Support NeoGAF

[AllIsOneIsNone]

It's all semantics, in my opinion. If I were to say God exists, I would personally say that God is simply everything, or the Universe throughout all time. Is the Universe sentient? Maybe. Omniscient? Omniscience (all knowing) could simply mean that all knowledge is contained within the Universe. Omnipotence (all powerful) could just mean that anything that is possible is possible. Redundant? Yes. But the Universe itself having all the power in the Universe makes sense. Omnibenevolence is a tough one, but I would say existence is the opposite of non-existence, and that alone could be considered the greatest good considering life doesn't want to not exist.

My point is that people throw around the word God too damn much. OP is flawed just like the faith he so easily dismisses because it doesn't get beyond limitations of language, much less beyond the limitations of finding primary causes and ultimate origin. Guess what, nobody can get beyond these things. An argument only alludes to something, the proof of anything is itself and nothing else. So in that sense I could take the easy way out and say nothing you write or say could ever prove anything beyond your scientific tests that encompass a grain of sand in an entire desert. Logical Soundness is as close as you can get, but it's still a mirage filled with real world exception, no matter how nicely the words appear to follow.

In other words, your argument is hypocritical, much like those of many other athiests/theists.

 

[Air]

It's all semantics, in my opinion. If I were to say God exists, I would personally say that God is simply everything, or the Universe throughout all time. Is the Universe sentient? Maybe. Omniscient? Omniscience (all knowing) could simply mean that all knowledge is contained within the Universe. Omnipotence (all powerful) could just mean that anything that is possible is possible. Redundant? Yes. But the Universe itself having all the power in the Universe makes sense. Omnibenevolence is a tough one, but I would say existence is the opposite of non-existence, and that alone could be considered the greatest good considering life doesn't want to not exist.

My point is that people throw around the word God too damn much. OP is flawed just like the faith he so easily dismisses because it doesn't get beyond limitations of language, much less beyond the limitations of primary causes and ultimate origin. Guess what, nobody can get beyond these things. An argument only alludes to something, the proof of anything is itself and nothing else. So in that sense I could take the easy way out and say nothing you write or say could ever prove anything beyond your scientific tests that encompass a grain of sand in an entire desert. Logical Soundness is as close as you can get, but it's still a mirage filled with real world exception, no matter how nicely the words appear to follow.

In other words, your argument is hypocritical, much like those of many other athiests/theists.

Thank you

God is as real as Santa and the Easter Bunny. I find it hard to believe that people in this day and age are so stupid as to believe in any of this nonsense.

Oh well, it keeps the insane somewhat sane I guess. More props to people who believe in their own actions.

Til theists don't believe in their own actions. Whatever that means.

 

[Exploding8]

I think this most certainly cannot be the case. Our universe may be embedded in some higher dimension or ever increasing reductionary mechanic. But it would be naturalistic emergence of complexity. I'm more certain that we don't live in a simulation constructed by a higher intelligent power than I am about my own atheism.

He's talking about a philosophical theory derived from the multiverse theory that says if it's possible to make a simulated universe in some of those other universes then the number of simulated universes are infinitely larger than the number of original universes, which would then mean it's more likely we're in a simulated universe than an original one.

The multiverse theories and simulated universe theories are on the same level as religion; that is, they are all completely unfalsifiable. So while you can't say any one of them is false, none of them are very useful from a scientific standpoint, as science is built on the idea of falsifiability; if there is no conceivable scenario in which something could be proven wrong, then it isn't a scientific theory.

 

[The Adder]

Without humanity there would be no Religion that should be the end of any discussion about Religion or God.

There is NO religion in any other animal on this world none, zip, nada this says all you need to know about Religion.
No other animal ever besides humans believed in anything religion or god.
Religion would not exist without humans which means ANY AND ALL RELIGION EVER INVENTED was created by Humans it is really that simple and i agree with you op i also dont get it like at all.

You realize that animals don't have any concept of many actual proven scientific principles, correct?

Declaring something false because only humans have conceived of it it is kind of dumb, dude.

It's basically declaring that we at this current time are at the absolute pinnacle of human knowledge and that from now on any hypotheses that anyone forms but cannot immediately prove must inherently be false because only humans believe it could be true.

 

[injurai]

He's talking about a philosophical theory derived from the multiverse theory that says if it's possible to make a simulated universe in some of those other universes then the number of simulated universes are infinitely larger than the number of original universes, which would then mean it's more likely we're in a simulated universe than an original one.

The multiverse theories and simulated universe theories are on the same level as religion; that is, they are all completely unfalsifiable. So while you can't say any one of them is false, none of them are very useful from a scientific standpoint, as science is built on the idea of falsifiability; if there is no conceivable scenario in which something could be proven wrong, then it isn't a scientific theory.

I wasn't getting that from his original topic. I'm not sure I buy that there are more simulated universes than "real universes." They share the same cardinality of infinite. That being uncountably infinite.

We simply don't know if multiverse theories are unfalsifiable, but I am very confidence that the simulation by a higher power theory is testable to the ends of dictating how we act in accordance to the results. I touched on it early in this thread if you want to take a look.

 

[joshbob1985]

The multiverse theories and simulated universe theories are on the same level as religion;.

I'm not sure that's true. There are many different multiverse theories in physics, some of which may be verifiable through experimentation one day.

 

[The Adder]

I wasn't getting that from his original topic. I'm not sure I buy that there are more simulated universes than "real universes." They share the same cardinality of infinite. That being uncountably infinite.

There are orders of magnitudes of infinity. For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers, which means there is also an infinite amount of even numbers, but the infinity of all numbers is > the infinity of even numbers.

 

[AkuMifune]

In a different multiverse, intelligent life created artificial intelligent life which eventually became the dominant lifeform and began running simulations and creating universes in order to bug test the laws of reality in separate, unique controlled simulated environments. We exist in such a universe. Is then our god an AI or the life that originally created it? Does it matter? Will I get to play Fallout 4 before become a pile of ash or fucking not?

 

[Exploding8]

We simply don't know if multiverse theories are unfalsifiable

I mean maybe we're looking at different theories here, but the multiverse theory I read about had the other universes being completely separate from our own; any observation or interaction between them is impossible by definition. If it were to ever become possible they would no longer be considered separate universes, but instead would be considered one universe. This is why the theories are unfalsifiable; you can always say the other universes go unobserved, just like everything that would go against religious teachings are "a test of faith" or "part of God's plan". You can't prove we're not in a simulated universe, because by definition you would never be able to observe the original universe as described in that particular theory. You could say you think you've found an original universe, but the theory would just say it's all part of the simulation.

 

[injurai]

There are orders of magnitudes of infinity. For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers, which means there is also an infinite amount of even numbers, but the infinity of all numbers is > the infinity of even numbers.

Careful. There are two cardinalities of infinite. Countable and Uncountable infinite. Reals > Integers. But Integers = Only Even integers.

I am very much talking about these two orders. And the infinite amount of universes in a multiverse. And the infinite amount of simulated universes done within each universe which is part of the set of infinite universes in the multiverse. Would share the same cardinality of infinite. That being Uncountably infinite.

So you can't claim it is more likely that the universe we do life in, is a simulated one as opposed to a "real" or "quantum based" one.

 

[Zukuu]

I would be so down to strip religion from all power. Belief whatever you want, but don't impact others negatively or enforce your BS onto others.

 

[Africanus]

Is someone going to explain the fedora thing?

Fedora was brought about from teenage, typically various American white males who wore triblys and oddly called them Fedoras. Certain people of this group who were socially awkward, were also atheists, and posted such things as how "enlightened" they were for it. Quite arrogantly I might add. From there, as many things on the internet, it spiraled out of control, with people annoyingly applying "Fedora" or "Neckbeard" to any atheist related, without actually putting effort into a proper rejoinder of the rhetoric. It only adds to the social ostracization atheists face in the United States, and I'd rather people refrain from it.

It was too meta for this forum sorry.
I just think that a large majority of people always have a sense of wonder, and can't help but think at the beauty of it all , at the sense it does, as why we're here and what were before us. And then another large majority of people need a sense of community, of being part of an order, of having structures in society that cannot be broken.
The formers are spiritualist religious people. They don't believe in rules, they believe in the "beauty" of nature if you like.
The latters believe in order, and not in people. They want to believe they are part of something important because they can't see importance in the beauty of nature itself. Those are the majority of the "religious" people of today. Which i'd argue are really not religious at all; more like bind in cultural and societal dogmas, not in the exploration of the self and the unknown.

The problem here imho is that modern "religions" have all a basis in the spirituality that more or less all human have, but use it only a pretext to justify societal structures, and not push toward those feels we innately have. The simple idea that something can be true always for such fickle, variable things like human societies and moral values require you to refuse any change for the worse but for the better too, it deny progress itself, it's a dead branch in the evolutionary tree of ideas.

So no, i don't think religion itself is stupid because i think a lot of people used it a source of motivation. Many scientist of the antiquity like Galileo itself was drawn by the conviction that things had to be simple and elegant because a creator god did them, but in general, it's a more primitive instinct. It wasn't religion that put in prison, it was the church a very temporal power. Einstein was pretty similar, and his faith in a perfect order was so strong that he rejected Quantum Mechanics for many years, before the actual implications of the theory were clear.

The discussion on God is really similar on the discussion on numbers in a sense. You can't prove that either exist (it's an interesting discussion, the one between idealists, concretists and symbolists i believe, i dunno the exact english denomination for those three train of thoughts). Well, at least number works.

Thank you for your well thought out response. The motivation theory is interesting and I believe it holds some truth, as well as the dead branch of thought.

 

[Exploding8]

I'm not sure that's true. There are many different multiverse theories in physics, some of which may be verifiable through experimentation one day.

I'm talking about a philosophical theory, not scientific ones. The philosophical theory I'm talking about describes universes which can't interact with each other. The act of observing another universe to exist is an interaction; it would cause changes just by the act of having been observed, so the universe observed and the universe observed from would be connected and would not be considered separate universes.

Edit: a theory, not the theories, I only read about one from a couple philosophers lol

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Oh my god.

What are you, 19?

You're *that* guy at Thanksgiving dinner aren't you?

Family: "Let us give thanks to God for our-"
OP: "YOU KNOW GOD'S NOT REAL?"

 

[injurai]

I mean maybe we're looking at different theories here, but the multiverse theory I read about had the other universes being completely separate from our own; any observation or interaction between them is impossible by definition. If it were to ever become possible they would no longer be considered separate universes, but instead would be considered one universe. This is why the theories are unfalsifiable; you can always say the other universes go unobserved, just like everything that would go against religious teachings are "a test of faith" or "part of God's plan". You can't prove we're not in a simulated universe, because by definition you would never be able to observe the original universe as described in that particular theory. You could say you think you've found an original universe, but the theory would just say it's all part of the simulation.

If the reality of the universe is that it subdivides into these disjoint sub-universes then they do share connection that being through time. The connection to the greater universe is through the big-bang itself. Traveling through that dimension of time would get you there, we just can't do it. So in some sense yes it would be one universe, "multiverse" can be seen as a term of convenience. Truly purely separate universes have no bearing to even matter, even if actually existing. The later is not the theory though that physicists concern themselves with.

Again something that is unfalsifiable is inconsequential to our lives. That includes if we were to be a simulation by something divine of greater than us. Either that creator has separated itself from influencing us that it does matter in our lives, it it can influence us. Making it both falsifiable and being the only condition in which such a god would be relevant to proclaim devotion to. Well I do think we can test what is the nature of our simulation if it were to be one, thus far we see no evidence that the later case would be true. Such such a being is inconsequential. But I'm very confident we can go farther and say we don't live in a simulation as we personify or anthropomorphize as some divine programmer. This has to due with the very nature of computation. I touch on this in my earlier comments, I don't feel like rewriting it.

 

[The Adder]

Careful. There are two cardinalities of infinite. Countable and Uncountable infinite. Reals > Integers. But Integers = Only Even integers.

I am very much talking about these two orders. And the infinite amount of universes in a multiverse. And the infinite amount of simulated universes done within each universe which is part of the set of infinite universes in the multiverse. Would share the same cardinality of infinite. That being Uncountably infinite.

So you can't claim it is more likely that the universe we do life in, is a simulated one as opposed to a "real" or "quantum based" one.

If there are an infinite number of universes and it is possible to simulate a universe, there are an infinite number of universes in which a universe has been simulated.

If it is possible to simulate more than one universe at a time, then there are an infinite number of universes with 2+ universes.

The universes without a simulated universe do not subtract from the number of simulated universes.

(Incalculable infinity)(a number > 1)+Incalculable infinity > Incalculable infinity.

If universes can be simulated then there have to be more simulated universes than real ones.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yeah. I agree that most religions are bullshit, but until science can explain what religion tries to do it's better to keep an open mind. The big bang is a start, but raises more questions than answers. And even when we explain the creation of this universe, what about the others? What about the nature of reality outside of these multiverses? Science don't know shit, and we need to stop acting like we have it figured out.

It all still feels like a failed experiment to me anyway.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean jumping on literally made up from nothing answers.

Oh my god.

What are you, 19?

You're *that* guy at Thanksgiving dinner aren't you?

Family: "Let us give thanks to God for our-"
OP: "YOU KNOW GOD'S NOT REAL?"

I agree. Voicing a socially unacceptable opinion on an internet forum? That's the most cowardly and assholish thing a person can do, and exactly like being belligerent at a family dinner.

 

[joshbob1985]

I'm talking about a philosophical theory, not scientific ones. The philosophical theory I'm talking about describes universes which can't interact with each other. The act of observing another universe to exist is an interaction; it would cause changes just by the act of having been observed, so the universe observed and the universe observed from would be connected and would not be considered separate universes.

Edit: a theory, not the theories, I only read about one from a couple philosophers lol

Ah, ok. But it is possible that the existence of other universes could be indirectly verified. If a model for the origin of the universe makes 50 predictions, one of which is the multiverse, then experimentally verifying the other 49 predictions could lead us to conclude that there is a multiverse.

 

[Exploding8]

Again something that is unfalsifiable is inconsequential to our lives.

That is clearly not true given how much religion, which is unfalsifiable, has had an impact on world history and people's beliefs. Inconsequential to science maybe, but not our lives.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I know I've said it before but to me, one of the biggest indicators of religion being a false, man-made construct, is that people only believe what they believe because of the location and year of their birth. First of all, all babies are born atheists. If you were to raise a child in a cave with no contact with anyone, they would have no idea of a God (or it would be completely different, maybe their God would be a trickle of water that kept them alive or something, sunlight peeking through a crack, etc). People have no idea of a God until it is taught to them... it's not intrinsic. Secondly, if people were born 3,000 years ago, or 3,000 years in the future, their idea of a God would be completely different than it is today. Or if someone was born in the US, or parts of Europe, or the Middle East, or maybe a different planet... all would directly influence who or what you believe in.

IMO, all of these are hardly signs of an all-knowing, all-encompassing, omnipotent God, but quite the opposite. If one did exist, it would not need to be taught to people when they are young and innocent where they will not ask as many questions, and the belief would not depend on the location and year of someone's birth. Unless of course, the concept was man-made. Conversely, science and math transcend time and do not rely on someone's location of birth, they are universal and repeatable concepts that use natural laws (but I know that they are not comparable as it's not entirely faith-based of course, just making an aside).

And I dislike how some believe that in the debate about faith, it's an atheist's equal and opposite duty to disprove God just as much as it is a theist's duty to prove God. Like I said, all people are born atheists, it's the default position... a lack of faith. The theists are the ones making the claim that a supernatural God exists, therefore the onus of proof lies on them, not on those in the default category.

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

Well you haven't disapproved my belief in any way, so

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Well you haven't disapproved my belief in any way, so

That's not how it works.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Lol teenagers.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I know I've said it before but to me, one of the biggest indicators of religion being a false, man-made construct, is that people only believe what they believe because of the location and year of their birth. First of all, all babies are born atheists. If you were to raise a child in a cave with no contact with anyone, they would have no idea of a God (or it would be completely different, maybe their God would be a trickle of water that kept them alive or something, sunlight peeking through a crack, etc). People have no idea of a God until it is taught to them... it's not intrinsic. Secondly, if people were born 3,000 years ago, or 3,000 years in the future, their idea of a God would be completely different than it is today. Or if someone was born in the US, or parts of Europe, or the Middle East, or maybe a different planet... all would directly influence who or what you believe in.

IMO, all of these are hardly signs of an all-knowing, all-encompassing, omnipotent God, but quite the opposite. If one did exist, it would not need to be taught to people when they are young and innocent where they will not ask as many questions, and the belief would not depend on the location and year of someone's birth. Unless of course, the concept was man-made. Conversely, science and math transcend time and do not rely on someone's location of birth, they are universal and repeatable concepts that use natural laws (but I know that they are not comparable as it's not entirely faith-based of course, just making an aside).

And I dislike how some believe that in the debate about faith, it's an atheist's equal and opposite duty to disprove God just as much as it is a theist's duty to prove God. Like I said, all people are born atheists, it's the default position... a lack of faith. The theists are the ones making the claim that a supernatural God exists, therefore the onus of proof lies on them, not on those in the default category.

scientifically you are looking for the rarest thing not on earth, not in the galaxy but in the seen universe and beyond, One which is everywhere but being only ONE if you look at it elementally or want to measure it, you cannot measure physically, something which is everywhere and is one which is the rarest of all things possible.

A believer believes in this unseen thing as the driving force for their existence and a disbeliever cannot conceive that THE rarest thing which will ever exist while being everywhere. It is beyond the comprehension of the science, rather in any dimension, unmeasurable yet existing

 

[graffix13]

Will I get to play Fallout 4 before become a pile of ash or fucking not?

Magic (sentient?) 8-ball says "Not likely".

 

[Africanus]

scientifically you are looking for the rarest thing not on earth, not in the galaxy but in the seen universe and beyond, One which is everywhere but being only ONE if you look at it elementally or want to measure it, you cannot measure physically, something which is everywhere and is one which is the rarest of all things possible.

A believer believes in this unseen thing as the driving force for their existence and a disbeliever cannot conceive that THE rarest thing which will ever exist while being everywhere. It is beyond the comprehension of the science, rather in any dimension, unmeasurable yet existing

It cannot be "everywhere" and yet the rarest thing ever. You state a believer but every believer of religions can and do have different interpretations (From God being this "mysterious" ethereal being to God being a large rock). And then, where did it come from? Why did that being suddenly stop speaking for the Abrahamic interpretations? It's beyond comprehension because it is illogical.

 

[Zingerale]

scientifically you are looking for the rarest thing not on earth, not in the galaxy but in the seen universe and beyond, One which is everywhere but being only ONE if you look at it elementally or want to measure it, you cannot measure physically, something which is everywhere and is one which is the rarest of all things possible.

A believer believes in this unseen thing as the driving force for their existence and a disbeliever cannot conceive that THE rarest thing which will ever exist while being everywhere. It is beyond the comprehension of the science, rather in any dimension, unmeasurable yet existing

Indeed. Our imagination is unmeasurable by science.

 

[The Adder]

That's not how it works.

If your goal is convincing other people to change their beliefs it is.

Unfalsifiability is not sufficient to prove the existence of something, however falsifiability is the bare minimum to convince someone they're wrong about something.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It cannot be "everywhere" and yet the rarest thing ever. You state a believer but every believer of religions can and do have different interpretations (From God being this "mysterious" ethereal being to God being a large rock). And then, where did it come from? Why did that being suddenly stop speaking for the Abrahamic interpretations? It's beyond comprehension because it is illogical.

This is the definition of God at least in Abrahamic sense. One and everywhere and this is the belief and why its unmeasurable in that sense. As per Abrahamic religions, Prophets or men of God have been sent to every people, what happened to their followers as they went astray or moulded into the newer faiths is just part of history over the course of thousands of years of man's existence. Another tangible proof of existence is we see that all the Prophets of Religion suffered as a result of declaring their faith. All of them were looked as Honest and examples of honestly and as soon as faith was declared, they were ironically declared dishonest and put into suffering by their very people. Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jonah, Job, Zakariyya and Muhammad are all Abrahamic prophets that I can think of on the top of my head who suffered as soon as they declared their faith and were considered by their oppoonents as honest men before declaration of faith. Most see the honest who declared A God called dishonest as a testament that they were true men of God.
In essence the nature of man to not believe the unseen made them call the previously honest the dishonest and the ones who suffered expanded despite being persecuted by the people until they overcame those who persecuted

 

[Zingerale]

This is the definition of God at least in Abrahamic sense. One and everywhere and this is the belief and why its unmeasurable in that sense. As per Abrahamic religions, Prophets or men of God have been sent to every people, what happened to their followers as they went astray or moulded into the newer faiths is just part of history over the course of thousands of years of man's existence.

The universe is one and everywhere.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

 

[y2dvd]

If mankind are descendants of God(s), then why we still have fedoras?

 

[riskVSreward]

All these fedora and neck-beard tropes just make theists look way too defensive and immature. Have a little more faith in the face of doubt!

Personally, I think its just another sign that religion is on the way out.

 

[Ishida]

If mankind are descendants of God(s), then why we still have fedoras?

Free will and all that.

 

[The Beard]

Pics of OP:

Is that really you OP?

It's difficult for me to understand how anyone can believe in any religion. There are so many intentionally built-in excuses to fight nonbelievers, it's unreal.

Q: Why do little kids get cancer and have to spend what little time they do have on earth in excruciating pain getting chemo, surgeries, and radiation only to die shortly after ?

A: God works in mysterious ways.

My response: Fuck off.

 

[rambis]

Is that really you OP?

It's difficult for me to understand how anyone can believe in any religion. There are so many intentionally built-in excuses to fight nonbelievers, it's unreal.

Q: Why do little kids get cancer and have to spend what little time they do have on earth in excruciating pain getting chemo, surgeries, and radiation only to die shortly after ?

A: God works in mysterious ways.

My response: Fuck off.

Well chemo, surgeries and radiation are all man made solutions to cancer so ask man.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about religion is that god plays an active role in everything about everybody's life. And that everything that happens is part of his grand plan.

 

[DragonSworne]

Well chemo, surgeries and radiation are all man made solutions to cancer so ask man.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about religion is that god plays an active role in everything about everybody's life. And that everything that happens is part of his grand plan.

Yep, God only cares about some of us.

 

[Zingerale]

Well chemo, surgeries and radiation are all man made solutions to cancer so ask man.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about religion is that god plays an active role in everything about everybody's life. And that everything that happens is part of his grand plan.

His plan is for everything to be chaotic and random it seems.

 

[Nvzman]

I would be so down to strip religion from all power. Belief whatever you want, but don't impact others negatively or enforce your BS onto others.

I find that extremely hypocritical considering OP is basically trying to shove atheism down our throat.
And really, I fail to see how religion influences the economy. The only thing it impacts is gay/trans/abortion laws (at least in the US), but that is just the common people's opinions, religion doesn't matter that much.

 

[teruterubozu]

Lol teenagers.

College students are worse. The discovery of profound ideas can be thoroughly annoying.

 

[Two Words]

I don't get the excessive mocking of teens and younger 20s people for openly criticizing religion. I understand the extreme cases where the person may be completely obnoxious. But in most cases, it seems like the person is saying something perfectly fine. People just take what they say, read it in some nerdy voice and mock them for probably being very fat and unkempt.

 

[Clinton514]

College students are worse. The discovery of profound ideas can be thoroughly annoying.

Sounds like a good portion of GAF users. #hides.

 

[The Beard]

His plan is for everything to be chaotic and random it seems.

Yes, it's almost as if everything would be exactly as it is today if there were no God.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I honestly prefer discussing the implications of God's existence rather than his actual existence.

If by the Christian description of God we assume that God:

a) Has a plan for everyone and everything
b) Is omnipotent
c) Is omnipresent
d) doesn't intervene anymore

Then what are the implications of him existing vs not existing? If he has a plan for everything the world moves along as it currently does, if he is omnipotent then that means he knows everything that will happen or that could have happened. If he is omnipresent then that means that he is everywhere all the time

Spoiler

this right here is fun because if his is everywhere then he is no where, because you cannot compare where he is vs where he isn't but this is silly logic and I don't really like it

.

Now if we assume God does not exist then the only thing that really changes is that suddenly:

a) Everyone has free will

Now let's think about this. The difference between free will and predestination is only apparent if you are an omnipotent being, because a person with free will could appear to have more branches per action while a predestined person only has one. So really to the mere mortal observer what ends up being different is nothing.

A world with God and a world without God fundamentally carry on in the exact same manner.

So draw your own conclusion based on that.

 

[Damaniel]

Oh my god.

What are you, 19?

You're *that* guy at Thanksgiving dinner aren't you?

Family: "Let us give thanks to God for our-"
OP: "YOU KNOW GOD'S NOT REAL?"

Sounds like it, pretty much. While I grew up as a church going person who didn't mind it all that much, I've been an atheist since my teens. One thing I've learned over the years is that respecting the beliefs of others is very important. Just because I don't believe in a higher power doesn't mean I need to pounce on believers about their faith. I also respect those beliefs in regards to tradition; I say grace at meals held by religious family members, attend church-held weddings and funerals (and at least make the motions of praying when others do, even if I don't consider it very useful or fruitful), and I never put others down for their strongly-held beliefs.

Really, when it comes down to it, my only real issue in regards to religion versus atheism is that religious ideology drives our government more than ever. I'd like to go back to the idea of the separation between church and state as an absolute. Other than that, people should be able to practice their belief (or non-belief) as they see fit, and do so in a way that doesn't disparage the beliefs of others.

(As to the ideas outlined in this post, they don't particularly concern me. I'm generally an agnostic atheist, and while I don't believe in a higher power, I don't spend much time thinking about it, or trying to prove/disprove it in one way or another, even if it were possible to do so.)

 

[teruterubozu]

I don't get the excessive mocking of teens and younger 20s people for openly criticizing religion. I understand the extreme cases where the person may be completely obnoxious. But in most cases, it seems like the person is saying something perfectly fine. People just take what they say, read it in some nerdy voice and mock them for probably being very fat and unkempt.

I was talking about both sides, actually. It's a growing process, nothing wrong with it.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Is that really you OP?

It's difficult for me to understand how anyone can believe in any religion. There are so many intentionally built-in excuses to fight nonbelievers, it's unreal.

Q: Why do little kids get cancer and have to spend what little time they do have on earth in excruciating pain getting chemo, surgeries, and radiation only to die shortly after ?

A: God works in mysterious ways.

My response: Fuck off.

In case you did not know, an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

 

[Two Words]

I honestly prefer discussing the implications of God's existence rather than his actual existence.

If by the Christian description of God we assume that God:

a) Has a plan for everyone and everything
b) Is omnipotent
c) Is omnipresent
d) doesn't intervene anymore

Then what are the implications of him existing vs not existing? If he has a plan for everything the world moves along as it currently does, if he is omnipotent then that means he knows everything that will happen or that could have happened. If he is omnipresent then that means that he is everywhere all the time

Spoiler

this right here is fun because if his is everywhere then he is no where, because you cannot compare where he is vs where he isn't but this is silly logic and I don't really like it

.

Now if we assume God does not exist then the only thing that really changes is that suddenly:

a) Everyone has free will

Now let's think about this. The difference between free will and predestination is only apparent if you are an omnipotent being, because a person with free will could appear to have more branches per action while a predestined person only has one. So really to the mere mortal observer what ends up being different is nothing.

A world with God and a world without God fundamentally carry on in the exact same manner.

So draw your own conclusion based on that.

No God doesn't mean we have free will. Determinism doesn't need a god. It can be argued that every choice and action we make are based on our environment and biology. Neither of which are our choosing. Therefore, we are simply products.

 

[CornBurrito]

In case you did not know, an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

In that case, "God works in mysterious ways" is an assertion without evidence.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

No God doesn't mean we have free will. Determinism doesn't need a god. It can be argued that every choice and action we make are based on our environment and biology. Neither of which are our choosing. Therefore, we are simply products.

That is true, but does that really change anything anyways? Free will vs determinism look the same and feel the same, unless you're an omnipotent observer.