It matters as much as never knowing your wife or husband cheated on you every day. You'll live a happy marriage that is a sham.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The falsity of religion & God(s) is so self evident, m'lady
- Thread starter freakzilla149
- Start date
- Status
It's a pointless exercise, like arguing against a philosophy or arbstraction. The whole point of faith is that it cannot be proven, if it could that would make it science.
So then what does it even matter if its real or not? It doesnt affect you in any way, unless you are living in some kind of oppressive community where you are forced to believe in something you don't, in which case I would suggest leaving.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense as an analogy. One is a fact that did or did not happen, with an answer than can be discovered. The other is a hypothetical that would be unchangable and unknowable, and ultimately bound in the nature of existence.
So then what does it even matter if its real or not? It doesnt affect you in any way, unless you are living in some kind of oppressive community where you are forced to believe in something you don't, in which case I would suggest leaving.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense as an analogy. One is a fact that did or did not happen, with an answer than can be discovered. The other is a hypothetical that would be unchangable and unknowable, and ultimately bound in the nature of existence.
TheChocolateWar
Member
You are correct. A more accurate statement, or question rather, is 'how do you know God works the way you expect him to, oh possibly finite and limited mortal who may not know all that is at stake?'.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
No because that's a situation you could have had control over, or actually influence. If god is real or isn't real there is nothing you can do about it or nothing to control.
Would it not have been a better strategy for "God" to have created us without these brains of ours that are capable of disproving his existence with Science?
The more we use our brains and make more and more scientific discoveries, the more we distance ourselves from these holy fairy tales.
Bad move on his part.
The more we use our brains and make more and more scientific discoveries, the more we distance ourselves from these holy fairy tales.
Bad move on his part.
I wouldn't clump together natural and supernatural explanations even considering the falsifiability criterion. Supernatural explanations are always built on our ignorance of the natural world; one can't say the same about natural ones. There's a big difference between a plausible simulated universe obeying the laws of reality and God magically willing things into existence.
CornBurrito
Member
Then people can play this game forever. And then it's equally inappropriate to invoke god when good events happen.
There's actually a good explanation for why humans get cancer. Completely naturalistic explanations that don't need to invoke what may or may not be the will of a possibly existent higher power.
TheChocolateWar
Member
To which I respond, how do you know we will not find an answer through constant discourse? I have not found an answer, no one I have talked to has an answer, but how do I know that the next person I talk to will not have an answer, or that an answer will not be produced through dialogue? It is a gamblers fallacy to say it will not happen because it has not happened yet. There is value in the endeavor, as possibly fruitless as it may get.
...and I have been at this a while now and seen the vast majority of these fallacious arguments time again.
Maninthemirror
Banned
again. you are missing the entire point.
As per Abrahamic faith at least, this life is a test which will have joy and will have sorrow, some will be tested more than others and whoever will deal with the joys AND sorrow with steadfastness and becomes a better person as a result will have a better afterlife which is infinitely larger and better for that person who is a good person.
If you are afflicted with something, that is a test from God to see how not only you get through it and show yourself as a better person but also for those around you
similarly if you are extremely successful, that is also a test from God to see how you get through it and show yourself as a good person for not only yourself but everyone around you.
In fact as per this, This suffering or Joy in this life is is nothing compared to the satisfaction in the hereafter, which is infinite in our sense of time and full of joy for ever for those who are steadfast and do good both in joy and suffering.
This again is the difference between someone who believes in God and one who does not. He sees suffering as a be all end all and if a person suffers, the disbeliever will be sad the life had suffering throughout with no reward and will mock the religious where is your God in all this. All the while a believer of a God sees this life as a vessel to a better life and this life as a test for the next and if there is suffering in this life for a person to no fault or his own or by his own fault, the reward for those steadfast and good will be infinitely greater in the afterlife which is a huge canvas as compared to a speck of dirt on that canvas which is this life
A person suffering from birth to death compared to afterlife is like one vaccination pinch being the life and remainder of life full of happiness being the afterlife.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Faith and science (and philosophy) are not mutually exclusive. Science and truth are not mutually inclusive.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I stopped carrying about religion for the most part. Don't even consider myself an atheist. I just don't care about things I can't prove. Now, if you get a rise from the stories in the bible, etc, fine what ever. But our culture shouldn't base things around such things.
Self evident is the most powerful phrase in the constitution.
Self evident is the most powerful phrase in the constitution.
CornBurrito
Member
I feel like the conversation would be a lot more meaningful if there were any evidence to begin with about the existence of the deity being discussed in question. How can you discuss the will of a being if you don't even know if the being exists? Why have a conversation about what may or may not be the will of a possibly non-existent deity? Or why are you so interested in that conversation? Are you equally interested in conversations about the possibly conflicting wills of the possibly existent pantheon of gods and godlike beings that may possibly exist? Would you be interesting in having a conversation about your evil twin brother from another dimension that may possibly exist?
I don't disagree with you, and I hope we can avoid arguing semantics.
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
(Title change is very original and mature, thank you. Serves its purpose of attracting similarly original and mature drive-by posters.)
Some feel "1+1=2" is self evident but the statement still has warranted rational examination.
Most religious beliefs, however, have to be reduced to metaphors to an extent where the debate descends to mere semantics.
Did Christian God create mankind as his own image? Obviously not (unless we define evolution/first motor/etc as god, in which case it's semantics), but this was not always obvious.
Some feel "1+1=2" is self evident but the statement still has warranted rational examination.
Most religious beliefs, however, have to be reduced to metaphors to an extent where the debate descends to mere semantics.
Did Christian God create mankind as his own image? Obviously not (unless we define evolution/first motor/etc as god, in which case it's semantics), but this was not always obvious.
Buddha Beam
Banned
I remember when I was 18 or 19 years old. I was in my apartment, sitting at my computer wondering about religion... and I basically had thoughts just like OP's. I remember thinking and getting SO worked up over religious people and what they believe. Like, how can they be SO stupid as to not see what was SO obvious at the time? I called the girl I was dating up at the time and had to talk to her about it and just get it all off my chest. I was so incensed.
That was a good 15 or so years ago now. Whenever I remember that moment in my life, which for whatever reason has stuck with me, I just feel embarrassed now. Like, how could I ever have cared that much about what other people believe? Why did it bother me as badly as it did? It's like a cringe moment in my life, looking back.
This is a good post, and it pretty much describes myself, although I'm more of a Buddhist/Pantheist than anything else.
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, but the superiority complex and need for confrontation that so many have is what begets them a bad reputation. While it's probably be true that most atheists don't go seeking confrontation or reflexively dismiss religious people and their beliefs... the fact is, a lot of people do just that. Between the army of "fedoras" online and at least some of the more prominent atheists engaging in those sorts of tactics, it's no surprise that so many people hold a negative view of atheists these days.
It's basically the same problem muslims are facing with radical islam - a few loud assholes are painting the movement in a negative light for everyone else. If this is seen as a problem, people need to speak up against them more. Sometimes that's akin to tilting at windmills, but occasionally it can bring changes in perception to a movement.
Ultimately, I think that's the reason who Atheists have garnered a reputation for being assholes. Like, there is no shortage of crazy Christians who do shit like protest outside of abortion clinics (or bomb them)... but most people would say the average Christian isn't that much of a whack-a-loon. Muslims are seemingly in the process of reclaiming the sanity of their religion too, especially in light of all the madness in Paris, but they have a ways to go, as a whole still I think...
I suppose it sometimes harder for the non-douche-baggy atheists to speak up, since it's not as easy to talk about how you don't believe in God without sounding dismissive or insulting... but it's certainly not impossible.
That was a good 15 or so years ago now. Whenever I remember that moment in my life, which for whatever reason has stuck with me, I just feel embarrassed now. Like, how could I ever have cared that much about what other people believe? Why did it bother me as badly as it did? It's like a cringe moment in my life, looking back.
This is a good post, and it pretty much describes myself, although I'm more of a Buddhist/Pantheist than anything else.
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, but the superiority complex and need for confrontation that so many have is what begets them a bad reputation. While it's probably be true that most atheists don't go seeking confrontation or reflexively dismiss religious people and their beliefs... the fact is, a lot of people do just that. Between the army of "fedoras" online and at least some of the more prominent atheists engaging in those sorts of tactics, it's no surprise that so many people hold a negative view of atheists these days.
It's basically the same problem muslims are facing with radical islam - a few loud assholes are painting the movement in a negative light for everyone else. If this is seen as a problem, people need to speak up against them more. Sometimes that's akin to tilting at windmills, but occasionally it can bring changes in perception to a movement.
Ultimately, I think that's the reason who Atheists have garnered a reputation for being assholes. Like, there is no shortage of crazy Christians who do shit like protest outside of abortion clinics (or bomb them)... but most people would say the average Christian isn't that much of a whack-a-loon. Muslims are seemingly in the process of reclaiming the sanity of their religion too, especially in light of all the madness in Paris, but they have a ways to go, as a whole still I think...
I suppose it sometimes harder for the non-douche-baggy atheists to speak up, since it's not as easy to talk about how you don't believe in God without sounding dismissive or insulting... but it's certainly not impossible.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Ever heard of Pascals Wager? Probably the best argument for being religious / following religious guidelines.
CornBurrito
Member
Er no it isn't a good argument at all. Unless you ignore the fact that there could be billions of potential gods, including some that punish worshipers of false gods but not atheists/agnostics.
soul creator
Member
OP reads this post and is pulling his hair out as we speak, lmao
Probably the worst argument ever.
I see absolutely no reason as to why God won't reward us for disbelieving in him instead. The premise that belief in God X is the only way to avoid God X's hell is completely arbitrary and contrived -- what the fuck makes us think God(s) behave this way? There are infinite numbers of ways Pascal's Wager could go, hence why it's a waste of time.
graffix13
Member
Yeah this is pretty much how I think nowadays.
I was raised Baptist, but when I started asking the hard questions and only got the typical "God Works in mysterious ways" answers....well, those didn't work for me.
I guess it took even me a little while to admit to myself that I was an atheist. But when I did...look out! I was LOOKING for debates with my religious friends. I couldn't WAIT to argue with them and shoot down their arguments and totally own them with facts.
I had this attitude for awhile but recently it occurred to me...Who cares. Who gives a shit what people believe. If it gets them through the day....through LIFE...does it really matter what they do or don't believe? No. Whose purpose does it serve if I was able to convert a believer into a non-believer (never happens, by the way)? Nobody but my own.
ShemhazaiX
Member
The argument is purely that existence is a gamble because there is zero possibility for proving or disproving the existence of a deity. Living life as an asshole has finite gain in exchange for infinite loss in every situation. Picking any religion and sticking to its tenets is a higher chance of infinite gain for finite loss. Therefore, the sensible approach is to pick a faith, don't be an asshole and hope that if you're wrong then the deity is benevolent. If there's no life after death then its not like its going to matter how you lived your life since you'll be dead and won't know you wasted your life.
riskVSreward
Member
The reason some atheists care what other people believe is because they believe the world would be better off without religion. If you can convince others to leave their faith behind, you get closer to that goal.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Some religious people think the works would be better off without lack of religion so you reach a point
Hatchtag has a point. Your move, OP.
graffix13
Member
Yeah I get that and while I probably do agree, I don't think it's possible.
Let's pretend that you died and somehow you were able to come back to life. You went up to every religious person on earth and said "I died and and came back and there is no God". If this was possible, people still wouldn't believe you. Even if you had some kind of evidence like a recording or video of nothingness....some religious people wouldn't believe you even then. And the same applies to atheists if it was flip flopped.
The only way people are going to change their beliefs is through self realization. They have to form their own beliefs by asking questions and getting the answers that make sense to them.
How many arguments have you had in your life? Of those arguments, how many people have said "You know what, you're right. I concede my point and agree with you". Maybe I'm just a terrible debater (I am) but that never happens to me. People are usually too prideful or set in their ways to concede to another person. Especially if it's something they grew up their whole life believing.
You know I believed in God until I was like 17 or so.
I just sort of did, I never really went to church except at Christmas Eve but I always believed I guess, subconsciously.
But in recent years any faith I had has completely evaporated, maybe it's parallel to my development in character, I'm naturally a very pessimistic, cynical person, not great qualities I suppose but that's the way it is.
The older you get, the more information you consume, you see and hear things that chip away at your faith until it's critically undermined.
I've come to the opinion that religion exists for people to feel important, that they matter in this lonely universe of ours.
That we're special.
Religion is something I see as a form of control, it gives people order by extending influence into their lives.
This clearly isn't as pronounced as it has been in history, but it's still here.
To be blunt now, I find the rhetoric insulting. That you're supposed to believe what a fellow human being has to say because it was written down at some point. If you give money to a church, your sins will be washed away.
People lie and manipulate, it's just in our nature. No point in denying it. If people distort the truth to be in their favour, why should you believe then?
I guess people believe in it because they want something to believe in, this life can't be all there is.
I wish to stress that I have never and will not in the future look down on anyone who believes in religion, that's fine by me, let people do what they want.
But when people use their religion as a grotesque manipulation of morality or some kind of horrifying power trip, I get incensed.
I just sort of did, I never really went to church except at Christmas Eve but I always believed I guess, subconsciously.
But in recent years any faith I had has completely evaporated, maybe it's parallel to my development in character, I'm naturally a very pessimistic, cynical person, not great qualities I suppose but that's the way it is.
The older you get, the more information you consume, you see and hear things that chip away at your faith until it's critically undermined.
I've come to the opinion that religion exists for people to feel important, that they matter in this lonely universe of ours.
That we're special.
Religion is something I see as a form of control, it gives people order by extending influence into their lives.
This clearly isn't as pronounced as it has been in history, but it's still here.
To be blunt now, I find the rhetoric insulting. That you're supposed to believe what a fellow human being has to say because it was written down at some point. If you give money to a church, your sins will be washed away.
People lie and manipulate, it's just in our nature. No point in denying it. If people distort the truth to be in their favour, why should you believe then?
I guess people believe in it because they want something to believe in, this life can't be all there is.
I wish to stress that I have never and will not in the future look down on anyone who believes in religion, that's fine by me, let people do what they want.
But when people use their religion as a grotesque manipulation of morality or some kind of horrifying power trip, I get incensed.
The question was does it matter. Free will either does or does not exist. Whether we know it or not is the question.
CornBurrito
Member
Except I just pointed out how that isn't the case.
1. A God exists.
2. It isn't the God of any known modern religion
3. This God punishes anyone who believes in a modern false religion
4. This God does not punish agnostics or atheists.
In this case I win the gamble by remaining a secular agnostic person. If you still can't understand how the wager is a stupid argument, then you aren't worth any more time.
Meanwhile a huge fucking lol at thinking that being religious means automatically not being an asshole by modern moral standards. For all you know, the Islamic extremists throwing homosexuals off rooftops or stoning adulterers are the ones getting into Heaven, and you aren't.
frankthurk
Member
Or it both does and doesn't depending on where you are looking at it from. It free will is something you as a person experience, then you can say it exists and you experience it. But from another viewpoint that experience itself is just the lawful playing out of chemical and electrical processes that are deterministic. I think the answer is yes and no.
OP, you're right that there is essentially no evidence for the basis of religion, but people like you, with a bare understanding of popular science, really don't know more about the creation of the world.
I've met several liberal, irreligious people who were absolutely convinced that evolution is some sort of "drive to perfection", with a final destination.
I've met several liberal, irreligious people who were absolutely convinced that evolution is some sort of "drive to perfection", with a final destination.
I believe simulated realities are possible. If that is the case the odds against us being the original universe are small. We are most likely in a simulation to the nth degree.
Sure, okay.
Well I'm more certain we are than we aren't. So I guess we can both go on our merry way believing what we believe. It's all just conjecture at this point. We don't have enough information about the nature of our universe.
Now I'm off to found my Simulationist Cult and wage an internet war against that unbeliever Dawkins.
That's just saying you are simultaneously using two definitions of free will.
That's how you argue against Pascal's Wager. Just use another equally likely and risky opposite wager.
frankthurk
Member
No, I'm looking at the same thing from two different perspectives. From one perspective it exists, from another it doesn't. A lot of things are this way and specifically things dealing with concepts require context.
The thought of having to pick the "correct God" and serve him/her for your entire life or else!, is so absurd to me.
So this God has some sort of DVR device watching all 7 Billion people that are alive right now. Then when we die, he watches the footage to make sure you've been a good person and worshipped him your whole life before he lets you into heaven ?
Huh?
L. Ron Hubbard went from being a struggling Science Fiction writer to being a very successful man by pulling a religion out of his ass. People want to believe in something, and he capitalized on that.
So this God has some sort of DVR device watching all 7 Billion people that are alive right now. Then when we die, he watches the footage to make sure you've been a good person and worshipped him your whole life before he lets you into heaven ?
Huh?
L. Ron Hubbard went from being a struggling Science Fiction writer to being a very successful man by pulling a religion out of his ass. People want to believe in something, and he capitalized on that.
Perspectives, which are definitions. And you are applying both simultaneously. If we are going to have an argument about free will, we need to use the same single definition.
What ultimately separates a human's free will with an AI's free will that is sophisticated a lot to mimick human free will?
I was having this discussion last night. Why can't same sex couples adopt in most states? You have two people who can be completely qualified as competent parents and are willing to adopt a child. They are willing to nuture and give that child a home. So what's one of the legal difficulties why same sex marriages cannot adopt? A lot of states requires a couple to be married regardless of sex. Well geez, I think I heard it was pretty difficult to get same sex marriages going in most states. You know what the main culprit is that makes it so difficult to legalize same sex marriages? You guess it - religion.
It goes both ways. You get frustrated when atheist calls out religion but don't act like religion isn't very vocal with their beliefs.
It goes both ways. You get frustrated when atheist calls out religion but don't act like religion isn't very vocal with their beliefs.
umop_3pisdn
Member
A lot of Theists adopt a more provisional or sensible approach, where characterizing belief as a sort of romantic idealism or cultural narrative becomes progressively less appropriate and more reductive. It's fairly common in Hermeticism, Gnosticism, or Mystic Christianity that the Godhead is conceived of as an undifferentiated field of unblemished awareness. Basically the idea is the same as rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism, which can be conceived of as the relative experience of 'pure awareness' that's phenomenologically possible for individual beings. So while rigpa is an individual or subjective experience (and one not altogether difficult to cultivate), God in this case would be a sort of primordial 'ground' behind the illusory play of light and form. And sometimes certain experiences sort of lead you there, though it's not a universal thing that people would choose to designate that as 'God' or whatever. But when you cultivate rigpa there's a sense that reality is 'holographic', appearances are fundamentally empty, at the exact same time that their mode of appearance is entirely self-sufficient and real. And this isn't a theory, it's something you perceive directly through trying to rest in a state free of conceptual elaboration. And not even by any special or complex means, but by doing essentially nothing. An analogy of realizing the experience of rigpa is if you were to make your finger touch space. Really you're always in contact with space, and it only requires a slight shift in perspective to actually notice it. Once you do that, you realize that 'self' and 'world' are both illusory and there's no real separation at all, and it's all fashioned from and by the same substance (awareness), which is perfectly transparent and void of identity. When you reach a point like this, 'God' is a relatively small leap.
Granted this probably isn't what a lot of people have in mind when they think of Theism, one may question how an undifferentiated and ultimately vast field of awareness may be thought of as a 'God' at all. But regardless a person of this attitude is probably also fairly critical about belief, even if the practice of devotion is a big part of their worldview, because belief in this case requires a person to investigate qualities of experience that involve an above average degree of discernment and sincere curiosity. So there are cases where reducing belief to just a romantic narrative devoid of at least arguable forms of justification is pretty reductive and missing the extent of discipline and serious-mindedness that some seekers do have, probably simply because these sorts of attitudes and inclinations generally seem foreign to our every day world view and test the limits of language and discursive thought.
Granted this probably isn't what a lot of people have in mind when they think of Theism, one may question how an undifferentiated and ultimately vast field of awareness may be thought of as a 'God' at all. But regardless a person of this attitude is probably also fairly critical about belief, even if the practice of devotion is a big part of their worldview, because belief in this case requires a person to investigate qualities of experience that involve an above average degree of discernment and sincere curiosity. So there are cases where reducing belief to just a romantic narrative devoid of at least arguable forms of justification is pretty reductive and missing the extent of discipline and serious-mindedness that some seekers do have, probably simply because these sorts of attitudes and inclinations generally seem foreign to our every day world view and test the limits of language and discursive thought.
Monocle
Member
Pascal's Wager is a notoriously awful argument in debating circles, the kind of argument you don't even have to be a smug atheist to have a good belly laugh about.
Even if there were only one possible god and not trillions of different possible deities with potentially contradictory laws, Pascal's Wager assumes that this one God must be so dumb or indifferent that he'll reward anyone who fakes belief for their personal benefit the same way that he'll reward sincere believers!
If Pascal's Wager were valid, no self-respecting person would accept it anyway, because it's basically a declaration to the universe (and presumably its creator) that you're such a hustling opportunist, you'll try to reshape your entire worldview and lifestyle into a win-win proposition, rather than make an earnest effort to develop a well informed basis for your values and life goals.
Maninthemirror
Banned
this is because same sex marriage was prevalent in Ancient Rome until Christianity took hold and marriage was assigned a religious meaning over the previous meaning of marriage which had no official public marriage thing but rather a public declaration with parties without the typical marriage ceremonies that both are getting married. Current same sex marriage trend is the first major trend since Ancient rome before Christianity. Marriage as a ceremony to declare love for one another began as a religious thing as a seal of approval to have sex and bear children. Now with less and less religious people, marriages among non-religious and a lot of religious have changed to being a declaration of love for two people as opposed to being an approval to bear children and have sex which was its prior meaning
Pyramid head
Banned
Nah. The "sensible" approach would be to continue just not picking a faith, and not be an asshole. I'm aware that some religious people have a really hard time reconciling those two ideas but there you go. Pascal's Wager is dumb and assumes that whatever deity you're throwing in with is particularly stupid for an omnipresent being.
What if God likes assholes and punishes do-gooders?
That's not even correct mathematics.
Let Q be the set of all real universes emergent in the multiverse where |Q| = |ℝ|.
Let Qi be some universe in Q.
Let S be the set of all simulated universes in some Qi where |S| = |ℝ|.
Let Sj be some simulated universe in S.
Lemma (Bijection of reals onto the plane)
f : ℝ -> ℝxℝ
where f is a bijection
therefor |ℝ| = |ℝxℝ|
where |ℝxℝ| = |ℝ|*|ℝ| = |ℝ|
Let U = QxS = { (Qi, Sj) | Qi ∈ Q and Sj ∈ S}
Then |QxS| = |Q|*|S| = |ℝ|*|ℝ| = |ℝ|
Therefor the cardinality of Q is equal to the cardinality of S. So no, there is not a greater degree of simulated universes in that hypothesis.
I'm not saying the human construct of religion doesn't have an effect. I'm saying actual divinity would not influence us if it was unfalsifiable. Therefor we can live our lives with the understanding it is inconsequential to the observable universe.
Haha. Alright fair enough. My argument was one specifically against the the construct of a theistic simulation. But some deistic one perhaps truly is unfalsifiable. For posterity this was my argument.
themidnightsun156
Member
why cant people understand that god has nothing to do with religion?
What does god pertain to then?
Deductive reasoning like whoa, son!
HarryKS
Member
Putting trust in a God is quite similar to the battered wife syndrome eh.
2 year old gets cancer.
Super invisible dude with many powers does not intervene.
Mysterious ways.
Newborn with a severe congenital defect.
Omnipotent guy who is never wrong and perfect does not help.
Mysterious ways.
Talent.
Mega omniseer who loves all his children equally does not mind.
Mysterious ways.
Yet we shall fknd the good in it. We deserve it.
2 year old gets cancer.
Super invisible dude with many powers does not intervene.
Mysterious ways.
Newborn with a severe congenital defect.
Omnipotent guy who is never wrong and perfect does not help.
Mysterious ways.
Talent.
Mega omniseer who loves all his children equally does not mind.
Mysterious ways.
Yet we shall fknd the good in it. We deserve it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll