Classic Literature -> Communism: NO, SERIOUSLY

[craycpanda]

hay guys i'm jerking off right now

[Dr. Dos]

post pix

[Alexis Janson]

"Who invented God?" is a pretty short sighted question. Presumably anyone who believes in a God that creates stuff believes that the God doesn't need creating.

One consistent framework for this would be that our universe is a small subspace of God's universe. In God's universe time doesn't exist the same as it does in ours, or maybe God is an entity that exists in all time at once. So given that God exists 'outside' of time, it doesn't make sense to ask who created God.

I think it makes a lot more sense to ask why something exists than to say it exists for essentially no reason at all.

The explanations offered here just lead to deeper problems. Theists say it's implausable that the universe sprang from nothing, which is reasonable, but then they say that a mighty superintelligent being, with morals and intentions and a plan so complex it involves the existance of root beer and monkeys and john lithgow, that this GOD sprang from nothing, or just "always was around" or "exists outside of time" which are all the same thing in terms of violating causality.

This makes SENSE to you? Something from nothing seems a little suspicious, I admit, but the big bang really is just "something". It's just a point full of matter and energy that immediately blows up. It's not nothing, but it's fairly close to nothing, and under some models of physics it really does add up to nothing, mathematically speaking.

God is not just "something", he's the most complicated and farfetched entity ever concieved, and I say that without a trace of exaggeration. And HE popped out of nowhere?

Even if he exists "outside time", that doesn't stop the most innocent and most annoying question from tearing a hole in things.

Why?

WHY does god exist, "outside of time"? He may not have a cause, but he still needs a reason. He can't escape it, which means his existance explains nothing.

[Zenith Nadir]

there's nothing like a religious debate thread to lower my opinion of people.

[Alexis Janson]

Assuming there exists a god with quite a lot of power, and given that there are a large number of people in the world who don't know anything about such a god, then the only reasonable conclusion I can come up with is that the god doesn't want discovering by everyone.

Or that he doesn't exist

If the god did want discovering they'd make themselves visible for instance, or just a perminant voice in people's heads.

So if there is a god with quite a lot of power then it's reasonable to assume they don't want it to be obvious that they exist.

But apparently they don't want to be TOTALLY hidden, they want some people to figure it out, like a game of hide and seek or something. And if the bible is to be believed, god DID reveal himself blatently to some people, seemingly at random. He hasn't done it lately though, unless you believe the random nuts who say god talks to them. And why not believe them? Are they any less credible than a book written thousands of years ago with a talking donkey in it?

So I guess god does reveal himself to some people, but most of us just have to figure it out based on the evidence of things like flowers and puppies and the bible and faith healing, which everyone admits isn't good enough to prove he exists (you gotta have faith!) but at the same time says god's existance is the only logically consistant explanation for the universe (you don't gotta have faith?)

This is where I become a bit unstuck, because I don't know enough about religions other than Christianity to know why people believe this. I'm sure that not even all Christians will have the same reasons as mine.

Many christians, especially ones from the past, wouldn't even agree with you that god is hidden. He's just up in the sky, you fool! If he was hiding, he wouldn't be throwing lightning bolts and smiting us, now would he?

Anyway I think most Christians believe god leaves the question of his existence open to debate because it's important for people to have faith (and with proof there can be no faith).

A reason why god might want people to have faith could be that god is battling against an evil entity, and the aim is to win the support of people on the earth.

If he's all-powerful, why does he need anyone's support? Does this evil entity exist "outside of time" too? If they exist outside of time, isn't the fate of the battle already decided? Isn't EVERYTHING already decided? What about free will? I know it's an old question, but really! What's the answer here? Usually you get a cosby-like mumble about how god could look at the answers but he's not going to, or it's magic or hablgbnehah...

A different reason why god might want people to have faith, could be that the world is a testing ground, and people in it are selected/rejected on whether they have faith or not.

I've seen more sensible selection proceedures for deciding the membership of a treehouse. Besides, god is

A. All knowing, so he knows how the test will end and doesn't need to actually run it.

B. The creater of the people (and bugs and trees and zamboni machines?) he's testing, so if they fail the test it's his fault anyway.

C. Infinitely loving, so where does he get off judging people? Why would he even want to?

Anyway all these things are pretty spurious conjecture without any evidence, and the evidence that one person uses to justify a believe in a god will often mean nothing to another person.

Because it's not convincing in the slightest, you mean?

The aim here wasn't to suggest that my beliefs were right, but to show that they weren't absurdly childish.

Childish or not, they've got enough logical holes to drive a fleet of trucks through. Trucks from the logical swiss cheese factory.

Incedently, I have several problems believing atheism:
Did the big bang happen? (I think it did) What happened before the big bang? (If anything)

The most sensible answer to the "problem of everything" I've run into is that the universe really is born out of nothing, or that the existance of nothing somehow implicates the existance of everything in the same way that 0 implies the rest of our math system in all its infinite detail.

This still seems pretty sketchy to me, though. I don't have an answer to this question. If quantum mechanics is any indication, the real answer is probably something very simple but very nonintuitive.

Do we have souls? If not then how do we make decisions? If we can't make decisions then what's the point in living?

1. No

2. With neurons and electrical impulses and chemicals in our brains. I don't really understand this question, how do souls help us make decisions? Do you not believe in brain chemistry, or do you think only "sort of" works and the soul needs to be there to help things along?

3. There is no inherent "point" to living, and I don't see how souls or free will or god or anything can cause there to be one. See hume's guillotine.

I'm not suggesting here that atheism can't be consistent, but I do think that most atheists haven't thought through what they believe carefully.

That's actually a fairly decent point. The sad truth is that most atheists are just about as dumb as theists, they just got dropped on the other side of the fence. But at least they haven't PROVEN themselves to be stupid.

For instance a large number of people believe blindly that science holds all the answers, and that it is infallible.

I don't think I know a single person who believes science is infallable, you're pulling that one out of your ass. But I do think it holds all the answers.

In both science and religion there are a lot of people who believe what they're told to without questioning or testing it. It's important for scientists to try to justify what they believe, and I think it's just as important for people to think about why they believe/don't believe in a god.

Scientists base their beliefs on their reasoning, not the other way around. When you start out believing something and then retroactively "justify" it, that's called rationalization.

You might be interested in reading the twelve virtues of rationality

Sorry for the length of that - to make it up to you here's a midget about to be killed by a illegal pool shot

Not at all - here's a picture of everybody loves raymond, the most poisonious animal in the world

[Dr. Dos]

I like flimsy because she can argue religion without sounding like a huge pretentious prick.

[Ando]

I fucking hate flimsy because she can argue religion and sound like a huge pretentious prick while doing it.

[mania-[ker]]

the only way to really settle this argument is to kill everybody who gives a shit about it. they'll all find out the answer and all us regular people who couldn't give two shits are free to live without constantly hearing faggots like flimsy spouting on nonsense and stupid arguments thinly veiled under a slightly sarcastic/humorous tone.

you can all suck a fat dick.

[mania-[ker]]

also the gullivers travels/communism thing is the stupidest thing ive ever read in my life, and i just read all those religion posts so that's saying a lot.

[Alexis Janson]

I fucking hate flimsy because she can argue religion and sound like a huge pretentious prick while doing it.

It's all part of god's mysterious plan, don't let it get you down!

[Alexis Janson]

the only way to really settle this argument is to kill everybody who gives a shit about it. they'll all find out the answer and all us regular people who couldn't give two shits are free to live without constantly hearing faggots like flimsy spouting on nonsense and stupid arguments thinly veiled under a slightly sarcastic/humorous tone.

you can all suck a fat dick.

I'd say nobody's forcing you to read it, but to be completely honest if I had the money to spare I'd pay someone to stand outside your house and read the posts to you through a megaphone, just to annoy you.

And if you really couldn't give two shits, you wouldn't be complaining, would you? I've seen you take sides on this before.

[Quantum P.]

Or that he doesn't exist

Assuming there exists a god

I've seen more sensible selection proceedures for deciding the membership of a treehouse. Besides, god is

A. All knowing, so he knows how the test will end and doesn't need to actually run it.

B. The creater of the people (and bugs and trees and zamboni machines?) he's testing, so if they fail the test it's his fault anyway.

C. Infinitely loving, so where does he get off judging people? Why would he even want to?

A. Where's the fun in not running it?

B. Christians believe that God's creation was originally perfect and that humans screwed it up.

C. Christians believe that God still loves the world, but it's individual people that don't like the light and are condemning themselves (see John 3:16-21).

Because it's not convincing in the slightest, you mean?

Attack on emotions/personal feelings. Whether or not something is convincing is rather subjective; it's obviously convincing to him, but not to you. People are stubborn and will see what they want to see.

Childish or not, they've got enough logical holes to drive a fleet of trucks through. Trucks from the logical swiss cheese factory.

Called on account of emotional attack.

there's nothing like a religious debate thread to lower my opinion of people.

Heh.



Also, MadTom, what exactly is ad hominem? I was able to find a definition, but I don't know exactly where it applies.

[Quantum P.]

Also, wow. A lot of posts were made while I was posting that.

I !@#$ing hate flimsy because she can argue religion and sound like a huge pretentious prick while doing it.

I wouldn't word it so strongly, but I would appreciate it if you would start using more logic and less emotion in your arguments, Flimsy.

[Quantum P.]

Actually, since it's rather improbable that Flimsy will become less of a jerk or that any of the arguments here will become either more focused or more pleasing to listen to, I think I'll just lock this.