The God Fuse

[Ravariel]

Now, with the preponderance of religion threads out there, this one may seem like just another on the pile. It may also seem like I am a rabid anti-religious foam-at-the-mouth atheist at times. The fact that I'm leading (I think) in the votes for the Dawkins award is enough proof of that. Neither of these statements are true. I am an agnostic. I don't know what's out there, and as I don't have any information, I will not hazard a guess. I believe that the universe works in a rational manner and that it may be possible that it is self-existant. I am also fairly certain that nearly every religion around today has it wrong (in one way or another). But neither am I so confident in that belief that I would not set it aside with enough evidence.

Preamble aside, there are some (10) things I think that both the atheist and the theist need to realize. From here, and copypasta'd/paraphrased for your convenience.

1) Horrible things can be done in the name of either
2) Both sides really do believe what they're saying
3) In everyday life, you're not that different
4) There are good people on both sides
5) Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them
6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guy
7) We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too
8) Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid
9) Both sides have brought good things to the table
10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance

Read, learn, discuss... and try to keep this in mind for future conversations.

Thank you.

[KeithHybrid]

Well spoken, my friend.

[fahrenheit]

its amazing how some people dont get these concepts.

[Christopherr]

So before we get back to fighting, let's have a big everyone included hug.....

Back to fighting!

[Zeistro]

I find myself actually agreeing with Ravariel, it's been a year and another account since.

Anyways, you say you're agnostic, but which idea are you more predisposed to; there being a god/catalyst/higher-power or not? Just my natural curiosity.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/23/07 09:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: 1) Horrible things can be done in the name of either

Um, although terrible things have been done by Atheists, I don't think anything has been done 'in the name' of atheism per se.

3) In everyday life, you're not that different

I'd beg to differ.

6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guy

Not fairly though, mind you.

9) Both sides have brought good things to the table

Some.

10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance

Nor do atheists try.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/23/07 11:42 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

3) In everyday life, you're not that different

I'd beg to differ.

Wait, actually scarp this part, I interpreted it incorrectly.

[SmilezRoyale]

I wonder who will be more conceited to first say 'No We're not actually, but they are'

:P

[Ravariel]

At 12/23/07 11:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: I find myself actually agreeing with Ravariel, it's been a year and another account since.

Who did you used to be?

Anyways, you say you're agnostic, but which idea are you more predisposed to; there being a god/catalyst/higher-power or not? Just my natural curiosity.

Mostly not. The very idea of some magical omnipotence seems so absurd as to be laughable. But like I said, with enough evidence... though that would mean breaking down the very fabric of existence. Namely: logic and rationality as omnipotence is a logical paradox. As such, you'd need some serious evidence. Like if tomorrow pi = 4... then I might think there's something supernatural going on. Until then, everything so far outside of a few fractions of a second are logically explainable (and those missing fractions are being whittled away with alarming frequency)... so I tend to go for the side with the evidence.

Now if you said that the universe was a result of simply an outside force, non-omni, most likely non-sentient, then sure, I can go for that. We can apply Clarke's 3rd law to it and call it "god" I suppose (not that it necessarily be technological). Sure there's plenty I can't explain... yet. But that doesn't point toward there being no rational explanation. On the flip side, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I cannot also logically assume that deities must not exist... though for one to exist would cause logical issues... but I digress.

At 12/23/07 11:42 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um, although terrible things have been done by Atheists, I don't think anything has been done 'in the name' of atheism per se.

I dunno... the amount of self-control it takes to not reach through my computer screen whenever someone tries to "prove" the Flood happened and choke them the fuck out begs to differ.

6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guy

Not fairly though, mind you.

'tis the point.

9) Both sides have brought good things to the table

Some.

Rationality brough the technological age. Religion dragged us out of tribes and into a vast world community. I'd say they both have done a decent amount.

10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance

Nor do atheists try.

Lol... have you even read some of these topics? ;-)

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/23/07 11:42 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I dunno... the amount of self-control it takes to not reach through my computer screen whenever someone tries to "prove" the Flood happened and choke them the fuck out begs to differ.

I'd say that's more killing in the name of intelligence.

10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance

Nor do atheists try.

Lol... have you even read some of these topics? ;-)

Atheists don't go on a door-to-door pledges or threaten eternal damnation for disagreeing.

[fahrenheit]

At 12/24/07 04:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Atheists don't go on a door-to-door pledges or threaten eternal damnation for disagreeing.

Most religious people don't either.
But in my experience theists tend to have a "believe what you want, its your actions that matter". While atheists tend to have a "Oh my god, how can you be stupid enough to believe in a god with all the evidence against it?"

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 12/23/07 09:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: Now, with the preponderance of religion threads out there, this one may seem like just another on the pile. It may also seem like I am a rabid anti-religious foam-at-the-mouth atheist at times. The fact that I'm leading (I think) in the votes for the Dawkins award is enough proof of that. Neither of these statements are true. I am an agnostic. I don't know what's out there, and as I don't have any information, I will not hazard a guess. I believe that the universe works in a rational manner and that it may be possible that it is self-existant. I am also fairly certain that nearly every religion around today has it wrong (in one way or another). But neither am I so confident in that belief that I would not set it aside with enough evidence.

Preamble aside, there are some (10) things I think that both the atheist and the theist need to realize. From here, and copypasta'd/paraphrased for your convenience.

1) Horrible things can be done in the name of either
2) Both sides really do believe what they're saying
3) In everyday life, you're not that different
4) There are good people on both sides
5) Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them
6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guy
7) We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too
8) Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid
9) Both sides have brought good things to the table
10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance

Read, learn, discuss... and try to keep this in mind for future conversations.

Thank you.

There will always be people from different religions who fight, but that is entirely up to those people, religions really has nothing to do with violence.
Kind of like you trying to press your anti religious beliefs on people, that is the same as people pushing religious beliefs on people. So you are no different from the assholes who try to sway people away form their religion.
It is true that most people do it for good, one side like the Christians may want to convert the Jews so they wont burn in hell for not believing in Jesus, or any other which way it can go.
The fact is that non beliefs is the next step to violent religious acts, some people who don't believe in God see no reason not to sin drastically, like killing people who do believe. Like that school that got shot up all those years ago and recently, you think those people believed in God?
I would like to think not because if they did then they would know exactly where they would go.

It is true that fear plays a big role in worshiping God, to fear his power, but it is more of a humility sort of thing, you confess your sins, apologize, and hope that God forgives you.
To love God is a good thing too, he brought us to life!
Whatever scientific theory they can come up with about our existence can make people think twice, but what is there to lose by believing in God really?

[Earfetish]

At 12/24/07 04:31 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 12/24/07 04:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Atheists don't go on a door-to-door pledges or threaten eternal damnation for disagreeing.

Most religious people don't either.
But in my experience theists tend to have a "believe what you want, its your actions that matter". While atheists tend to have a "Oh my god, how can you be stupid enough to believe in a god with all the evidence against it?"

Theists say 'believe what you want, I'm praying for you', and on a global scale they say 'how dare you critically analyse the Qu'ran, you've pissed off a billion Muslims infidel', and atheists say 'organised religion is false and dangerous'.

Ask most atheists and they'll tell you they couldn't give a damn if you believe in God or not, but they deeply dislike organised religion, dogma and submission.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/24/07 06:54 AM, Earfetish wrote: Ask most atheists and they'll tell you they couldn't give a damn if you believe in God or not, but they deeply dislike organised religion, dogma and submission.

;
You don't have to be an atheist to have those views.
All of your reasons here, help fuel my contempt , of these organizations of so called goodness.

[Earfetish]

At 12/24/07 09:29 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You don't have to be an atheist to have those views.
All of your reasons here, help fuel my contempt , of these organizations of so called goodness.

Atheists don't want you to be an atheist necessarily; religious people are the ones who focus the debate on the First Cause, atheists just want the end of organised religion and a far more flagrant secularism and aren't interested in arguing with deists much

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/24/07 06:07 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: There will always be people from different religions who fight, but that is entirely up to those people, religions really has nothing to do with violence.

O RLY?

[Zeistro]

At 12/24/07 01:45 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/23/07 11:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: I find myself actually agreeing with Ravariel, it's been a year and another account since.

Who did you used to be?

Jakehero, believe it or not. I got tired of the name.

Mostly not. The very idea of some magical omnipotence seems so absurd as to be laughable.

It doesn't have to necessarily be magic or omnipotent. Certain deist thinkers believe God is neither infallible or all-powerful, just a higher life form, such as you and I are too an ant.

But like I said, with enough evidence... though that would mean breaking down the very fabric of existence.

Would the whole "The world is actually spherical instead of cubical" fall under this?

Namely: logic and rationality as omnipotence is a logical paradox.

Even so, it doesn't necessary conflict with the idea of a higher-power, just an omnipotent one.

As such, you'd need some serious evidence. Like if tomorrow pi = 4... then I might think there's something supernatural going on.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it supernatural. I'd call it mathematicians trying to use algebra to fuck with everyone. Considering some of said mathematicians can make 1+1=3.

Until then, everything so far outside of a few fractions of a second are logically explainable (and those missing fractions are being whittled away with alarming frequency)... so I tend to go for the side with the evidence.

I don't think there's any definitive or partial evidence indicating a deity or not.

Now if you said that the universe was a result of simply an outside force, non-omni, most likely non-sentient, then sure, I can go for that.

If it was non-sentient I don't think it would even fit under the description of "god," but just another event, force, energy etc since it lacks any self-awareness to be given anthropomorphic traits. Otherwise, it would be a misuse of the word god.

We can apply Clarke's 3rd law to it and call it "god" I suppose (not that it necessarily be technological). Sure there's plenty I can't explain... yet. But that doesn't point toward there being no rational explanation.

I think this is a problem with mant early theists. They couldn't explain how something occured so they attritubed to "God did it."

But what happens when no rational explanation suffices?

On the flip side, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I cannot also logically assume that deities must not exist... though for one to exist would cause logical issues... but I digress.

I'm not sure how its existance would cause logical issues, considering if something exists and it conflicts with our worldview. It isn't the thing which exists fault, but our own grasp of things that are flawed.

[tony4moroney]

Dejavu, I just bookmarked that a couple of days ago. The cut+paste bullet-point headlines don't really do the article justice though, it's definitely a recommended read children. It has Tony's SEAL OF APPROVAL

[Ravariel]

At 12/26/07 11:53 AM, Zeistro wrote: It doesn't have to necessarily be magic or omnipotent. Certain deist thinkers believe God is neither infallible or all-powerful, just a higher life form, such as you and I are too an ant.

True, but 9 times out of ten, I'm talking with Christians.

Would the whole "The world is actually spherical instead of cubical" fall under this?

Huh? I suppose if our next space mission went out and saw that the Earth was actually a cube, took pictures and we could verify that yes, indeed, it was now a cube.... sure that might do it.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it supernatural. I'd call it mathematicians trying to use algebra to fuck with everyone. Considering some of said mathematicians can make 1+1=3.

Not without dividing by 0 :P

But no... if we measured pi to equla something not 3.14159... then I would think there's something supernatural going on.

I don't think there's any definitive or partial evidence indicating a deity or not.

Exactly... 's why I'm agnostic. However, rationality is able (so far) to explain nearly everything. So based on track record, I tend to stick to that. Remember, when I argue religion, it's usually with a Christian... thus I usually have to assume the features of their god in my arguments.

If it was non-sentient I don't think it would even fit under the description of "god," but just another event, force, energy etc since it lacks any self-awareness to be given anthropomorphic traits. Otherwise, it would be a misuse of the word god.

But as we can't tell if the creative force was sentient or not, it's just as likely to not be. I realize we love to anthropomorphize everything, but it's not evidence that whatever started this whole thing was sentient or not.

But what happens when no rational explanation suffices?

Such a situation hasn't come up yet... I guess we'll jump off that bridge when we get to it.

I'm not sure how its existance would cause logical issues, considering if something exists and it conflicts with our worldview. It isn't the thing which exists fault, but our own grasp of things that are flawed.

Again, talking about an omni-god. And many people would say that a prime cause MUST be omni... otherwise it couldn't be "eternal" or without cause itself.

[Earfetish]

At 12/26/07 06:07 PM, Ravariel wrote: But as we can't tell if the creative force was sentient or not, it's just as likely to not be. I realize we love to anthropomorphize everything, but it's not evidence that whatever started this whole thing was sentient or not.

In what sense is a non-sentient being God? A non-sentient beginning for the Big Bang would not be God in my definition. I would say there was no overriding intelligence behind the Big Bang, and that makes there no God, and sentience is as essential part of that.

[Zoraxe7]

At 12/26/07 08:06 PM, Earfetish wrote: In what sense is a non-sentient being God? A non-sentient beginning for the Big Bang would not be God in my definition. I would say there was no overriding intelligence behind the Big Bang, and that makes there no God, and sentience is as essential part of that.

Whos to say that force cant become sentiant.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/27/07 07:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 12/26/07 08:06 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Whos to say that force cant become sentiant.

So your saying that when I push these buttons on my computer, the force of me pushing down on them is a sentient being.?

Is that a correct analysis?

[Earfetish]

At 12/27/07 07:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Whos to say that force cant become sentiant.

You really have to clarify what you mean by God. Or 'force'. Is God 'thinking', or has He ever 'thought'?

[Earfetish]

I think there is at least one fundamental difference in the mindset between a deist and an atheist. A deist needs an answer for everything, needs some totality and purpose to existence, a conscious reasoning behind everything. An atheist thinks it's fascinating that there isn't one.

Which I think makes the argument of 'a more complex creator needs greater explanation than his creation' somewhat pointless to a God-believer. God is the answer to everything; there needs to be no further questions about God, because God is already the answer to them.

Not satisfying for me, though. But I do find the argument of the existence and attributes of God brilliant.