Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

And yet, all your previous post is just "god knows better" and "it's his plan" but with much more words.

I gave you possible explanations that go beyond those simple lines and you didn't even try to counter them.
I take it that you have made up your mind and aren't really here for a more in depth discussion.

And yet the only source we have of the Jesus Tale is an ancient book made of pieces of texts written by ancient men and put together by a bunch of other men centuries after in the way that they decided it was the most convenient for them and a big bunch of people believes in it just because they can't scape the circular argumentation.

Ancient this and ancient that. They were the same people then than we are now.

Just because the books were put together in a compilation later doesn't mean the books on their own hadn't any value. The books were separate works of literature. Stories, poems, historical accounts. They are still their own separate books even if they have been put next to each other between one set of covers. The Bible is a collection of 66 different books and letters. Depending on the version it's even more books. There were several biographies written about Jesus. Four of them are in the Bible we all know. Then there are a lot of other texts that talk about this person those biographies talked about. Just because they are part of the same collection, it doesn't mean they aren't separate accounts of the life of Jesus.

You wouldn't say some other historical figure would lose his credibility of existence just because separate accounts of him were later put into a larger collection either. To me it feels like you are claiming credibility problems for both having put writings in a collection and having writings left out from that collection. That the ones that are in the collection can't be taken seriously because they are in a religious collection of books, and then they can't be taken seriously either because some other books weren't included in the same collection. For me, if anything, looking at different texts that have really complex philosophical and metaphysical ideas and carefully comparing them with each other and looking which of these texts fit together and which do not means they really took it very seriously and were good at what they did. It was a massive undertaking of analysing historical texts.

If he wanted he could appear now and cause all the firestorms, divide seas, fire tornados, etc and people would believe in that...but guess that all that scenography was left only for thousand of years ago when men couldn't record or take photos of it. What a shame.

I think there are two options what would happen. 1) You wouldn't believe it's God. Mass hallucination, illusion by magicians and VFX people, terrorism, digital video effects and even aliens would probably be the first explanations before God. 2) If you did believe it was God, you would still hate him.

You can demand signs and showcases all you want but it wouldn't make a difference in what you'd believe or think of God. It's also odd how you would first ask for all kinds of destructive things to show his existence and power. It's not as if dividing a sea would be a thing to just show off your existence whenever and wherever. Essentially you are asking for more death and destruction to allow yourself to even consider believing in his existence.

 

[Ornlu]

If I have a ball I have to prove I have it for you to believe I have it.
If I don't have a ball I don't have to prove you I have a no-ball or a "i don't have" a ball.

So the atheist in this comic has nothing to contribute on his own? Doesn't exactly strike me as compelling. Maybe offer up something that you believe in? Defining yourself by what you don't believe in isn't a healthy way to go through life.

Yep, and you kept misusing those words, and never defined what you call god.

I haven't misused any words (are we dictionary quibbling now?), and what I define as God isn't even remotely related to this thread. The premise of the thread is "Is God actually the villain?". My argument is that if we are talking about the Abrahamic God, then the answer is no. I don't think that's all that difficult to comprehend.

If he exists he is definitely the baddie.

If he exists then he's just neutral. Lots of good, lots of bad.

I prefer to think that he doesn't exist.

How could the being that created everything be evil? Even if the premise is that you were created, and God took off and did nothing else after...wouldn't that be good? Or is not existing preferable to existing?

 

[Airola]

God is the ultimate racist.

That's the ultimate Shyamalan plot twist. The Jews were the real OG Aryan Übermensch

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Science is based on theories, and theories need to be proven and repeatable. No belief needed.

dude, a theory is literally a belief. it is an unproven assumption of what the truth is. this is why it's called "theory" and not "fact".

at this point we are rejecting the scientific method in order to defend it against religion LOL. hypothesis is one of the first steps.

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

you know, a belief

 

[#Phonepunk#]

People are born atheist, y'know?

Let's just agree to disagree, I don't feel we can continue this in a meaningful way, since your beliefs are set in stone it seems, more than mine for sure.

this is hilarious. "Your beliefs are set in stone" you tell someone, so that your own precious beliefs don't get challeneged. this is funny. to me it seems like you are projecting your stubbornness onto another? it is funny to criticism someone for not being flexible, while you yourself are inflexibile. "people are born atheist" you say, with conviction, as if that belief is set in stone. as if you know the inner thoughts of babies, as if this is some thing you know from scientific evidence, not just some belief you cling to, based on no evidence at all. it's quite ironic.

 

[Yoshi]

How could the being that created everything be evil? Even if the premise is that you were created, and God took off and did nothing else after...wouldn't that be good? Or is not existing preferable to existing?

Creating and then not doing anything with the creation is OK. Creating, setting up a set of crazy rules for your sentient creations, killing and torturing them at will and making them kill others for things they cannot influence is not. If you could create sentient life and went on to do with it what Yahweh is said to have done in Egypt or with the flood, you'd be an enormous pos.

 

[kurisu_1974]

this is hilarious. "Your beliefs are set in stone" you tell someone, so that your own precious beliefs don't get challeneged. this is funny. to me it seems like you are projecting your stubbornness onto another? it is funny to criticism someone for not being flexible, while you yourself are inflexibile. "people are born atheist" you say, with conviction, as if that belief is set in stone. as if you know the inner thoughts of babies, as if this is some thing you know from scientific evidence, not just some belief you cling to, based on no evidence at all. it's quite ironic.

Pray tell, what are my beliefs? Maybe you should learn what atheism actually is.

And if people weren't born atheist, why are we not all the same religion? Or does that magically change depending on your place of birth? I'm open for all arguments against my case here, and if they are convincing enough, I will try and change my stance, no problem. It's just that you don't make a lick of sense so I'm not really feeling challenged here.

Atheism is projecting, but blind, unfounded faith is perfectly rational and normal

 

[kurisu_1974]

dude, a theory is literally a belief. it is an unproven assumption of what the truth is. this is why it's called "theory" and not "fact".

at this point we are rejecting the scientific method in order to defend it against religion LOL. hypothesis is one of the first steps.

you know, a belief

Are you shitting me right now? You want to have this discussion, but fail to grasp what a scientific theory is even on a basic level? L O L

 

[Yoshi]

dude, a theory is literally a belief. it is an unproven assumption of what the truth is. this is why it's called "theory" and not "fact".

at this point we are rejecting the scientific method in order to defend it against religion LOL. hypothesis is one of the first steps.

Hypothesis is much less than a theory though. A theory requires evidence.

 

[royox]

So the atheist in this comic has nothing to contribute on his own? Doesn't exactly strike me as compelling. Maybe offer up something that you believe in? Defining yourself by what you don't believe in isn't a healthy way to go through life.

I never said I define myself on what I don't believe. I just don't believe in phantasy books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or The Bible. I don't think you define yourself as a "Non-Harry Potter believer" right?

What I believe? As a chemist and scientist, In facts and demonstrable stuff. Till today nothing and nobody could show me a single fact about the existance of god/s or that the bible is true so for me even thinking about it is a total waste of time.

I gave you possible explanations that go beyond those simple lines and you didn't even try to counter them.
I take it that you have made up your mind and aren't really here for a more in depth discussion.

Actually I read that during work and couldn't extend myself so much but I wanted to answer point by point and extensively when I reach home Sorry If It sounded disrespectful :_

a theory is literally a belief. it is an unproven assumption of what the truth is. this is why it's called "theory" and not "fact".

Actually not true. That's what common people believes, but in SCIENCE a Theory needs to be proven and be supported by facts. What you mean is Hypothesis.

Learn your words before discussing please.

 

[Airola]

Creating and then not doing anything with the creation is OK. Creating, setting up a set of crazy rules for your sentient creations, killing and torturing them at will and making them kill others for things they cannot influence is not. If you could create sentient life and went on to do with it what Yahweh is said to have done in Egypt or with the flood, you'd be an enormous pos.

So are you saying that there is not a single chance that letting the creation always do whatever they want with zero input to any of it would be the absolute better option?
That without any repercussions to anything things would absolutely be better?

Actually I read that during work and couldn't extend myself so much but I wanted to answer point by point and extensively when I reach home Sorry If It sounded disrespectful :_

No worries, I do that myself sometimes and I guess I should've figured that could be the case here too instead of jumping in conclusions.

 

[Yoshi]

So are you saying that there is not a single chance that letting the creation always do whatever they want with zero input to any of it would be the absolute better option?
That without any repercussions to anything things would absolutely be better?

What? I am saying that letting them do what they want is OK. Killing them, torturing them and setting crazy arbitrary rules to treat them like your playthings is not.

 

[Ornlu]

Creating and then not doing anything with the creation is OK. Creating, setting up a set of crazy rules for your sentient creations, killing and torturing them at will and making them kill others for things they cannot influence is not. If you could create sentient life and went on to do with it what Yahweh is said to have done in Egypt or with the flood, you'd be an enormous pos.

I was asking based on their premise of "God is evil because he created everything and left". If we're changing the premise, that's fine.

Pray tell, what are my beliefs? Maybe you should learn what atheism actually is.

And if people weren't born atheist, why are we not all the same religion? Or does that magically change depending on your place of birth? I'm open for all arguments against my case here, and if they are convincing enough, I will try and change my stance, no problem. It's just that you don't make a lick of sense so I'm not really feeling challenged here.

You've already said atheism isn't anything definitive, right? Just a lack of belief in anything non-observable. If I'm misconstruing, or misusing a word, or whatever you want to toss over the wall, let me know.

The 2nd bolded statement is interesting. It leads to an interesting conversation, at least, after you hash out the difference between an atheist and a theist. Do you not think it possible that someone could be born and grow to believe that they have been created by something greater than Man? I'm speaking in a sense outside of the bounds of organized religion.

Are you shitting me right now? You want to have this discussion, but fail to grasp what a scientific theory is even on a basic level? L O L

Actually not true. That's what common people believes, but in SCIENCE a Theory needs to be proven and be supported by facts. What you mean is Hypothesis.

Learn your words before discussing please.

What are you guys looking for, besides an opportunity to try and make people look ignorant? He quoted the definition for a hypothesis in his post. Are you really going to make fun of someone for that? That's really low.

I never said I define myself on what I don't believe. I just don't believe in phantasy books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or The Bible. I don't think you define yourself as a "Non-Harry Potter believer" right?

What I believe? As a chemist and scientist, In facts and demonstrable stuff. Till today nothing and nobody could show me a single fact about the existance of god/s or that the bible is true so for me even thinking about it is a total waste of time.

If you don't think about it, then you would not be posting in the thread. So at the very least, that is not true. My point is, that when engaging in these arguments between religious people and internet atheists, is that inevitably the religious person is expected to list out exactly what they believe, upon which the fedora-wearing scoffer crowd picks everything they say apart and mocks. The atheists are not expected to list out any beliefs of their own (which they have, as all people do), and thus it becomes a very tired, one-sided affair. That's not how a conversation works in real life.

 

[Yoshi]

If you don't think about it, then you would not be posting in the thread. So at the very least, that is not true. My point is, that when engaging in these arguments between religious people and internet atheists, is that inevitably the religious person is expected to list out exactly what they believe, upon which the fedora-wearing scoffer crowd picks everything they say apart and mocks. The atheists are not expected to list out any beliefs of their own (which they have, as all people do), and thus it becomes a very tired, one-sided affair. That's not how a conversation works in real life.

What beliefs do you expect an atheist to detail in such a discussion? I mean, sure, I do have beliefs, but what role do they play in such a conversation? My moral, political and societal beliefs are broadly off topic in a conversation about theorigin of earth and humanity. When it comes to religious claims, on a broader basis I have no belief one way or the other (e.g. "Does a sentient being exist that has controlled in some way the evolutionary process on earth?" I see no reason to assume one does but I do not actively belief it not to be the case) and on narrower issues it is just pretty much obvious that it is true (e.g. "Does Yahweh, as described in the bible, exist?" Of course it does not, the description in the bible is not even consistent).

 

[kurisu_1974]

The 2nd bolded statement is interesting. It leads to an interesting conversation, at least, after you hash out the difference between an atheist and a theist. Do you not think it possible that someone could be born and grow to believe that they have been created by something greater than Man? I'm speaking in a sense outside of the bounds of organized religion.

Someone could be born and led to believe anything, especially when he lacks critical thinking skills. Believing and knowing is also not the same. Again, if your god was a proven concept, atheists wouldn't need to NOT believe in this god, because they'd KNOW it was real. I would become a gnostic overnight.

What are you guys looking for, besides an opportunity to try and make people look ignorant? He quoted the definition for a hypothesis in his post. Are you really going to make fun of someone for that? That's really low.

But we weren't talking about hypotheses, we were talking about theories in the scientific sense. He was just being either ignorant or dishonest with that "definition" trying to disprove a point no one made.

How could the being that created everything be evil? Even if the premise is that you were created, and God took off and did nothing else after...wouldn't that be good? Or is not existing preferable to existing?

Why would we care if this entity existed? Why would we worship him? How is such and absent, unknoweable origin of the universe any better an explanation than the forever evolving theories proposed by actual science?

 

[nkarafo]

How could the being that created everything be evil? Even if the premise is that you were created, and God took off and did nothing else after...wouldn't that be good?

He created humans but they didn't make them perfect. He gave them temptations and many flaws and then he immediately tempt them, knowing very well they would succumb (because he knows everything). And then he punished them for it. Not only them but all humanity as well. And ofc, he wants you to worship him or else you burn in hell. And btw, since your future is already set in stone (because god knows your future) you don't have a choice, you will end up wherever god has planned for you.

Seems kind of evil to me.

Or is not existing preferable to existing?

Can you even comprehend the idea of suffering forever? For all ETERNITY? Because that's hell you know. So yeah, i prefer not to exist at all if there is a chance for me to suffer forever like this. What's the point even?

And it's not like i have any control anyway, god knows already if i will go to hell or not and there is nothing i can do to change what he knows.

 

[royox]

The atheists are not expected to list out any beliefs of their own (which they have, as all people do), and thus it becomes a very tired, one-sided affair. That's not how a conversation works in real life.

I cannot explain my belief if i don't believe, you know...it's a hard thing. It's like asking a blind person about colors.

 

[Ornlu]

What beliefs do you expect an atheist to detail in such a discussion? I mean, sure, I do have beliefs, but what role do they play in such a conversation? My moral, political and societal beliefs are broadly off topic in a conversation about theorigin of earth and humanity. When it comes to religious claims, on a broader basis I have no belief one way or the other (e.g. "Does a sentient being exist that has controlled in some way the evolutionary process on earth?" I see no reason to assume one does but I do not actively belief it not to be the case) and on narrower issues it is just pretty much obvious that it is true (e.g. "Does Yahweh, as described in the bible, exist?" Of course it does not, the description in the bible is not even consistent).

I don't expect an atheist to bring much to the table in discussion; like I said, they are arguing with no other purpose than to tear someone else down, rather than to have an honest conversation. I've had very fruitful, enjoyable talks with believers and non-believers of all different persuasions in the real world. On the internet? Not so much.

I cannot explain my belief if i don't believe, you know...it's a hard thing. It's like asking a blind person about colors.

Right, so as someone who has "no skin in the game", there isn't much you can offer to the conversation, no? Unless we were to find ourselves debating about evidence for or against the existence of a creator, perhaps. I.E. debating about the evolutionary timeline, the current thought on the origins of man, etc.

Someone could be born and led to believe anything, especially when he lacks critical thinking skills. Believing and knowing is also not the same. Again, if your god was a proven concept, atheists wouldn't need to NOT believe in this god, because they'd KNOW it was real. I would become a gnostic overnight.

Eh, this argument seems weak to me; are you edging around claiming that religion must come before belief? In every tribe known on Earth, someone found themselves believing in a higher power, independent of contact with other tribes. I'd say it's much more likely that there is something within human beings that pushes us toward belief in something higher than ourselves.

But we weren't talking about hypotheses, we were talking about theories in the scientific sense. He was just being either ignorant or dishonest with that "definition" trying to disprove a point no one made.

Maybe? That's certainly not how I read it. He was saying that science starts out with belief as well (which is true). Beyond that, I am not going to defend someone who can defend themselves; I just don't like to see a bunch of people dogpile on someone over 1 word, instead of honestly responding to what they said.

Why would we care if this entity existed? Why would we worship him? How is such and absent, unknoweable origin of the universe any better an explanation than the forever evolving theories proposed by actual science?

Maybe it's not any better? Does it have to be? The forever evolving theories proposed by the scientific community don't seem to hold any more water than religious explanations.

He created humans but they didn't make them perfect. He gave them temptations and many flaws and then he immediately tempt them, knowing very well they would succumb (because he knows everything). And then he punished them for it. Not only them but all humanity as well. And ofc, he wants you to worship him or else you burn in hell. And btw, since your future is already set in stone (because god knows your future) you don't have a choice, you will end up wherever god has planned for you.

Seems kind of evil to me.

Can you even comprehend the idea of suffering forever? For all ETERNITY? Because that's hell you know. So yeah, i prefer not to exist at all if there is a chance for me to suffer forever like this. What's the point even?

And it's not like i have any control anyway, god knows already if i will go to hell or not and there is nothing i can do to change what he knows.

Sure, if that's the God you believe exists, in exactly those words. That's not what is depicted, but if that's your read on it, go for it. I think I've already given my take on the depiction of God in the Bible (about 5 times in this thread?).

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

You can demand signs and showcases all you want but it wouldn't make a difference in what you'd believe or think of God. It's also odd how you would first ask for all kinds of destructive things to show his existence and power. It's not as if dividing a sea would be a thing to just show off your existence whenever and wherever.

The problem is before people didn't conceive anyone or anything but God could make signs of extraordinary ability.

In fiction the Q or Franklin Richards or Mr. Mxyzptlk, etc could easily accomplish every single thing that's been done in the bible.

Even if we assumed all the miracles in the bible did occur, they are not evidence of God. It is easily conceivable that an infinity of beings weaker than God and not God could easily accomplish all the feats seen there.

Do you not think it possible that someone could be born and grow to believe that they have been created by something greater than Man? I'm speaking in a sense outside of the bounds of organized religion.

Babies ascribe agency even to inanimate objects if they seem to move with purpose. Obviously the ancient religions ascribing agency or spirits or godhood behind the weather, the natural cycles, etc. they originated from the human mind's predisposition to ascribe agency.

Can you even comprehend the idea of suffering forever? For all ETERNITY? Because that's hell you know. So yeah, i prefer not to exist at all if there is a chance for me to suffer forever like this. What's the point even?

Some religious say the suffering is not because of any fire or torture, it is merely the pain from being away from God and refusing God's presence. It is the choice of the absence of God and how it feels. But what they don't say is why someone has to choose while alive, why it's not possible to choose after death, if it is not just to peddle their organization and get money.

Eh, this argument seems weak to me; are you edging around claiming that religion must come before belief? In every tribe known on Earth, someone found themselves believing in a higher power, independent of contact with other tribes. I'd say it's much more likely that there is something within human beings that pushes us toward belief in something higher than ourselves.

I think there's a hypothesis that there's a tendency for such. It is conceivable it could be, as it could evolve to regulate behavior in a social species when you can get away with negative behavior. The belief that a higher authority keeps an eye on you and will provide judgement and consequences for your actions, can limit the extent to which people engage in negative behavior.

 

[Playmasterizer]

Guys it really not a good idea to rely on these mathematical logic methods to understand other beings' actions. It's the reason why you got no pussy over the years.