Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

the message of Christianity has been lost due to nationalistic, individualistic, fanatical and political elements that corrupt the basic essence of faith

only true separation of Church & State can actually save Christianity by restoring it back to what is was supposed to be about without the two-way corruption of Politics meddling and vice-versa

 

[soul creator]

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.

I guess the larger issue here is...why do we still need to classify something as God? Why buy into their framing? Seems to make things more confusing than it needs to be. If it's no longer an "interventionist deity", what's the point of calling it a god?

If it turns out an infinitely dense singularity is what created the universe, let's just call it an infinitely dense singularity. Why call it "god", when the vast majority of people in this world and the most popular religions for thousands of years do in fact think of "big powerful interventionist magic beings with thoughts and feelings"

I guess it may seem wonderful and progressive to reclassify god in a more "scientific" way, but it just seems pointless to me.

 

[S-Wind]

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.

That's an area where we disagree. I think there are a lot of conceivable things are far more likely to not exist than exist.

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.

In a perfect world it would be useless to waste time on them, other than for purposes of intellectual exercise. But we live in a world where other peoples' religious beliefs has such detrimental effects such as impeding scientific research, depriving children of a proper education (being taught that the world is 6,000 years old IS NOT a proper education!), deaths, oppressing women, gays, etc. So it behooves us to speak out against such irrational beliefs.

I firmly believe "Who gives a shit" is the only correct answer to the unanswerable question.

I agree with you that "who gives a shit" ought to be the answer to such questions, but a lot of other people have a different answer, like, "He exists and I must do His will by making sure that no man ever sticks his penis in anything other than a vagina, and only in the missionary position!" Hence it becomes problematic for quite a few people.

 

[Forceatowulf]

I'm a Christian and I think the less of us there are the better off the world is right now. The more people join a certain organization the more likely crazy motherfuckers are going to be apart of it. Plus, the majority of us are just too hypocritical and judgmental and just fucking annoying.

let it dwindle and fade. It deserves nothing less.

 

[Althane]

You would think, but in that case, if God really cared that much, presumably his religion would have an argument so awesome that everyone, everywhere, would be convinced as soon as they heard it. Monotheistic Judeo-Christian religions are hot right now, yeah, but polytheism was all the rage back in the day.

Except he had his chosen people (the Jews, who were monotheistic in a time when it wasn't that common, as you say), and then he went with Jesus, to bring it to the rest of the world.

Why? I dunno, it's god, I can't understand everything, only what's in the universe. =P

 

[Blader]

I guess the larger issue here is...why do we still need to classify something as God? Why buy into their framing? Seems to make things more confusing than it needs to be. If it's no longer an "interventionist deity", what's the point of calling it a god?

If it turns out an infinitely dense singularity is what created the universe, let's just call it an infinitely dense singularity. Why call it "god", when the vast majority of people in this world and the most popular religions for thousands of years do in fact think of "big powerful interventionist magic beings with thoughts and feelings"

I guess it may seem wonderful and progressive to reclassify god in a more "scientific" way, but it just seems pointless to me.

After writing that, I added this in as an edit:

Although thinking back on it, I suppose calling it "God" is a misnomer, since the word is typically used to characterize deities.

Sorry about that, you must have responded before I edited.

 

[msv]

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.

Not really. If people start to believe in an invisible pink unicorn, try to convince other people it exists, using any tactic they can conjur up, harassing people in the process, think up useless hypotheses that have been proven wrong scientifically, morally, pose them as fact and teach them to children, gather en masse, influence your government, and so on, then no, "Who gives a shit" wouldn't be a good answer. The mere fact that so many people do give a shit, pushes you to also give a shit.

 

[soul creator]

After writing that, I added this in as an edit:



Sorry about that, you must have responded before I edited.

Yeah I did. Fair enough.

 

[Gallbaro]

Not really. If people start to believe in an invisible pink unicorn, try to convince other people it exists, using any tactic they can conjur up, harassing people in the process, think up useless hypotheses that have been proven wrong scientifically, morally, pose them as fact and teach them to children, gather en masse, influence your government, and so on, then no, "Who gives a shit" wouldn't be a good answer. The mere fact that so many people do give a shit, pushes you to also give a shit.

I was concluding "who gives a shit" or rather who knows is the logical answer not only on the individual level but inherently the societal level. But I a convinced it will happen sooner rather than later. I mean how long has it been since the last prophet? You tend to need those to reinvigorate interest in an active belief, disinterest really is the natural state. The Dogma of Atheism can have Bill Maher? And the dogma of faith can have Joseph Smith?

 

[Althane]

How do we know the Jews were really God's chosen people? Why would god choose to intervene at that particular point in human history, rather than earlier or later, eh? For all we know, god may have suddenly decided to take an interest 100 years ago during the birth of the magnificent L. Ron Hubbard. Enjoy the coming Scientologist revolution, my friend.

True. At this point I'm still functioning under the assumption that we're talking about the Christian God, and thus, debating if he is real or not. As my taken position would be rather pointless if I assumed that he wasn't, then I automatically have to assume that God is real, and therefore the Bible is his chosen medium with the world. Which does say that the Jews are God's chosen people (not that you'd know it... .... ... yeah, okay, it was funnier in my head).

And as for L. Ron Hubbard.... yeah. *runs*

 

[msv]

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.

God is a synoym for a deity. If you were trying to use the word deity, god is just as good. And you're wrong, describing energy found in this universe, i.e. non-supernatural, is not a prerequisite for a deity. You need to attribute a supernatural quality to it for it to be a deity. So what are you talking about?

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by human beings.

What you seem to be trying to do, is finding another hypothesis for the origin of the universe. There's nothing wrong with trying to do that, but you're dismissing other hypotheses with ramblings, they make no sense, which makes it impossible to discuss meaningfully.

 

[Blader]

God is a synoym for a deity. If you were trying to use the word deity, god is just as good. And you're wrong, describing energy found in this universe, i.e. non-supernatural, is not a prerequisite for a deity. You need to attribute a supernatural quality to it for it to be a deity. So what are you talking about?



What you seem to be trying to do, is finding another hypothesis for the origin of the universe. There's nothing wrong with trying to do that, but you're dismissing other hypotheses with ramblings, they make no sense, which makes it impossible to discuss meaningfully.

Why are you are arguing over deities with me when I pretty clearly said that I don't view God as a deity, and even realized that using the word "God" was a misnomer?

 

[msv]

I was concluding "who gives a shit" or rather who knows is the logical answer not only on the individual level but inherently the societal level. But I a convinced it will happen sooner rather than later. I mean how long has it been since the last prophet? You tend to need those to reinvigorate interest in an active belief, disinterest really is the natural state. The Dogma of Atheism can have Bill Maher? And the dogma of faith can have Joseph Smith?

Well, I don't agree, asking ourselves these questions is merely in our nature. Ignoring it isn't going to help us much. 'We don't' know' is indeed a better answer, there's lots to be added to that, but it's better than "I don't care".

 

[Chipopo]

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?)

Atheism it is!

 

[msv]

Why are you are arguing over deities with me when I pretty clearly said that I don't view God as a deity, and even realized that using the word "God" was a misnomer?

But you're still making the same mistake, god = deity, it's a synonym, they're interchangeable. You can't not view god as a deity. That's why I asked you "So what are you talking about?" since I'd like to know more to further the discussion.

 

[Althane]

Atheism it is!

=P

You know, I honestly expected someone to pick up on that sooner.

 

[S-Wind]

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.

Pascal's Wager.

::yawn::

I am going to die some time. I am willing to bet EVERYTHING that I will die. Baring suicide, accident, disease, or foul play, it will probably in about 55 years, give or take.

After I die, there is the possibility that I'll have to deal with your god.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with Zeus.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with Woden.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with the god of the Aztecs.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with the god Sikhs.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with the gods of the Hindus.

There's also the possibility that I will have to deal with gods of the ancient Egyptians.

I consider all those possibilities very extremely unlikely. So unlikely that I live my life as if the chances of any one of them is ZERO.

Think about it.

There are an obscene number of gods that people on this planet believe in or have ever believed in. The odds people are correct about the existence of any of them are stupifyingly remote.

For each god, there is a set of characteristics that people ascribe to it (all powerful, all knowing, hates fags, punishes nonbelievers, like to have virgins sacrificed to him/her, wants you dead if you work on a certain day of the week, doesn't want you to eat pigs, wants all guys to chop off the end of their penises, wants women to cover their hair, wants guys to wear this little cap on their head, will make you sports team win if you just pray hard enough, etc. Never mind that fact that there isn't even agreement among believers in which characteristics are true and which ones aren't.

For the sake of making a point, let's say that ONE of the gods actually does exist. What are the odd that the believers who claim x, y, and z about said god? Again, it's stupifyingly remote.

So multiply the superlatively remote odds and any particular god actually existing with the extremely remote odds of anyone actually being correct in their claims about said god, and what do you get?

Nothing worth wasting any time on.

That's why Pascal's Wager is so inane. It only works (poorly) if you assume a vengeful god AND you assume that mere belief is sufficient to keep you out of the flaming shitter. As other posters have pointed out? What if it's not belief but other things that are actually required?

 

[jmdajr]

this sums it up for me pretty good.

"we know who jesus is"
-sam kinison

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

 

[S-Wind]

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?)

I find that all the religions that I come across - and I've come across MANY - make shitty arguments.

I take you have not found that to be the case?

 

[Chipopo]

=P

You know, I honestly expected someone to pick up on that sooner.

hey, I'm glad you have a good sense of humor about the whole thing, but the reason our country is trending towards atheism is because it is the religion with the best argument.

 

[Althane]

hey, I'm glad you have a good sense of humor about the whole thing, but the reason our country is trending towards atheism is because it is the religion with the best argument.

I would say that the best argument would vary depending on the people and the culture, but in this case, yes, most people find Atheism more appealing than other religions because of the "Best argument" reason.

Going back up to S-Wind, I've seen plenty of religions that make good statements about how to live and how we should treat others. Just because they say these under the possibly faulty assumption of a invisible chap in the sky (possibly faulty, again, due to the whole fact that this is something we can't really KNOW until we die. Depending on the religion, again. Man, this is complicated), then we shouldn't ignore it. Thus, I would say that despite faulty arguments for their individual chaps in the sky, we shouldn't unilaterally dump religion by the wayside.

It does, when used properly, allow a good belief and moral structure that some may need, and it also gives people a reason to change their lives, when otherwise they might have been thinking "Why does it matter anyways?".

 

[Chipopo]

It does, when used properly, allow a good belief and moral structure that some may need, and it also gives people a reason to change their lives, when otherwise they might have been thinking "Why does it matter anyways?".

Ah, so it has psychological benefit. We faithful atheists have our own set of clerics for that sort of thing. They're called psychologists.

 

[Althane]

Ah, so it has psychological benefit. We faithful atheists have our own set of clerics for that sort of thing. They're called psychologists.

Not just a psychological benefit, there are also social, economic, and other such benefits. And while going to a church and being preached to is free, going to a psychologist is not.

And because I know someone will leap on the previous sentence, no, I'm not saying that church is a good alternative to going to a trained professional, what I'm saying is that it can do some of the same things a psychologist can, and has other benefits as well.

For instance, a church does social outreach, feeding and clothing the poor, and depending on the church, it may do this not only in the local social environment, but also overseas, something that builds our relationships with other countries as well. A church also serves as a ground to meet people and improve one's social life. Economically speaking, a church (should) preach responsibility with one's money, something that our economy could use today.

Obviously you can have the same advantages from non-religious organizations, but if so long as society is benefiting, then is it wrong? If a church (doesn't matter what religion) is helping people, then is it bad?

Also, I'm not sure how many psychologists would appreciate being called clerics.

Edit:

Morality should be worthy in and of itself. I find that the Golden Rule loses a bit of its worth when it is backed up by the threat of infinite punishment from an all-powerful deity.

Truth. We should not want to be moral because of the benefits it gives us, but rather because it is good to be moral in and of itself. However, people are economic creatures, they will not often do something for nothing, and thus the "punishment" shown by religion serves as an incentive to be moral, not because of the benefits, but because of the potential punishments.

Read Adiemantus' argument of morality in Plato's Republic, this is a minor version of it.

 

[wayward archer]

Obviously you can have the same advantages from non-religious organizations, but if so long as society is benefiting, then is it wrong? If a church (doesn't matter what religion) is helping people, then is it bad?

If it is oppressing people and fostering divisions within a society purely based on artificial criteria then it is bad.

 

[Althane]

If it is oppressing people and fostering divisions within a society purely based on artificial criteria then it is bad.

Not directly related, but we agree. Now, getting back to the effects that I was actually talking about, we can agree that those are, in general, positive. Yes?

 

[PhoenixDark]

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

Sounds like faith to me!

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

As an athiest, I'm glad more and more people are becoming nonreligious.

I think the current crop of Christianity's new brand (new in the sense of the past 20-30 years) of militant thinking is probably disillusioning a lot of people who are Christian but don't think that hating gays and hating San Francisco is the right direction to go. Society is progressing and Christianity is just dragging their feet.

Nevertheless, I am more concerned about the radicalization of Christianity. In the future, if it continues to get angrier and angrier, we might see some domestic security issues arise from some sects (I'm not talking the God Hates Fags group, which are just attention whores) but from radical Christian domestic terrorists.

 

[{Mike}]

Why would there be a god for humans?

Is there a god for dolphins? No. Our race is no different.

 

[Chipopo]

Not directly related, but we agree. Now, getting back to the effects that I was actually talking about, we can agree that those are, in general, positive. Yes?

Meh. Who cares? This isn't a very convincing argument.

 

[Blader]

But you're still making the same mistake, god = deity, it's a synonym, they're interchangeable. You can't not view god as a deity. That's why I asked you "So what are you talking about?" since I'd like to know more to further the discussion.

And why are you still harping on that when I've said (twice now) that calling it "God" would be a misnomer because God implies deity? =P

hey, I'm glad you have a good sense of humor about the whole thing, but the reason our country is trending towards atheism is because it is the religion with the best argument.

I think you give people too much credit.

I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who choose atheism because it makes the most sense, but--and I have no hard statistics here, just anecdotal evidence--I think most of these burgeoning nonbelievers become non-religious just out of laziness. But, again, that's just based on what I've seen and heard from the people I know.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Thank God.

Omg, teh paradox.

 

[wayward archer]

Not directly related, but we agree. Now, getting back to the effects that I was actually talking about, we can agree that those are, in general, positive. Yes?

I can't look at just the good effects of something. I have to look at the system as a whole and base my judgement on that. And in that regard it is directly related.

 

[teruterubozu]

More Hispanics = more Catholics - sorry America, it's far from over.

 

[Chipopo]

I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who choose atheism because it makes the most sense, but--and I have no hard statistics here, just anecdotal evidence--I think most of these burgeoning nonbelievers become non-religious just out of laziness. But, again, that's just based on what I've seen and heard from the people I know.

As you yourself point out, you have absolutely nothing to base this on. And what's more, who cares? People are finding atheism more persuasive, regardless of whether they're finding it for logical reasons.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

More Hispanics = more Catholics - sorry America, it's far from over.

In my experience, Catholics are better than Evangelical, Pentecostal, or "Free" churches. I'd much rather those factions get replaced with Catholicism.

 

[KHarvey16]

Lol, laziness. Tell me, when someone asks if you're religious, does a lazy person say yes or no? I cannot wait until the right answer there actually is no.

 

[Blader]

As you yourself point out, you have absolutely nothing to base this on. And what's more, who cares?

Well, if more people are becoming non-religious out of convenience rather than anything logical, it kind of defeats the "people are choosing atheism because it's the best argument" argument. =P

but like I said, that's just what I've gotten from observation. It's not like I've given out a survey on this.

 

[Samara]

More Hispanics = more Catholics - sorry America, it's far from over.

Somewhat true, but America is made of many things so...

 

[Beer Monkey]

More Hispanics = more Catholics - sorry America, it's far from over.

Percent of Catholics who voted for Obama = 54 percent. The whole dogma thing just isn't working out for them.

 

[Chipopo]

Well, if more people are becoming non-religious out of convenience rather than anything logical, it kind of defeats the "people are choosing atheism because it's the best argument" argument. =P

but like I said, that's just what I've gotten from observation. It's not like I've given out a survey on this.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I guess in that sense I am more optimistic about (certain) people, in that while I do believe there are many who will never be interested in seeking out the foundations for the spiritual movement they're a part of, the vast majority of academics and popular figures, who are responsible for having brought us to this turning point in our culture, have done so because they've followed the pertinent arguments through to their conclusion.

I'm not what some might call an 'anti-intellectual'.

 

[Kipz]

Calling the singularity god is like the 21st century version of the sun god. Sure, they're both powerful and responsible for life, but an omnipotent god? Nope.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I think that people are somewhat apathetic anyway. The people who grew up adopting the tenets of the Christian faith but weren't exactly hardcore are slowly drifting into religious apathy. I think that cultural subjectivity is chipping away a little at the cornerstone of Christianity. Greater connectivity helps. People see that there are other beliefs, that their own beliefs hardly make sense in every context. I think that the Christian right had one last gasp, but trust in the church has fallen dramatically in the past two decades. It's become a political movement, and I don't think people like that. I would welcome a more de-centrilized, personal faith over these organized coalitions attempting to control people and their actions.

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?

I'd actually call it Pascal's Wager in reverse. I find the original Pascal's Wager illogical. Why should I have to wager on something that should be eminently clear? For if there is a personal God, then he wants me to know him, and he gave me logic in order to deduce him. Therefore, the evidence needs to be absolutely clear and undeniable. If I am to deny a personal God, then I would be a fool. And yet the fact that I can posit extremely rational arguments against the existence of a personal God lessens the chances of a personal God dramatically. If the chances of a personal God is ridiculously unlikely, then I wager that it doesn't matter what I believe about God. Therefore, I'm perfectly reasonable in saying that I believe there is no God (in truth, I say that there probably is no God).

It also helps to define God. It's unlikely that there is such as thing a the Jude-Christian conception of God if he's not personal. If God is your standard, undefined, ethereal being beyond space and time, then I'll leave that possibility open. Hell, maybe Zeus exists. I can't be sure.

 

[Karakand]

In my experience, Catholics are better than Evangelical, Pentecostal, or "Free" churches. I'd much rather those factions get replaced with Catholicism.

but they don't have CONVICTION

 

[Doubledex]

Sad and poor america (and humanity)

 

[SouthernDragon]

Actually, a good chunk of Hispanics are Evangelical and Pentacostal.

In my experience, there are a lot more of those than Catholics.

: (

 

[Gallagher]

Could be a good thing...

 

[Karakand]

They used to, man, they used to. I remember back in the good ol' days when crossing the pope meant that HEADS WOULD ROLL.

Now it's all "Jews and Muslims are nice, you should give money to poor people!" No wonder we have so many cafeteria catholics these days!

I was also a big fan of the unsanctioned sectarian violence principled disagreements like The Troubles. When I was in Manchester shortly after it was bombed the conviction was absolutely palpable.

 

[FiRez]

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.

Internet is the new print.

good news btw, logic and reason should prevail.

 

[neoanarch]

Actually, a good chunk of Hispanics are Evangelical and Pentacostal.

In my experience, there are a lot more of those than Catholics.

: (

Really, what part of the world is that?