Now, questioning whether a deity(/ies), if it/they did indeed exist, deserve to be worshiped that I find fun in thinking about and arguing.
So far, the best answer I can think of is "no" and "what in the hell does it mean to 'worship' something?"
If Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost actually existed I would drop all my shit to worship them straightaway. I may not really appreciate their take on things, but I also don't really want to burn in hell for eternity.
But that's the thing: You're basically worshiping a tyrant for the sole purpose of not incurring their wrath (which, incidentally, has been interpreted through various means over the years and various sects not even agreeing that the fire and brimstone hell is an accurate portrayal).
and of course, that doesn't even begin to touch on my feelings that an all-powerful, all knowing, all loving God is wholly incompatible with the state of life on earth and basic morality as informed by human empathy. As far as I'm concerned, you could have two out of the three, but not all three.
And then there's the issue of a creator demanding obedience from a species which he himself is supposed to have imbued with it's own will and capacity for reason
well, if he's not actually answering prayers or even making a small effort towards world peace then I sure wouldn't worship the sumbitch. If anything we should make a concentrated effort to find a way to kill god before we get sent to hell because it would make an awesome action movie.
If such a being existed, well, on the one hand I have little to no reason to trust that he won't fuck me over with hellfire anyway even if I am subservient in life. On the other hand, if I do submit then my chances of heaven are probably greater than the zero they'd become if I told God to fuck himself.
If Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost actually existed I would drop all my shit to worship them straightaway. I may not really appreciate their take on things, but I also don't really want to burn in hell for eternity.
I dunno, I think we could take Him/Them.
Bear in mind this is the deity who could not defeat a tribe at war with his chosen people because they had iron chariots.
Nuclear weapons > the head of a Mesopotamian pantheon.
I guess it would really depend on what version of Yahweh we're talking about; like the completely all-powerful philosophical "unmoved mover" version abstracted from the Bible? Eh, I'd probably submit. But Biblical Yahweh? I say we take the fucker down.
That's the whole thing for me...The main reason I'm agnostic. I just find the whole question of the existence of a deity to be irrelevant. There could be a creator, there could not be. It changes nothing in my life. Even if there is an omnipotent creator, the idea of worship or devotion is out of the question. If that's what our creator wants, then fuck them and they probably need to be destroyed like the Klingon gods. If our creator truly is all knowing, then worshiping it just to save my ass from hell wouldn't work anyway. The creator would be able to see right through that bullshit. In either case, the best course of action is the live my life as best as I can, bettering myself and helping others when I can. To paraphrase James T Kirk: "What does a god need worship for?"
The issue is not the existence of a creator. The issue is religion being used as a means of obedience and political influence. I firmly believe that religion is not inherently a bad thing, but that it is easily swayed by those who are easily corrupted. I've met lots of people who, sure, believe in a god, but that's really where their faith ends. They might go to church, but its mainly just a tool to meet other people and have shared activities, community service and that's it. They don't buy into the bullshit and the dogma. Their beliefs are their own and I can't find anything wrong with that.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but to me, religion is like a gun. It's a tool just like anything else and it depends on how it is used. It can be used to help, or it can be used to hurt, and yeah, it's often the latter. But you don't throw it away just because a bunch of people use it badly.
That's the whole thing for me...The main reason I'm agnostic. I just find the whole question of the existence of a deity to be irrelevant. There could be a creator, there could not be. It changes nothing in my life.
But this is manifestly not true.
If there is a creator as described in any major religious text it is going to make a huge difference in your life, and afterlife.
The only way this statement is true is if you understand "creator" to be so vague and meaningless—like a clockmaker god of Deism—that you are de facto rejecting the gods worshipped by religious people to begin with.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but to me, religion is like a gun. It's a tool just like anything else and it depends on how it is used. It can be used to help, or it can be used to hurt, and yeah, it's often the latter. But you don't throw it away just because a bunch of people use it badly.
I would argue that you throw it away because (for example) its foundational text claims the sky is a solid dome, says that rape victims should marry their rapists, and orders slavery and genocide.
If god were to appear to you right now and you flipped him the bird or just otherwise ignored him/it/whatever. What would he do? You can't say.
Just because a god exists, doesn't suddenly mean you change your stance on pro-life or pro-choice or if gays should marry. The Christians could be right and God is pro life and anti-gay and all that. Does that suddenly mean you change your mind and feel the same way too?
I'll worry about the afterlife when I die. If I made all the wrong choices in our creator's eyes..well that's just too bad. Oh but wait, what if god is the puppet master god that knows what you're going to do before you do it and there really is no free will...well then obviously he designed me this way and it's all part of God's plan.
See, it's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of more bullshit. It just doesn't matter if god exists or not. He judges us or he doesn't The problem are the people who do hurtful things in god's name
If god were to appear to you right now and you flipped him the bird or just otherwise ignored him/it/whatever. What would he do? You can't say.
Here's the problem: you aren't defining what you mean by "god."
What God are you talking about? If Yahweh appeared, as defined as the character described in the Bible, you'd be fucked. Same with Allah, or Zeus, or Marduk, or any of the proud father figure deities that most of Earth's religions are based on.
Basically, you are making this argument as if the word "god" remains undefined or nebulous. But for almost all gods in question, all the gods put on the table by religious people—it's not. They are defined. They have attributes. They act certain ways, and punish certain acts.
See, it's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of more bullshit. It just doesn't matter if god exists or not. He judges us or he doesn't The problem are the people who do hurtful things in god's name
Think of it this way: what if I claimed that if you don't give me $5000 today, Space Emperor Zargon will cut your dick off in five years. Do you believe me? Do you think this is even a functional possibility? I'm guessing not. But obviously it would matter a great deal if this Space Emperor Zargon existed because he's going to chop off your johnson!
What you are doing is basically saying "Now, Space Emperor Zargon could exist, but I don't believe he's going to cut my dick off ever." Okay—then you are talking about a different Space Emperor Zargon than I am talking about, and are in fact rejecting the existence of Zargon as I have defined him.
Qingu: Technically, Izanami-no-Mikoto threatened Genocide against the Human Race (or at least the Japanese, given the myth), and the fact that people die could, in the myth, could be considered attempted genocide against mankind
Threatened genocide of the entire human race is just par for the course with gods. Ishtar threatened a zombie apocalypse for crying out loud.
If thou openest not the gate to let me enter,
I will break the door, I will wrench the lock,
I will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors.
I will bring up the dead to eat the living.
And the dead will outnumber the living
I guess I see threats of world destruction as distinct from genocide.
Say what you will about the morality of destroying the entire earth, at least it's not targeted towards a certain ethnic group.
More seriously, in such myths, the world's destruction tends to be seen as a bad thing that ought to be avoided (i.e. by appeasing the gods), whereas in Yahweh's and perhaps Thor's case the genocide is a worthy and moral goal.
No, what I'm saying is that Space Emperor Zargon could exist, but so what? If he's pissed at me for not living my life the way he feels I should, then tough shit. I'm not going to be a sycophant or a slave. If Space Emperor Zargon DOES exist and is all powerful and will smite me down for believing contrary to him. Well then what is he waiting for? If that is the case, then Space Emperor Zargon is a pussy and I have no use for him. If he's just waiting for me to die so he can smite me in the afterlife, well, again, not only is that still pretty fucking petty. It does nothing to encourage other people to behave correctly. I apparently can't come back from the afterlife and let all the good people know how Zargon kicked my ass so you better all behave. We wouldn't put up with this behavior from a human tyrant, so why is ok for Space Emperor Zargon? In other words, I'd rather be wrong than a sycophant or a slave and that holds true regardless of whether or not a god exists
What you are describing is this mentality that IF god does, in fact, exist, well then we better change our tune to get on god's good side so we don't roast in hell. It's Pascal's wager and it's cowardly IMO.
I would just humbly submit that if god does exist, he is not anything like us lowly humans have described in the past or in the future and all of this is moot If i'm wrong, and god IS as described by us lowly humans, then god is a silly goose and i've got no use for him. If god does not exist, then again, this is all moot and we're just wasting our time when we could be doing something more productive.
Again, the problem is not god, the problem is people doing hurtful things. I can't do anything about god, but I can do something about people who do hurtful things.
If such a being existed, well, on the one hand I have little to no reason to trust that he won't fuck me over with hellfire anyway even if I am subservient in life. On the other hand, if I do submit then my chances of heaven are probably greater than the zero they'd become if I told God to fuck himself.
Unless it's a trick, and God really wants people to see past the threat of Hell as a motivation and follow "true goodness" despite the risk/reward of heaven and hill.
It's entirely possible God wants us to be willing to tell him to go fuck himself.
It's entirely possible God wants us to be willing to tell him to go fuck himself.
If he didn't want us to be able to tell him to go fuck himself, then he wouldn't have given us the free will to be able to.
Of course, that he says he's given us the ability to choose for ourselves, but if we don't choose the choice he wants he will punish us is a pretty dick move.
No, what I'm saying is that Space Emperor Zargon could exist, but so what?
He's going to cut off your JOHNSON, so what.
If he's pissed at me for not living my life the way he feels I should, then tough shit. I'm not going to be a sycophant or a slave. If Space Emperor Zargon DOES exist and is all powerful and will smite me down for believing contrary to him. Well then what is he waiting for? If that is the case, then Space Emperor Zargon is a pussy and I have no use for him.
"If that is the case"—again, this is an indication that you are not talking about the deity in question. You are talking about an alternate definition of said deity, one that defines him as a pussy not willing to follow through on his threats.
We wouldn't put up with this behavior from a human tyrant, so why is ok for Space Emperor Zargon?
The morality of the deity's behavior in question does not enter into this discussion; we are discussing "why should I give a shit."
In other words, I'd rather be wrong than a sycophant or a slave and that holds true regardless of whether or not a god exists
That's great (sort of) but this isn't an argument for the existence of a given deity being pointless or inconsequential.
What you are describing is this mentality that IF god does, in fact, exist, well then we better change our tune to get on god's good side so we don't roast in hell. It's Pascal's wager and it's cowardly IMO.
It's not Pascal's wager.
I'm neither making an argument for the existence of any deity or encouraging you to take a "safe bet." I am simply trying to show that if said deity exists, it would in fact be a big deal to your life. It would not be inconsequential—regardless of your personal feelings towards him—if Yahweh really did exist and made you eat the flesh of your kids for wearing polyester, as he is said to have promised to do in Deuteronomy 28.
Now, you don't seem to take this possibility seriously. But you are interpreting your lack of seriousness as a sort of flippant "fuck you" attitude towards the deity in question, which I don't think makes sense. I think the reason you don't take this threat seriously is because you don't think it enters into the realm of possibility to begin with; much like my threat about Space Emperor Zargon. The reason you don't pay me $5000 right away isn't because "well fuck that guy Space Emperor Zargon," it's because "Qingu you are clearly just making this shit up."
I would just humbly submit that if god does exist, he is not anything like us lowly humans have described in the past or in the future and all of this is moot
Okay! So, I would say that with respect to all of the deities that religious people believe in, you are an atheist.
If you are only willing to entertain the possibility of an unknown, currently undescribed god existing, then you are functionally an atheist.
Qingu on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
It's entirely possible God wants us to be willing to tell him to go fuck himself.
If he didn't want us to be able to tell him to go fuck himself, then he wouldn't have given us the free will to be able to.
Of course, that he says he's given us the ability to choose for ourselves, but if we don't choose the choice he wants he will punish us is a pretty dick move.
But if God is all knowing....
Then he created people knowing that some are going to refuse that he existed and will go straight to hell...
But...
If he truly gave us free will....then he wouldn't be all knowing....
It's entirely possible God wants us to be willing to tell him to go fuck himself.
If he didn't want us to be able to tell him to go fuck himself, then he wouldn't have given us the free will to be able to.
Of course, that he says he's given us the ability to choose for ourselves, but if we don't choose the choice he wants he will punish us is a pretty dick move.
But if God is all knowing....
Then he created people knowing that some are going to refuse that he existed and will go straight to hell...
But...
If he truly gave us free will....then he wouldn't be all knowing....
So...
/heads explodes
I really think the free will argument is perhaps the least interesting argument about God to have.
Basically because they aren't actually mutually exclusive. The contradiction comes from viewing the process of "making a choice" on the same level as the physical processes that underlie it (or magic God finger motions or whatever). But they're different levels of phenomena.
Example: a doggie sees a squirrel and decides to chase after it.
The doggie's brain, which is an organic computer, makes a conditioned response to data input from its eyes along purely deterministic lines, a combination of hard-wiring from genetics and behavioral conditioning.
The doggie's brain also has a running emergent phenomena, "consciousness," that simultaneously experiences this process as "making a choice."
So God can look in at these processes, or control them or whatever, and know what the doggie is going to choose, and yet the doggie still makes a choice.
I also think that the free will argument's endgame tends to be this desire to prove that God is a sadist (and therefore somehow unworthy of worshipping), since he creates things that he knows are going to choose to go to hell.
But ... the Bible already explicitly says God is a sadist. "I will take pleasure in bringing you to ruin and destruction," he says, in Deuteronomy 28:63. The Quran describes Allah as mocking unbelievers as they are tortured in hell. We are talking about a dude who treats his creations as you would treat the creatures in Animal Crossing; he uses the flood, which kills almost everyone, as literally a cosmic reset button.
I just think there are less roundabout ways to show that the Abrahamic deities are dicks than the free will thing.
On a universal scale, though, it is hard to justify God existing or not existing, as it is impossible to be objective at that level.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
On a universal scale, though, it is hard to justify God existing or not existing, as it is impossible to be objective at that level.
That sounds awfully like pretensions of being objective at that level.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I just think there are less roundabout ways to show that the Abrahamic deities are dicks than the free will thing.
To be fair though it's also a stupid philosophical concept anyway. Free Will is one of those ideas that everybody goes "yeah, FREE WILL!" to, but if you ask them to define it... what comes out the other end is always something pretty weird. And open to interpretations that are totally against what their concept of free will was in the first place.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I just think there are less roundabout ways to show that the Abrahamic deities are dicks than the free will thing.
To be fair though it's also a stupid philosophical concept anyway. Free Will is one of those ideas that everybody goes "yeah, FREE WILL!" to, but if you ask them to define it... what comes out the other end is always something pretty weird. And open to interpretations that are totally against what their concept of free will was in the first place.
"Free will means you are free to follow God's path for you if you choose to do so. Otherwise, you'll probably burn in Hell for all eternity. But seriously, it's your choice. No coercion here at all. Do whatever you like."
On a universal scale, though, it is hard to justify God existing or not existing, as it is impossible to be objective at that level.
Are you talking about specific gods like Yahweh, Zeus, and Yu Yevon from Final Fantasy 10?
Or merely a vague concept of God whose only attribute is, tautologically, being impossible to prove or disprove on a universal scale?
I'm talking about the entire universe, as in all matter, all knowledge, all whatever. It's a pretty impractical point.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Okay! So, I would say that with respect to all of the deities that religious people believe in, you are an atheist.
Would you go around saying that to people you meet if they asked you your beliefs? No I wouldn't think so. No sane person would. Besides, one cannot possibly know all the religions out there, therefore, again, Agnostic. Christians try to convert non-believers. Atheists try to convert agnostics. I'm not sure which is worse.
Just because I think the major religions are full of shit doesn't make me atheist. Being agnostic just simply says you don't know if god exists. It holds no caveat about "well, if it turns out that he does, then I must follow it's commandments and/or teachings" Again, for the millionth time. The problem is not religion or god, it's the corrupt people behind it. But hey, you know...it's easier to find an echo chamber on the internet than it is to actually do something about people who do bad things...so, whatever.
God supposedly doesn't exist, yet atheists sure spend a lot of time talking about it's existence. Everyone keeps going round and round in this circle jerk of semantics and logic games and it just doesn't make a difference. It changes nothing, It does nothing to ease the suffering of those oppressed by corrupt religious leaders, it solves nothing. Even if you could magically prove that God doesn't exist. You're relying on hard logic to prove something that the vast majority wouldn't listen to in the first place. The faithful don't respond well to proofs. And it's not like you take them on a tour of the universe and all of existence looking for God and never find him to prove it. The faithful don't require proof and atheists are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. If that isn't the dog chasing it's own tail, I don't know what is. It's this backwards logic that says "History shows people doing harmful things in god's name. Let's prove god doesn't exist and the result will be no more hurtful things right? Wrong....people just don't work that way. God is just a convenient excuse for bad people to do bad things. The problem is not god...the problem is the bad people. If you take away god, they'll just find a different excuse and you're left with the same result
If you want to do something meaningful. Attack that age old argument that religion and god are requirements for morality and ethics Simple logic and common sense says that people working together accomplish more than working alone. That alone shows why you should help your fellow man and be a "good" person. Advertise that. make billboards about that. Almost every time I see some atheist in the news or in the media or some sort of atheist advertisement. It's the same old crap. Someone making the futile argument that god is a bad god or doesn't exist hoping that will somehow enlighten people and make them abandon faith. People just don't work that way..and they never will. People just don't magically fall in line if you present them with some clever piece of logic or evidence. There will always be people who believe in a higher being of some sort. Don't tilt against windmills like that. It's futile. It's far better to simply encourage a view of god that doesn't tolerate the sorts of hurtful things current religions get away with. Proving that god doesn't exist isn't going to stop the pedophiles in the church from molesting children.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Besides, one cannot possibly know all the religions out there, therefore, again, Agnostic.
Hahaha, that's exactly like saying that since I don't know all the animals in the world, if you show me a picture of one I haven't seen before, no matter how outlandish or poorly drawn, I have to accept that it might exist.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
"Weak" and "strong" atheism are like the same thing.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
"Weak" and "strong" atheism are like the same thing.
It's one of those fine degrees thing. The first is, "I just don't believe." The second is, "These things very probably do not exist."
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Atheists drive like this, while agnostics drive like this.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
"Weak" and "strong" atheism are like the same thing.
It's one of those fine degrees thing. The first is, "I just don't believe." The second is, "These things very probably do not exist."
But... that's like the same thing. I don't believe I have a third arm. I very probably do not have a third arm.
wait why are you trying to convince some guy that he's atheist
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
"Weak" and "strong" atheism are like the same thing.
It's one of those fine degrees thing. The first is, "I just don't believe." The second is, "These things very probably do not exist."
But... that's like the same thing. I don't believe I have a third arm. I very probably do not have a third arm.
The first is connotes a 'weaker' or less forceful argument.
"I do not believe a God exists" vs "I believe a God does not exist." See the difference? One is "I don't know whether this is true", the other is "I know this isn't true."
Posts
Or a long-running RPG metaseries
Bear in mind this is the deity who could not defeat a tribe at war with his chosen people because they had iron chariots.
Nuclear weapons > the head of a Mesopotamian pantheon.
I guess it would really depend on what version of Yahweh we're talking about; like the completely all-powerful philosophical "unmoved mover" version abstracted from the Bible? Eh, I'd probably submit. But Biblical Yahweh? I say we take the fucker down.
The issue is not the existence of a creator. The issue is religion being used as a means of obedience and political influence. I firmly believe that religion is not inherently a bad thing, but that it is easily swayed by those who are easily corrupted. I've met lots of people who, sure, believe in a god, but that's really where their faith ends. They might go to church, but its mainly just a tool to meet other people and have shared activities, community service and that's it. They don't buy into the bullshit and the dogma. Their beliefs are their own and I can't find anything wrong with that.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but to me, religion is like a gun. It's a tool just like anything else and it depends on how it is used. It can be used to help, or it can be used to hurt, and yeah, it's often the latter. But you don't throw it away just because a bunch of people use it badly.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
If there is a creator as described in any major religious text it is going to make a huge difference in your life, and afterlife.
The only way this statement is true is if you understand "creator" to be so vague and meaningless—like a clockmaker god of Deism—that you are de facto rejecting the gods worshipped by religious people to begin with.
I would argue that you throw it away because (for example) its foundational text claims the sky is a solid dome, says that rape victims should marry their rapists, and orders slavery and genocide.
If god were to appear to you right now and you flipped him the bird or just otherwise ignored him/it/whatever. What would he do? You can't say.
Just because a god exists, doesn't suddenly mean you change your stance on pro-life or pro-choice or if gays should marry. The Christians could be right and God is pro life and anti-gay and all that. Does that suddenly mean you change your mind and feel the same way too?
I'll worry about the afterlife when I die. If I made all the wrong choices in our creator's eyes..well that's just too bad. Oh but wait, what if god is the puppet master god that knows what you're going to do before you do it and there really is no free will...well then obviously he designed me this way and it's all part of God's plan.
See, it's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of more bullshit. It just doesn't matter if god exists or not. He judges us or he doesn't The problem are the people who do hurtful things in god's name
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
What God are you talking about? If Yahweh appeared, as defined as the character described in the Bible, you'd be fucked. Same with Allah, or Zeus, or Marduk, or any of the proud father figure deities that most of Earth's religions are based on.
Basically, you are making this argument as if the word "god" remains undefined or nebulous. But for almost all gods in question, all the gods put on the table by religious people—it's not. They are defined. They have attributes. They act certain ways, and punish certain acts.
Think of it this way: what if I claimed that if you don't give me $5000 today, Space Emperor Zargon will cut your dick off in five years. Do you believe me? Do you think this is even a functional possibility? I'm guessing not. But obviously it would matter a great deal if this Space Emperor Zargon existed because he's going to chop off your johnson!
What you are doing is basically saying "Now, Space Emperor Zargon could exist, but I don't believe he's going to cut my dick off ever." Okay—then you are talking about a different Space Emperor Zargon than I am talking about, and are in fact rejecting the existence of Zargon as I have defined him.
Say what you will about the morality of destroying the entire earth, at least it's not targeted towards a certain ethnic group.
More seriously, in such myths, the world's destruction tends to be seen as a bad thing that ought to be avoided (i.e. by appeasing the gods), whereas in Yahweh's and perhaps Thor's case the genocide is a worthy and moral goal.
and you've obviously never dealt with a spriggen
What you are describing is this mentality that IF god does, in fact, exist, well then we better change our tune to get on god's good side so we don't roast in hell. It's Pascal's wager and it's cowardly IMO.
I would just humbly submit that if god does exist, he is not anything like us lowly humans have described in the past or in the future and all of this is moot If i'm wrong, and god IS as described by us lowly humans, then god is a silly goose and i've got no use for him. If god does not exist, then again, this is all moot and we're just wasting our time when we could be doing something more productive.
Again, the problem is not god, the problem is people doing hurtful things. I can't do anything about god, but I can do something about people who do hurtful things.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Unless it's a trick, and God really wants people to see past the threat of Hell as a motivation and follow "true goodness" despite the risk/reward of heaven and hill.
It's entirely possible God wants us to be willing to tell him to go fuck himself.
If he didn't want us to be able to tell him to go fuck himself, then he wouldn't have given us the free will to be able to.
Of course, that he says he's given us the ability to choose for ourselves, but if we don't choose the choice he wants he will punish us is a pretty dick move.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"If that is the case"—again, this is an indication that you are not talking about the deity in question. You are talking about an alternate definition of said deity, one that defines him as a pussy not willing to follow through on his threats.
The morality of the deity's behavior in question does not enter into this discussion; we are discussing "why should I give a shit."
That's great (sort of) but this isn't an argument for the existence of a given deity being pointless or inconsequential.
It's not Pascal's wager.
I'm neither making an argument for the existence of any deity or encouraging you to take a "safe bet." I am simply trying to show that if said deity exists, it would in fact be a big deal to your life. It would not be inconsequential—regardless of your personal feelings towards him—if Yahweh really did exist and made you eat the flesh of your kids for wearing polyester, as he is said to have promised to do in Deuteronomy 28.
Now, you don't seem to take this possibility seriously. But you are interpreting your lack of seriousness as a sort of flippant "fuck you" attitude towards the deity in question, which I don't think makes sense. I think the reason you don't take this threat seriously is because you don't think it enters into the realm of possibility to begin with; much like my threat about Space Emperor Zargon. The reason you don't pay me $5000 right away isn't because "well fuck that guy Space Emperor Zargon," it's because "Qingu you are clearly just making this shit up."
Okay! So, I would say that with respect to all of the deities that religious people believe in, you are an atheist.
If you are only willing to entertain the possibility of an unknown, currently undescribed god existing, then you are functionally an atheist.
But if God is all knowing....
Then he created people knowing that some are going to refuse that he existed and will go straight to hell...
But...
If he truly gave us free will....then he wouldn't be all knowing....
So...
/heads explodes
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Basically because they aren't actually mutually exclusive. The contradiction comes from viewing the process of "making a choice" on the same level as the physical processes that underlie it (or magic God finger motions or whatever). But they're different levels of phenomena.
Example: a doggie sees a squirrel and decides to chase after it.
The doggie's brain, which is an organic computer, makes a conditioned response to data input from its eyes along purely deterministic lines, a combination of hard-wiring from genetics and behavioral conditioning.
The doggie's brain also has a running emergent phenomena, "consciousness," that simultaneously experiences this process as "making a choice."
So God can look in at these processes, or control them or whatever, and know what the doggie is going to choose, and yet the doggie still makes a choice.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But ... the Bible already explicitly says God is a sadist. "I will take pleasure in bringing you to ruin and destruction," he says, in Deuteronomy 28:63. The Quran describes Allah as mocking unbelievers as they are tortured in hell. We are talking about a dude who treats his creations as you would treat the creatures in Animal Crossing; he uses the flood, which kills almost everyone, as literally a cosmic reset button.
I just think there are less roundabout ways to show that the Abrahamic deities are dicks than the free will thing.
Religious people just throw a divine observer on top of it, but it's the same debate as we could have without any gods involved.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That sounds awfully like pretensions of being objective at that level.
To be fair though it's also a stupid philosophical concept anyway. Free Will is one of those ideas that everybody goes "yeah, FREE WILL!" to, but if you ask them to define it... what comes out the other end is always something pretty weird. And open to interpretations that are totally against what their concept of free will was in the first place.
"Free will means you are free to follow God's path for you if you choose to do so. Otherwise, you'll probably burn in Hell for all eternity. But seriously, it's your choice. No coercion here at all. Do whatever you like."
Or merely a vague concept of God whose only attribute is, tautologically, being impossible to prove or disprove on a universal scale?
I'm talking about the entire universe, as in all matter, all knowledge, all whatever. It's a pretty impractical point.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Would you go around saying that to people you meet if they asked you your beliefs? No I wouldn't think so. No sane person would. Besides, one cannot possibly know all the religions out there, therefore, again, Agnostic. Christians try to convert non-believers. Atheists try to convert agnostics. I'm not sure which is worse.
Just because I think the major religions are full of shit doesn't make me atheist. Being agnostic just simply says you don't know if god exists. It holds no caveat about "well, if it turns out that he does, then I must follow it's commandments and/or teachings" Again, for the millionth time. The problem is not religion or god, it's the corrupt people behind it. But hey, you know...it's easier to find an echo chamber on the internet than it is to actually do something about people who do bad things...so, whatever.
God supposedly doesn't exist, yet atheists sure spend a lot of time talking about it's existence. Everyone keeps going round and round in this circle jerk of semantics and logic games and it just doesn't make a difference. It changes nothing, It does nothing to ease the suffering of those oppressed by corrupt religious leaders, it solves nothing. Even if you could magically prove that God doesn't exist. You're relying on hard logic to prove something that the vast majority wouldn't listen to in the first place. The faithful don't respond well to proofs. And it's not like you take them on a tour of the universe and all of existence looking for God and never find him to prove it. The faithful don't require proof and atheists are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. If that isn't the dog chasing it's own tail, I don't know what is. It's this backwards logic that says "History shows people doing harmful things in god's name. Let's prove god doesn't exist and the result will be no more hurtful things right? Wrong....people just don't work that way. God is just a convenient excuse for bad people to do bad things. The problem is not god...the problem is the bad people. If you take away god, they'll just find a different excuse and you're left with the same result
If you want to do something meaningful. Attack that age old argument that religion and god are requirements for morality and ethics Simple logic and common sense says that people working together accomplish more than working alone. That alone shows why you should help your fellow man and be a "good" person. Advertise that. make billboards about that. Almost every time I see some atheist in the news or in the media or some sort of atheist advertisement. It's the same old crap. Someone making the futile argument that god is a bad god or doesn't exist hoping that will somehow enlighten people and make them abandon faith. People just don't work that way..and they never will. People just don't magically fall in line if you present them with some clever piece of logic or evidence. There will always be people who believe in a higher being of some sort. Don't tilt against windmills like that. It's futile. It's far better to simply encourage a view of god that doesn't tolerate the sorts of hurtful things current religions get away with. Proving that god doesn't exist isn't going to stop the pedophiles in the church from molesting children.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Somebody better tell Coach, because I'm pretty sure this guy just moved the goalposts.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People say racism is bad but the same people who are saying that talk about racism all the time!
:shock:
Hahaha, that's exactly like saying that since I don't know all the animals in the world, if you show me a picture of one I haven't seen before, no matter how outlandish or poorly drawn, I have to accept that it might exist.
That is not how sane people behave.
Because atheism has at least one meaning that applies to all agnostics. If you're talking about "weak atheism", which is just "I lack belief in a god or gods" then all agnostics lack belief in god or gods, making them...atheists. AND agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you're talking about strong atheism, which is the belief in the nonexistence of god or gods, then that doesn't apply to agnostics since they don't believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. But if you mean atheism in the sense of "Not a Theist" then it applies to agnostics- and this meaning, I think, is the more common one.
"Weak" and "strong" atheism are like the same thing.
It's one of those fine degrees thing. The first is, "I just don't believe." The second is, "These things very probably do not exist."
Women be shoppin', y'all.
But... that's like the same thing. I don't believe I have a third arm. I very probably do not have a third arm.
The first is connotes a 'weaker' or less forceful argument.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They're not.