parodox has better quality control.
Quote from: ulmont on April 08, 2011, 07:41:31 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2011, 07:39:29 PM
I have nominally intended to raise my children southern baptist, as I feel this does them a good service.
It will certainly give all your gay children complexes, yes.
I hear Southern Baptist gays are awesome in the sack. Thats the same mechanism that works for ex-catholic schoolgirls CdM keeps chained in his basement.
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Fine enough but then stop with the whole "loving God" bullshit that Christards preach. If God is some sort of Cthulhu then at least own up to it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2011, 06:35:51 PM
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
It's hard enough to win people over to Christ without having to educate them on quantum theory first.
Because once you teach people about science you knock out a lot of modern Christian beliefs...
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
So, tell us how evolution can be reconciled with Christianity and how evil liberal unscientific social sciences can't.
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 06:06:21 AM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
So, tell us how evolution can be reconciled with Christianity and how evil liberal unscientific social sciences can't.
Wait, so
argument by assertion and idle speculation is only a valid debate technique for atheists? :hmm:
They are far better suited for constructing a hypothesis than proving it. As you well know.
Disprove evolution or GTFO.
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 08:10:46 AM
They are far better suited for constructing a hypothesis than proving it. As you well know.
Disprove evolution or GTFO.
See, it's you godless heathens who need things proved or disproved. My faith is not reliant on the particulars of Genesis.
In fact, I think the whole ID argument is a massive red herring.
Did God create Earth in literally 6 days? Awesome.
Did God set off the Big Bang and create the laws of physics? I'm fine with that, too. It would in fact be even awesomer.
Did "God" in fact have nothing to do with creation, but is simply a caretaker daemon? Fine.
I don't need to argue this point, since I am quite secure in my faith and I find it most amusing to see you folks wriggle about on the particulars. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2011, 04:39:06 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Dude. Rotting teeth. Beer belly. Shit. Painful bowel movements. Ingrown hair and toenails. If human body is created by someone, then Parodox has better quality control.
Well, yeah. But the fact that we can GET all those... awesome things is pretty amazing.
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Obviously, the Problem of Evil only exists if you assert that God is omnibenevolent. (Which the larger Abrahamic religions do.)
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 06:06:21 AM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
So, tell us how evolution can be reconciled with Christianity and how evil liberal unscientific social sciences can't.
Read Augustine of Hippo from the 4th century.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 09, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Obviously, the Problem of Evil only exists if you assert that God is omnibenevolent. (Which the larger Abrahamic religions do.)
They assert that their god is good overall, but that good won't result for every individual.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2011, 10:43:28 AM
Read Augustine of Hippo from the 4th century.
I have. There is little about fossils. His chapter about Jesus and the T-Rex is great.
I suppose you meant the City of Man, City of God part. That's actually some basic pol sci there. Do you think he was an evil liberal?
Quote from: Zeus on April 09, 2011, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2011, 04:39:06 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
Dude. Rotting teeth. Beer belly. Shit. Painful bowel movements. Ingrown hair and toenails. If human body is created by someone, then Parodox has better quality control.
Well, yeah. But the fact that we can GET all those... awesome things is pretty amazing.
Not really. It's the case of "get enough monkeys with enough typewriters and eventually you get a Hamlet written". If you compare the time homo sapiens existed with the age of Earth, then compare the age of Earth with that of the solar system, and then compare the age of the solar system with the age of the universe, you will see how ridiculous it is to claim this is a part of some design or a plan.
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
It is a problem for any religion that does proclaim that God is all powerful
and loving such as christianity. It is much less a problem for religions that dont stress that latter characteristic.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 08:52:49 PM
It would then be morally obligated to create that world as well. If it intervened there, the possible world in which it didn't has failed to be created, and God has failed to live up to its moral obligation.
Again you are defining away the problem by creating contraints for an all powerful God. You are essentially saying the any God, no matter how powerful, cannot prevent evil from existing. Which seems to contract the notion of a God being all powerful.
In other words why does an all powerful God have any "moral obligation" to create evil.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2011, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 09, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
Obviously, the Problem of Evil only exists if you assert that God is omnibenevolent. (Which the larger Abrahamic religions do.)
They assert that their god is good overall, but that good won't result for every individual.
That's my point: it doesn't have to, if it's logically necessary for bad outcomes to exist alongside good.
Quote from: crazy canuckAgain you are defining away the problem by creating contraints for an all powerful God.
No, I see your point, but the only alternative to a God that is constrained by logic is a God that cannot logically exist. I think anyone should be able to reject that out of hand.
Quote from: Zeus on April 08, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Playin Devil's advocate for the religious folk here, but how can you people look at the human body, the precise machine of survivability and adaptability that it is, and not believe that something made it in It's image. The body has countless systems of such precision and finesse that if one thin went wrong it would die, but yet it continues to strive for life. Seems to me that it we would have to pretty lucky for our bodies to have just evolved by themselves.
I don't, of course, believe in that argument, but it's a good point.
This is the old argument that "any lottery winner must be a god" because the chances that any individual can win the lottery without being a god is astronomically small.
The answer to the "Goddidit because we couldn't just have evolved without a God" is simply that we did evolve, and so an ex post facto arguments that we couldn't are disproven.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2011, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 08, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2011, 05:52:26 AMre Euros: Plenty of atheist Euros here, but that's a Euro trait. Like left-leaning governments, environmental awareness, or anti-semitism.
re Americans: most of the atheist posters here also identify themselves as "libertarians", yet display the same overeducated pretentiousness about atheism they despise in ivory tower liberal intellectuals, which is sorta funny. Kind of like people who claim to be bisexual, but for some reason only suck cock.
Self-identify as libertarians?
Not really. Caliga and VM may fit that description but I think he's mostly talking about Berkut and Grumbler.
Possibly, but I have never identified myself as a libertarian, and I don't recall Berkut doing so, either. Not that Seedy lets mere facts stand in the way of his little rants. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 09, 2011, 01:03:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuckAgain you are defining away the problem by creating contraints for an all powerful God.
No, I see your point, but the only alternative to a God that is constrained by logic is a God that cannot logically exist. I think anyone should be able to reject that out of hand.
I agree with you assertion, but would point out that a constrained God cannot infallibly punish the wicked and reward the good. A constrained God is capable of making mistakes, and so a believer that does only good things could still go to hell "by accident." That is going to be as hard to sell as a god that cannot logically exist, methinks.
i don't like the argument that the existence of .. "evil" prevents there from being a god. it is far too human-centric. the root of it i'd assume is the belief that god has a personality, which is ridiculous. if god would not care for the destruction of planets bursting with life by meteor or supernova, or the annihilation of lesser species by others, then why should your dead child matter at all? if there is a god, he is the essence of the uni(multi?)verse and nothing more. the laws that govern reality are him, and everything in existence is the result. there's clearly no master plan at work, so maybe its a "simulation" on auto-run with him as the designer of the system. that's how i figure a god would exist, if one did
Quote from: LaCroix on April 09, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
i don't like the argument that the existence of .. "evil" prevents there from being a god. it is far too human-centric. the root of it i'd assume is the belief that god has a personality, which is ridiculous. if god would not care for the destruction of planets bursting with life by meteor or supernova, or the annihilation of lesser species by others, then why should your dead child matter at all? if there is a god, he is the essence of the uni(multi?)verse and nothing more. the laws that govern reality are him, and everything in existence is the result. there's clearly no master plan at work, so maybe its a "simulation" on auto-run with him as the designer of the system. that's how i figure a god would exist, if one did
All fine, only that such definition of god is (i) completely meaningless/unnecessary, and (ii) completely different from anything any major religion believes in.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2011, 12:44:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
It is a problem for any religion that does proclaim that God is all powerful and loving such as christianity. It is much less a problem for religions that dont stress that latter characteristic.
Or the former. A fallible, asshole god (e.g. the Greek pantheon) is logically consistent with observable evidence. A loving omniscient all-powerful god of Christianity isn't.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2011, 02:48:40 PM
god is (i) completely meaningless, and (ii) completely different from anything any major religion believes in.
exactly ;)
In any case, based on observable evidence and what we know about the universe, I think polytheism would make much more sense than monotheism as singularities are extremely rare in the universe, whereas the concept that there exists a category of sentient beings that have some super-human powers is not, outright, inconceivable.
Imo, the only sensible monotheist hypothesis would need to be very similar to pantheism - i.e. "everything is one", and "the one God is everything", and pantheism is pretty redundant from an ontological perspective (if the God is everything, then "being God" is a quality of everything, ergo it is a natural quality and there is no need for employing a supernatural concept of "God" to describe it) - and is a de facto atheism.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2011, 12:44:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
Why would the "God allows evil OMFG" thing be problematic? Maybe God just doesn't conform to everyone's idea of good or loving (gasp!). "I don't like everything you do therefore I doubt that you exist" seems kind of lame. And not that it's terribly important to this issue but God as described in the Bible can certainly be a grade A asshole.
It is a problem for any religion that does proclaim that God is all powerful and loving such as christianity. It is much less a problem for religions that dont stress that latter characteristic.
Or the former. A fallible, asshole god (e.g. the Greek pantheon) is logically consistent with observable evidence. A loving omniscient all-powerful god of Christianity isn't.
The problem with the Greek/pagan God theory, is that they must be pretty pissed that no one except geeks, wackos, and primitive tribes give a shit about them anymore.
Well, maybe the Shinto gods might feel somewhat content. Maybe that tsunami was Poseidon throwing a tantrum due to an inferiority complex.
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 06:06:21 AM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
So, tell us how evolution can be reconciled with Christianity and how evil liberal unscientific social sciences can't.
Darwin said that there was no contradiction between his theory and Christian faith. I'm willing to take his word on it.
And I didn't say that social sciences were evil, or liberal for that matter. I merely said that they often unscientific.
Perhap God is just an attention seeker, all of the contradictions and ambiguities are just a ruse to keep people talking about him ?
Quote from: jamesww on April 09, 2011, 04:45:49 PM
Perhap God is just an attention seeker, all of the contradictions and ambiguities are just a ruse to keep people talking about him ?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-diagnosed-with-bipolar-disorder,348/
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 04:40:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 06:06:21 AM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
There's really nothing in the hard sciences that is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs. Arguably, the social sciences are a different story, but arguably the social sciences aren't particularly scientific in many ways either.
So, tell us how evolution can be reconciled with Christianity and how evil liberal unscientific social sciences can't.
Darwin said that there was no contradiction between his theory and Christian faith. I'm willing to take his word on it.
Darwin is an old dead dude whose work has been modified and improved upon immensely. Just to take an example, Dawkins is an old alive dude who feels quite differently about the present state of biology.
Which isn't to rest on Dawkins' head any sort of crown of infallible authority, but doing the same with Darwin (who, by simple fact of being a 19th century person, knows less) is no more useful.
Quote from: grumblerI agree with you assertion, but would point out that a constrained God cannot infallibly punish the wicked and reward the good. A constrained God is capable of making mistakes, and so a believer that does only good things could still go to hell "by accident." That is going to be as hard to sell as a god that cannot logically exist, methinks.
Well, firstly, by escaping MWI we left the core of the theodicy. It is, indeed, on less certain ground if the existence of less optimal realities is not physically required by the existence of more optimal ones. However, even without MWI--which requires truly terrible worlds--a weaker possible-worlds framework can still explain suboptimal present conditions by appeal to better future conditions physically as well as logically dependent on their histories. In an unsystematized form, this is in part what Christian and Muslim eschatology does, but those eschatologies in no wise explain how previous, unpleasant history was necessary, with their interventionist God and single world.
Ascribing a divine function of punishment is outside the ambit of the argument. Although, to discuss it but briefly, it's my opinion that an omnibenevolent being could not
punish whatsoever, by definition, as punishment is an immoral motive. But like I said, completely outside the ambit. ;)
Likewise, the problem of Hell is distinct entirely from the problem of Evil here.
Apropos of nothing, I think a proof of or at least argument for atheism rests most squarely on the First Mover paradox. The poor explanation for that is God isn't bound by time or cause and effect, but a system unbound by time or cause and effect has by definition no ability to affect anything--even its own thoughts, which are time-dependent and cause-and-effect reliant. (This doesn't perturb the prevailing cosmogyny, of course, since no intent is ascribed to the Big Bang.)
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2011, 12:06:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2011, 10:43:28 AM
Read Augustine of Hippo from the 4th century.
I have. There is little about fossils. His chapter about Jesus and the T-Rex is great.
I suppose you meant the City of Man, City of God part. That's actually some basic pol sci there. Do you think he was an evil liberal?
He argues that Genesis should not be taken literally.
This is really the only true theologian of our time.
For all the overeducated atheists out there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHipzGL4dwM
Damn a long discussion of the Problem of Evil and no mention of Alvin Plantinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense)
My personal problem with Plantinga is that in the christian bible god does create a world with free will and without evil twice (eden and hell).
Oh, why did even get sucked in to this. God, I'm stupid.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2011, 06:08:35 PM
Damn a long discussion of the Problem of Evil and no mention of Alvin Plantinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense)
My personal problem with Plantinga is that in the christian bible god does create a world with free will and without evil twice (eden and hell).
As noted in the article, the defense assumes an incompatibility between free will and determinism that one can rather nearly emprically refute.