Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

If you're interested: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1-1.html

Also, many atheists and scientists simply say "We don't know." I see nothing ridiculous in that.

The link was a good read.

 

[Walshicus]

And the gaf anti-religion squad is explained in less than a sentence

... my man.

I'd have thought the majority of us here who think religion is stupid are educated twenty-somethings.

and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

Why is the existence of some supreme universal conciousness that is claimed to give a shit where Humans stick their dicks... somehow more plausible to you than any number of scientific explainations for existence ex nihilo?

 

[Chinner]

Okay Atheist-GAF, prepared to be become belivers!

"If you find a rock on the ground," he starts, a little tonelessly, "you can say that maybe it had always been there, or there due to random chance, natural causes. If you find a watch, then it gets complicated. A watch implies a watchmaker. It's too complex and— perfect to just be thrown together by random chance." A pause, and again, he looks towards her. His eyes are starting to adjust, he can see her a little clearer, the peak of her nightgown from underneath her coat, the expression on her face. "It's a theological debate," he adds. "A watch implies a watchmaker. Life implies design."

So what time should I see you guys at church?

 

[Haden]

I'd have thought the majority of us here who think religion is stupid are educated twenty-somethings.

While the religious users on here are obviously 60 year old school drop outs, that enjoyed playing pacman while voting for Reagan, back in the glory days of politics and gaming.

 

[Mango Positive]

I think the biggest factor in the rise of non-affiliated people is the rise of the internet. It was the internet that gave atheists a forum where they could express their world view without fear of violent reprisals or social ostracism. It also exposed those who were somewhat religious to what may seem to them a more rational position. The ability for atheists to find others like them in great abundance has strengthened their ability to announce their non-belief in public life. Growing up in the south, it took a long time for me to be comfortable telling people I'm an atheist, but I can't be shamed any longer. Granted, you have to wait until the subject comes up and you can never be antagonistic unless someone else is antagonistic toward you.

 

[The Librarian]

Okay Atheist-GAF, prepared to be become belivers!

So what time should I see you guys at church?

I know your futzing around, but that argument has a hole: he assumes that the rock has always been in that current state. It doesn't go into detail how that rock came to be in its current state.

 

[Mango Positive]

Okay Atheist-GAF, prepared to be become belivers!

So what time should I see you guys at church?

LOL

Life only seems complex because we weren't around to see the millions of years of trial and error.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I think the biggest factor in the rise of non-affiliated people is the rise of the internet. It was the internet that gave atheists a forum where they could express their world view without fear of violent reprisals or social ostracism. It also exposed those who were somewhat religious to what may seem to them a more rational position. The ability for atheists to find others like them in great abundance has strengthened their ability to announce their non-belief in public life. Growing up in the south, it took a long time for me to be comfortable telling people I'm an atheist, but I can't be shamed any longer. Granted, you have to wait until the subject comes up and you can never be antagonistic unless someone else is antagonistic toward you.

Roughly agreed although the flip side of course is that the internet also allows Religious fundamentalists or indeed any fringe group to better co-ordinate.

It really also is a regional thing. It's relatively easy to be a non-believer without suffering social repercussions in places like the Northwest and perhaps the northeast. Try pulling that in the midwest or the South though and its much more difficult. The social pressure to embrace religion is much more intense.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I don't think there are less Christians because people are getting smarter, but a combination of people getting smarter, and seeing how fucked up Christianity is now adays.

Nothing wrong with believing in God, but there are some rabbid fucks out there hell bent on saying everyone else is wrong, and they're right.

 

[Drozmight]

Northwest rules!!!!

Ahead of the curve. <3 Seattle area.

lol Seattle fanboy

http://outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2007_fastest.pdf

Check out number 23 on this list... still think so?

http://crosscut.com/2008/10/30/religion/18602/

 

[Deku]

I think the world needs to go back to the polytheist origins of human civilization, which by the way worked better for far longer than the monotheism.

 

[Karakand]

Conviction, faith is there a real difference?

I was being snarky.

 

[Druz]

With science giving us the knowledge that there is a universe and (maybe) a starting point in time... it's funny that a god of the gap lives there.

"ok the earth is round.. so what. the earth orbits the sun, so what.. solar system, galaxy... universe! Ok, now that you've discovered the universe I'm placing god one step above it because you're dumb and can't explain what happened before an event billions of years ago aight peace"

 

[Gallbaro]

With science giving us the knowledge that there is a universe and (maybe) a starting point in time... it's funny that a god of the gap lives there.

"ok the earth is round.. so what. the earth orbits the sun, so what.. solar system, galaxy... universe! Ok, now that you've discovered the universe I'm placing god one step above it because you're dumb and can't explain what happened before an event billions of years ago aight peace"

Even Socrates did that.

 

[Druz]

Even Socrates did that.

This is the information/digital age. People should know better by now.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I'm woefully underexposed to his works, but "Attack Upon Christendom" and "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" are both fairly short and chock full of interesting ideas. I wouldn't recommend diving headfirst into, say, Works of Love or Either/Or.

His sermons are also fascinating, though more for their language and structure than their theology.

Thanks, I'll look for those works.

 

[Gallbaro]

This is the information/digital age. People should know better by now.

That was the iron (?) age people should have known better back then.

We are so insignificant and the thought that our cumulative knowledge has increased significantly over the years is laughable. How long has human civilization existed during the time frame of the universe?

 

[riskVSreward]

The internet will be the undoing of all religions, provided certain religious nations stop restricting access.

 

[MrPing1000]

I've got somethint to put in you.

 

[YYZ]

That was the iron (?) age people should have known better back then.

We are so insignificant and the thought that our cumulative knowledge has increased significantly over the years is laughable. How long has human civilization existed during the time frame of the universe?

There are videos on this. If the life of the universe was a 24-hour period, we came somewhere around 11:55 p.m. I think.

 

[Druz]

That was the iron (?) age people should have known better back then.

We are so insignificant and the thought that our cumulative knowledge has increased significantly over the years is laughable. How long has human civilization existed during the time frame of the universe?

I don't know why you'd take the blip of our human existence into context of the universe and then use it to shrink the fact that we've dramatically expanded our knowledge.

If you mean to say we're still Socrates even after all these years you may be right in some areas but not in areas concerning a god existing outside the boundries of time and space.. and not in areas where I said "We should know better" by now. You take one look at history and the gaps of god getting smaller and yet still being re-defined by people over and over again.

 

[Gallbaro]

I don't know why you'd take the blip of our human existence into context of the universe and then use it to shrink the fact that we've dramatically expanded our knowledge.

If you mean to say we're still Socrates even after all these years you may be right in some areas but not in areas concerning a god existing outside the boundries of time and space.. and not in areas where I said "We should know better" by now. You take one look at history and the gaps of god getting smaller and yet still being re-defined by people over and over again.

Dramatically, surely exponentially expanding our knowledge does not insure an equally dramatic expansion of universal understanding. I would argue that that marginal increase in what we understand is insignificant. I full expect the species to go extinct before a respectable amount of universal knowledge is achieved. I am assuming that what we "don't know we don't know" is much greater that "we know we don't know" to the point of the latter being statistically insignificant.

 

[totowhoa]

Don't know how many of you have "Mega-churches" around (I live in the South, so they're here all over), but those things kill me--a modern-day version of the gold-ladened cathedrals of so long ago, although instead of riches and expensive art we find high dollar state-of-the-art audio and HD video technology. Smarmy, elite, and ironic, while people work hard on a daily basis a mile away at the local shelter. Sheesh. When I was young, I was always glad that Xianity had at least moved away from that, but I guess it'd back (or it just wasn't nearby when I was young). Just wait and see what the pastor drives off in.

(Note: I do not intend to say that all of Christianity is like this by any means, but this is the part that saddens me. The humanitarian aspects of Christianity are wonderful, but it's awful to see it so blatantly and selfishly disregarded when so many locals live the third-world-country life just down the road.)

 

[totowhoa]

~*dp*~

 

[Gallbaro]

We've increased our knowledge enough to understand roughly what the time frame of the universe is.

Not sure how human insignificance in the grand scheme of things is relevant to the expanse of human knowledge. We know enough to know that we are insignificant.

Well it leads back to the question, rather than how do you prove there is a god? how do you prove a god (being greater than our universe) does not exist?

 

[Blader]

If you're interested: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1-1.html

Also, many atheists and scientists simply say "We don't know." I see nothing ridiculous in that.

Interesting article, although the guy seems to pussyfoot around the subject. Since time was created with the rest of the universes, then yes, by definition, the universe couldn't exist before time. But unless you're arguing that the universe and spacetime were created from nothing, then something had to have preceded the big bang, even if labeling it as "before the universe" isn't technically correct.

It's not the "we don't know" crowd I find ridiculous, it's the "universe was created from nothing" crowd that I can't agree with.

Yeah you lost me also. What are you talking about, the universe, as currently understood didn't come from nothing. It originated from a singularity, a something, not nothing. You should at least take a class on the subject before you start attempting to discredit it.

I think I prefaced my rambling with saying that I'm no expert in the matter, and that I was just basing my conclusions on what I know already.

That reminds me exactly of what religious fundamentalists keep on saying.

"I WAS ONCE A SCIENTIST, BUT THAT WAS SILLY, BECAUSE DID YOU KNOW ATHEISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE WE CAME FROM NOTHING? HOW SILLY IS THAT HUH? LOL THE BIG BANG THEORY AND EVOLUTION ARE THE SAME THING"

I know you're joking (hence the screaming), but I don't see the comparison. Evolution can be traced back (at least theoretically) to some basic chemicals and other primordial ingredients; life didn't just create itself out of nothing. You're actually supporting my point.

 

[Blader]

Why is the existence of some supreme universal conciousness that is claimed to give a shit where Humans stick their dicks... somehow more plausible to you than any number of scientific explainations for existence ex nihilo?

I guess you stopped reading my post halfway through?

And what are these explanations for a universe created from nothing?

 

[msv]

I guess you stopped reading my post halfway through?

And what are these explanations for a universe created from nothing?

What the hell are you trying to discuss? You've just admitted you have no clue what you're trying to talk about - you know nothing of the research and current hypotheses governing the origins of our universe (other than god did it), and you've been told your preconceptions are wrong. Either accept that fact, or dig up some actual substance for us to discuss about.

Also, you're so hellbent on having/providing an explanation that you're willing to settle for no explanation at all - 'god did it'. Either you explain what the fuck 'god' is or simply acknowledge that you don't know, at all. And no, 'some form of energy durr' is not an explanation, it's just a substitute for 'god' which is a substitute for 'I don't know'.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Except for the part that the "religious" group is gravitating towards the more hardcore, fundamentalist, literalist portions of Christianity.

Won't thta just kill them off sooner? When they get more hardcore more and more people will start pulling out when things get too crazy and if they turn into taliban and do something violent it will end them once and for all.

 

[soul creator]

I don't think most people literally believe with 100% certainty that "the universe was created from nothing"

But they might say that "if you're allowing for the possibility that 'god' was created from nothing, and exists on his own, why not just apply that same reasoning to the universe itself? At least we know for sure that exists. That would seem like a more obvious line of reasoning."

I have no idea how the universe came to be, but if I happen to be in a discussion and I had to pick a "more likely" occurrence, I'd go with the universe has always been, compared to the "god has always been, and it created the universe" explanation. God just seems like a meaningless addition meant to make us feel better, even though it doesn't actually answer anything. Especially considering that "god" has fifty billion different definitions depending on who you're talking to, which makes it even more of a useless word.

 

[S-Wind]

I guess you stopped reading my post halfway through?

And what are these explanations for a universe created from nothing?

WTF?

Did you miss the posts that informed you that science DOES NOT say that the universe came from nothing?

One of the current hypotheses is that before the Big Bang there was a singularity - all matter and energy were superlatively densely packed together.

 

[Gallbaro]

How do you prove it either way? How can you prove that an invisible unicorn reading this post over my shoulder does not exist? The existence of god - however you define it - and the existence of invisible unicorns are not testable theories. The burden is not on me to prove that they don't exist just because humans have a very small amount of knowledge relative to the totality of knowledge of the universe.

Exactly, as existence may not be limited to our sandbox, but we may certainly be. To try and prove or disprove the possibility of such beyond our sandbox is a logically wasteful task, which is why dogma in favor of either is ridiculous.

 

[Xun]

I know you're joking (hence the screaming), but I don't see the comparison. Evolution can be traced back (at least theoretically) to some basic chemicals and other primordial ingredients; life didn't just create itself out of nothing. You're actually supporting my point.

I was referring to "ex-scientists" who claim they were "atheists" (I'll find the link to the chilling video later on).

And no I'm not supporting your point, we didn't come from nothing, the big bang theory isn't about coming from nothing.

Sure we don't know what happened, but that's the beauty of science. The whole "coming from nothing" thing is a load of bullshit spewed by fundies. They also try to connect both evolution and the big bang theory together, thus what I was joking at.

 

[S-Wind]

Well it leads back to the question, rather than how do you prove there is a god? how do you prove a god (being greater than our universe) does not exist?

For nontheists like myself, that question ranks right down there with "How can you prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist?!" or "How can you prove that there isn't a nanoscopic little teapot orbiting somewhere between Mars and Jupiter?!"

 

[Gallbaro]

For nontheists like myself, that question ranks right down there with "How can you prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist?!" or "How can you prove that there isn't a nanoscopic little teapot orbiting somewhere between Mars and Jupiter?!"

Yes exactly like I said a few post earlier both questions are a waste of time.

Agnostic myself.

 

[S-Wind]

Exactly, as existence may not be limited to our sandbox, but we may certainly be. To try and prove or disprove the possibility of such beyond our sandbox is a logically wasteful task, which is why dogma in favor of either is ridiculous.

Then you've missed the one of the finer points of examples like Russell's teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There are a lot of things that we cannot disprove, and a lot of them are silly and stupid ideas that aren't worth wasting precious time and brain power on.

For me, this primitive notion of "God" is one of them.

 

[S-Wind]

Exactly. It's not ridiculous to assume that these things don't exist while still maintaining that it is impossible to prove said existence either way.

My stance is the same as Richard Dawkins.

We don't believe that "God" doesn't exist, but we think that it is extremely unlikely that such an entity does exist AND we live our lives as if "God" does not exist.

It should be pointed out that just because something cannot be proven to either exist or not exist, does not make the odds of its existence 50/50.

Invisible Pink Unicorn

Russell Teapot

What a lot of nontheists find stupid, is the amount of time and energy that people spend advocating for the fact that "God" has an infinitesimal possibility of existing. We think that to devote any more time to that than one would devote to seriously advocating for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Russell's teapot is inane.

 

[soul creator]

of course, there are plenty of "gods" that have very falsifiable claims made about them, and these can be disproved (usually in the practical sense, not necessarily as some formal logic proof or something)

So, being "agnostic", and taking no position at all is not necessarily the perfect wonderfully balanced viewpoint that some people think it is

To jump back to the main point of the thread, "Christianity" has demonstrated a pretty strong ability to fit within any society it's a part of. It's pretty formless, so it'll never completely "go away". 30 years from now, I'm sure Christians will be bragging that they were on the forefront of every major progressive social issue we're dealing with now.

 

[Althane]

My stance is the same as Richard Dawkins.

We don't believe that "God" doesn't exist, but we think that it is extremely unlikely that such an entity does exist AND we live our lives as if "God" does not exist.

Seems a little cocky of a choice to me. Especially if God is as vindictive as he is portrayed in most major religions.

 

[S-Wind]

Seems a little cocky of a choice to me. Especially if God is as vindictive as he is portrayed in most major religions.

If such an omnipotent piece of shit does exist, then he knows where to find me.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Seems a little cocky of a choice to me. Especially if God is as vindictive as he is portrayed in most major religions.

It's no more cocky than not preparing for our ability to sprout wings and fly tomorrow. God is that vindictive in our holy texts because it's a better recruiting tool.

 

[Gallbaro]

Then you've missed the one of the finer points of examples like Russell's teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There are a lot of things that we cannot disprove, and a lot of them are silly and stupid ideas that aren't worth wasting precious time and brain power on.

For me, this primitive notion of "God" is one of them.

I follow on everyone of those points, except I consider the idea of something not existing just as likely as any number of other scenarios and don't waste my time thinking about it because none of it can be proven or disprove. All of these questions or outcomes are and forever will be beyond our ability to answer as well as completely useless to waste time on. I firmly believe "Who gives a shit" is the only correct answer to the unanswerable question.

 

[Althane]

It's no more cocky than not preparing for your ability to sprout wings and fly tomorrw. God is that vindictive in our holy texts because it's a better recruiting tool.

Except that it's a good probability that you aren't likely to sprout wings. It's also a VERY good probability that you're goign to die, and if it turns out that you were wrong.... well, depending on the God you end up facing, it could suck quite a bit.

Also, given the preference of Christianity to Judiasm, I'd say that the non-vindictive god works pretty well as a better recruiting tool. Then again, Christianity these days has gotten obsessed with the vindictive god again, so... yeah. The whole point of Jesus was that it wasn't a vindictive god, it was one that was forced to do these things, and wasn't terribly happy about it. Which is why he sent Jesus in the first place. Or something.

And S-wind, again, he doesn't have to find you, like I said, you're gonna die some time, and then you'll have to deal with him. =P

It's like being told by your parents that you're gonna get spanked after a party for acting up. It's coming, but it may be pretty far in the future.

 

[soul creator]

Evilore just approved an account for Pascal apparently!

 

[KHarvey16]

Except that it's a good probability that you aren't likely to sprout wings. It's also a VERY good probability that you're goign to die, and if it turns out that you were wrong.... well, depending on the God you end up facing, it could suck quite a bit.

Also, given the preference of Christianity to Judiasm, I'd say that the non-vindictive god works pretty well as a better recruiting tool. Then again, Christianity these days has gotten obsessed with the vindictive god again, so... yeah. The whole point of Jesus was that it wasn't a vindictive god, it was one that was forced to do these things, and wasn't terribly happy about it. Which is why he sent Jesus in the first place. Or something.

And S-wind, again, he doesn't have to find you, like I said, you're gonna die some time, and then you'll have to deal with him. =P

It's like being told by your parents that you're gonna get spanked after a party for acting up. It's coming, but it may be pretty far in the future.

This is Pascal's Wager in long winded form, and it's just as wrong. Sorry .

 

[Stoney Mason]

Except that it's a good probability that you aren't likely to sprout wings

I have faith I will. Which is pretty much the basis for most major religions right there.

 

[Tamanon]

Eh, the problem with believing in God just because it gives you a better shot at a possible life after death is that there are millions of variations that you have to believe in or follow the teachings of. Atheism is just like picking a sect, you're finding some spiritual method of living and that's that, assuming that your after-life will be just that, after life.

 

[Althane]

I have faith I will. Which is pretty much the basis for most major religions right there.

Good for you. Lemme know when faith stops people from dying. =)

Also, KHarvey, I know it's Pascal's wager. That's the point, it's a valid argument, we're going to die some time, and when we do, if there is an afterlife, then shouldn't you be preparing for it in this life?

Spoiler

shush! It's more fun this way. Now continue on pretending you didn't read this

 

[Blader]

What the hell are you trying to discuss? You've just admitted you have no clue what you're trying to talk about - you know nothing of the research and current hypotheses governing the origins of our universe (other than god did it), and you've been told your preconceptions are wrong. Either accept that fact, or dig up some actual substance for us to discuss about.

Also, you're so hellbent on having/providing an explanation that you're willing to settle for no explanation at all - 'god did it'. Either you explain what the fuck 'god' is or simply acknowledge that you don't know, at all. And no, 'some form of energy durr' is not an explanation, it's just a substitute for 'god' which is a substitute for 'I don't know'.

Why don't you calm the fuck down.

I never said "God did it," and in fact I've argued against the idea that God is a deity who created the universe in the manner that creationists would believe.

Someone else here described the origin of the universe as an infinitely dense singularity, which is exactly what I would classify as God: not some interventionist deity, but the underlying and very basic matter/energy (durr) that the universe is based upon. Although thinking back on it, I suppose calling it "God" is a misnomer, since the word is typically used to characterize deities.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that atheism includes the idea that the universe was created from nothing, is the problem. I've always liked the idea that the universe has always existed, though of course I can't prove that and don't hold it up as a hard belief (much less fact.)

Well, like I said earlier, defining it as "atheism" may have been a mistake. It's the specific idea that the universe could be created from nothing that I take umbrage with, whatever that idea may be called.

WTF?

Did you miss the posts that informed you that science DOES NOT say that the universe came from nothing?

One of the current hypotheses is that before the Big Bang there was a singularity - all matter and energy were superlatively densely packed together.

No, but I was a responding to a post where the poster said that there are scientific explanations for a universe being created from nothing, which is what I was (somewhat sarcastically) asking him to clarify.

 

[Althane]

Pascal's wager is stupid because it assumes that there are only two possibilities: believe or not believe. In fact, there are many, many different religions, and most of them are mutually exclusive. What if it turns out that God only sends people with black Labradors to heaven? Or only Chinese people? Or only people who gave Too Human a 10/10?

Well, in the first case I'm good. The second case I'm screwed, and in the third case then God is evil.

Pascal's Wager does have the problem of "avoiding the wrong hell". Let's just say that we go with the religion that makes the best argument (because if there is a God, then wouldn't his religion have the best argument?)