Poll

If a god exists is it most likely good or evil?

Evil22%22% - 13
Good23%23% - 14
Neutral54%54% - 32
Total: 59
13rin
Member
+977|6449

m3thod wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

what about tit cancer?
They sinned by not worshipping enough cock.
Christina Applegate?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Vilham wrote:

imortal wrote:


Someone just might have a bit of inflated self worth.  If God spoke to us in terms that would leave no doubt, then there would be no need for faith, would there?

Oh, and the "I did not see or hear it so it does not exist" argument is a bit egocentric as well.  Not to mention fallacious.  I have not seen a black hole with my own eyes, but I believe they exist.
Worst example possible with the black hole. You can see direct effects of the black hole.
I would not say the worst possible... but you have a point that it is a bad example.   Granted, there is also an argument that you can see the results of God's handiwork wherever you look, but that is also a bad example, and a good start for the entire thread to decend to a shouting match. 

Would quantum theory be a better argument?

Also, would it be more acceptable to call religeous belief "The Theory of God?"  After all, without proof, all faith really is is an idea.
It's a baseless idea without math and empirical evidence to back it up.
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Worst example possible with the black hole. You can see direct effects of the black hole.
I would not say the worst possible... but you have a point that it is a bad example.   Granted, there is also an argument that you can see the results of God's handiwork wherever you look, but that is also a bad example, and a good start for the entire thread to decend to a shouting match. 

Would quantum theory be a better argument?

Also, would it be more acceptable to call religeous belief "The Theory of God?"  After all, without proof, all faith really is is an idea.
It's a baseless idea without math and empirical evidence to back it up.
...so, a philosophy, then?

Really, all it comes down to is how to function with each other in a society.  All the religion aspect does is to provide an 'unassailable' justification of the imposition of ideas designed to allow for the functioning of a society.  "Because God says so," sounds much more authoritative than i"I said so," if someone is questioning WHY something has to happen (for the good of the community, like banishing a deseased person).  Unfortunately, over time the principles tend to get stretched and mis-interpeted.
pyscofrawg
AKA Selkies ftw
+55|6375|Earth
The idea of a god is laughable. The thought that such a being would actually care about humans is blatant arrogance.

bakinacake wrote:

You can see direct effects of God, just look down.
People who say things like this make me want eat broken glass.

But anyways, if a god did exist, I would go with evil. The world sucks too much for it's "creator" to be pure good, and to ignore/not care about the Earth that it created is just evil.
Signature
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6642|Colorado

imortal wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

Come on people, pull yourselves out of the middle ages. Look to reason not some squishy feeling. If there was a God he would have talked to me through prayer the 4 years I was "born again", he didn't therefore he doesn't exist & the doctrine is null & void. I regret those 4 years of wasted life but at least my naive arse learned something.
Someone just might have a bit of inflated self worth.  If God spoke to us in terms that would leave no doubt, then there would be no need for faith, would there?

Oh, and the "I did not see or hear it so it does not exist" argument is a bit egocentric as well.  Not to mention fallacious.  I have not seen a black hole with my own eyes, but I believe they exist.
No not inflated, I know my worth. Faith , how convenient it doesn't help anything or do anything other than give you some fuzzy I hope I get into heaven feelings. Thanks but I'll take reason any day & will live this life how I want, not how some other person is telling me too or hoping for some other perfect life. No my perfect life is now without someone else's control mechanisms involved in my decision making.
How is it egocentric to pray for 4 years with no response, maybe stupid but not ego at all. I asure everyone I was listening with everything I had.
Fallacious?!! No sir if anything is illogical, deceptive or misleading it's your belief in some supernatual being that you have no proof of other than a few words your pastor or bible tell you to recite to non-believers.
Blackholes have been proven so you really fail on that point. Anything else?
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6331|Vancouver
If we were to assume a god being as similar to human concepts, particularly the Abrahamic model, did exist (as unlikely as it may be), he would be an evil fuck, and one I would never worship regardless of existence.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6075|eXtreme to the maX
Null - There is no god.
If there is they don't deserve a second of my time.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-04 03:42:53)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6519|UK

pyscofrawg wrote:

The idea of a god is laughable. The thought that such a being would actually care about humans is blatant arrogance.

bakinacake wrote:

You can see direct effects of God, just look down.
People who say things like this make me want eat

broken glass.

But anyways, if a god did exist, I would go with evil. The world sucks too much for it's "creator" to be pure good, and to ignore/not care about the Earth that it created is just evil.
Would you consider someone who kills a fly with a news paper ''evil''?
pyscofrawg
AKA Selkies ftw
+55|6375|Earth

Bell wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

The idea of a god is laughable. The thought that such a being would actually care about humans is blatant arrogance.

bakinacake wrote:

You can see direct effects of God, just look down.
People who say things like this make me want eat

broken glass.

But anyways, if a god did exist, I would go with evil. The world sucks too much for it's "creator" to be pure good, and to ignore/not care about the Earth that it created is just evil.
Would you consider someone who kills a fly with a news paper ''evil''?
If you are asking if humans are evil, then the answer is yes.
Signature
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:


I would not say the worst possible... but you have a point that it is a bad example.   Granted, there is also an argument that you can see the results of God's handiwork wherever you look, but that is also a bad example, and a good start for the entire thread to decend to a shouting match. 

Would quantum theory be a better argument?

Also, would it be more acceptable to call religeous belief "The Theory of God?"  After all, without proof, all faith really is is an idea.
It's a baseless idea without math and empirical evidence to back it up.
...so, a philosophy, then?

Really, all it comes down to is how to function with each other in a society.  All the religion aspect does is to provide an 'unassailable' justification of the imposition of ideas designed to allow for the functioning of a society.  "Because God says so," sounds much more authoritative than i"I said so," if someone is questioning WHY something has to happen (for the good of the community, like banishing a deseased person).  Unfortunately, over time the principles tend to get stretched and mis-interpeted.
I can agree with that.  Religion is quite literally a "glorified" philosophy.  But, unlike most philosophies, there isn't much of a logical basis for it.  Choosing a religion is entirely arbitrary, since we have no evidence to support one or another.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Yeah, let's categorize God into a D&D alignment because we obviously know so much about the matter.
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6361|Wollongong, NSW, Australia
"I fail to understand why God was so cruel to us"

There's humanity in a nutshell folks, begging for an explanation as to why we're so fucking stupid.
Strangely, I went and saw DEVO in concert last week and I think the whole de-evolution thing might have some truth to it.

Monkeys with cars.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6075|eXtreme to the maX
There's humanity in a nutshell folks, begging for an explanation as to why we're so fucking stupid.
I for one would like to know why God in his benevolence created:
Cancer
Heart disease
Congenital defects
Progressive degenerative diseases
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Dilbert_X wrote:

There's humanity in a nutshell folks, begging for an explanation as to why we're so fucking stupid.
I for one would like to know why God in his benevolence created:
Cancer
Heart disease
Congenital defects
Progressive degenerative diseases
Ever hear of Job?

Seriously, I think some people assume that if there is a god, then he would be just like one of the religions says, usually, the Judeo-Christian one.

ALL of the religions can be partially or completely wrong, and that would not prove that there really is no god.  It would just mean that we were wrong in assuming things about god. (and yes, if that is the case, does it really matter?)

The various faiths call him benevolant, but that does not make him so.  Also, perhaps there is a benifit to those things we think of that are so terrible that we can not see from our extremely limited point of view?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
I understand what you're saying, imortal, but what's the point of believing in something you have no way of proving?  Doesn't it make the most sense to just not pick a religion due to the lack of evidence supporting any of them?

Again, anything is possible, but the likelihood of any religion being correct is extremely low.  The likelihood of even vaguely understanding this supposed being is very low as well.
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

I understand what you're saying, imortal, but what's the point of believing in something you have no way of proving?  Doesn't it make the most sense to just not pick a religion due to the lack of evidence supporting any of them?

Again, anything is possible, but the likelihood of any religion being correct is extremely low.  The likelihood of even vaguely understanding this supposed being is very low as well.
I agree with you on both of those viewpoints.  But I have always stated that the important part of a religion are its rules for regulating society and how we act in it.  The Ten Commandments, for example.  Take out 'keeping the sabbath holy' and 'worship no other gods before me,' the rest of the rules just make sense, from the standpoint of community relations.

I have also always said that if someone questions the rules (for their own benifit, nearly always), "beause God says so" is harder to argue with than "because I said so."

And lastly... someone, and I wish I could remember who, said "Anything we do not know, is God." 

Ancient man did not know that it was gravity that pulled the fruits form the tree to the ground, so God did it.
They did not know that bacteria caused disease, so God did it.
Eclipses and earthquakes were signs from God.
God brought the rain, and God caused the draughts.

Yes, it is a rationalization to help to label the unknown, and make it less terrifying.  Maybe we can see it as a placemarker for future knowledge to go.

...and now?  We do not know how or why the Big Bang happened.  So God did it.
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

TrollmeaT wrote:

Fallacious?!! No sir if anything is illogical, deceptive or misleading it's your belief in some supernatual being that you have no proof of other than a few words your pastor or bible tell you to recite to non-believers.
I have a challenge for you.  Go back in this, as well as any and all previous God threads, and find a statement, by me and in context, that I say flat out that "there is a God."  I dare you.

Try not to make assumptions about me, please.  I have tried to provide points of argument, clarification, or debate points.  I do not recall ever stating my personal beliefs.  If I have, I stated them as only my beliefs, and have never tried to pass them off as bold fact.

And yes, stating there is no God because he did not personally speak to you is pretty much the very definition of egotism.

Ever see Bruse Almighty?  Funny movie.  Remember the part where he was driving and praying to God to show him a sign?  Remember the truck full of road signs that pulled out in front of him?

You may have been listening carefully, but who is to say if you were listening or watching the right things, or if you even recognized if or when it happened?  Who knows, maybe you were praying to the wrong god after all.  All of those are just as likely as your "There is no God" statement.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I understand what you're saying, imortal, but what's the point of believing in something you have no way of proving?  Doesn't it make the most sense to just not pick a religion due to the lack of evidence supporting any of them?

Again, anything is possible, but the likelihood of any religion being correct is extremely low.  The likelihood of even vaguely understanding this supposed being is very low as well.
I agree with you on both of those viewpoints.  But I have always stated that the important part of a religion are its rules for regulating society and how we act in it.  The Ten Commandments, for example.  Take out 'keeping the sabbath holy' and 'worship no other gods before me,' the rest of the rules just make sense, from the standpoint of community relations.

I have also always said that if someone questions the rules (for their own benifit, nearly always), "beause God says so" is harder to argue with than "because I said so."

And lastly... someone, and I wish I could remember who, said "Anything we do not know, is God." 

Ancient man did not know that it was gravity that pulled the fruits form the tree to the ground, so God did it.
They did not know that bacteria caused disease, so God did it.
Eclipses and earthquakes were signs from God.
God brought the rain, and God caused the draughts.

Yes, it is a rationalization to help to label the unknown, and make it less terrifying.  Maybe we can see it as a placemarker for future knowledge to go.

...and now?  We do not know how or why the Big Bang happened.  So God did it.
On principle, I agree.  Religion does work well to control people, especially stupid people.  I'm not saying everyone who is religious is stupid.  I even have good friends that are religious (many of whom are actually very smart), but...  I really do think religion began as something designed to control people because of how stupid so many people really are.  So, I agree that it serves well for keeping things stable.

Still, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm arguing that more intelligent and intellectual people should choose atheism because of the freedom it provides.  It allows people to ignore most tradition and follow logic more closely.  Granted, there are stupid atheists as well who ruin things just like the religious people that are stupid do....
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6331|Vancouver

imortal wrote:

Ever see Bruse Almighty?  Funny movie.  Remember the part where he was driving and praying to God to show him a sign?  Remember the truck full of road signs that pulled out in front of him?

You may have been listening carefully, but who is to say if you were listening or watching the right things, or if you even recognized if or when it happened?  Who knows, maybe you were praying to the wrong god after all.  All of those are just as likely as your "There is no God" statement.
Ah, the old argument that for whatever reason the gods decline to speak directly to humans, but instead use 'signs'. Naturally, this follows from the complete lack of interaction man has with his gods, and is an explanation for it. After all, if you talk to a god, you're a nut. Now, if someone fails to note these 'signs', the only possible explanation must be that this person is missing the 'signs'. How utterly convenient.
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Drakef wrote:

imortal wrote:

Ever see Bruse Almighty?  Funny movie.  Remember the part where he was driving and praying to God to show him a sign?  Remember the truck full of road signs that pulled out in front of him?

You may have been listening carefully, but who is to say if you were listening or watching the right things, or if you even recognized if or when it happened?  Who knows, maybe you were praying to the wrong god after all.  All of those are just as likely as your "There is no God" statement.
Ah, the old argument that for whatever reason the gods decline to speak directly to humans, but instead use 'signs'. Naturally, this follows from the complete lack of interaction man has with his gods, and is an explanation for it. After all, if you talk to a god, you're a nut. Now, if someone fails to note these 'signs', the only possible explanation must be that this person is missing the 'signs'. How utterly convenient.
I was offering possibilities; something I see precious other people here doing.  Also, because it is an old argument does not invalidate it.  And yes, it can be difficult to judge the possibilities of a 'message from god' from ordinary happenings; it does make it rather convient for hindsight, does it not?

The greeks used to refer to people who heard 'voices' as being touched by the gods.  Now, we just throw them in a nut house or out on the street.

"Sometimes, if you do things right, nobody will know you did them at all."  God, in Futurama

I am simply trying to debate here.  There has to be some wiggle room between "There is a God, and nothing you tell me will prove otherwise," and "There is NO God, and nothing you tell me will prove otherwise."
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Good points, imortal.  How about the position of "no one knows or can know that a god exists or doesn't exist, so what the fuck is the point?"  lol 
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I understand what you're saying, imortal, but what's the point of believing in something you have no way of proving?  Doesn't it make the most sense to just not pick a religion due to the lack of evidence supporting any of them?

Again, anything is possible, but the likelihood of any religion being correct is extremely low.  The likelihood of even vaguely understanding this supposed being is very low as well.
I agree with you on both of those viewpoints.  But I have always stated that the important part of a religion are its rules for regulating society and how we act in it.  The Ten Commandments, for example.  Take out 'keeping the sabbath holy' and 'worship no other gods before me,' the rest of the rules just make sense, from the standpoint of community relations.

I have also always said that if someone questions the rules (for their own benifit, nearly always), "beause God says so" is harder to argue with than "because I said so."

And lastly... someone, and I wish I could remember who, said "Anything we do not know, is God." 

Ancient man did not know that it was gravity that pulled the fruits form the tree to the ground, so God did it.
They did not know that bacteria caused disease, so God did it.
Eclipses and earthquakes were signs from God.
God brought the rain, and God caused the draughts.

Yes, it is a rationalization to help to label the unknown, and make it less terrifying.  Maybe we can see it as a placemarker for future knowledge to go.

...and now?  We do not know how or why the Big Bang happened.  So God did it.
On principle, I agree.  Religion does work well to control people, especially stupid people.  I'm not saying everyone who is religious is stupid.  I even have good friends that are religious (many of whom are actually very smart), but...  I really do think religion began as something designed to control people because of how stupid so many people really are.  So, I agree that it serves well for keeping things stable.

Still, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm arguing that more intelligent and intellectual people should choose atheism because of the freedom it provides.  It allows people to ignore most tradition and follow logic more closely.  Granted, there are stupid atheists as well who ruin things just like the religious people that are stupid do....
I fully agree that religion has been used to control the masses for ages.  However, I submit that it is how a few in power use religion as a weapon against the people; sometimes even formed the religion for exactly that purpose.  The in most religions is a message, usually one to find some sort of inner peace and tranquility, or to treat others kindly.  (Or to make war, as in Christianity, Judism, and Islam) 

Yes, too many people use it as a crutch.  Or as a tool.

I would think that, if you want freedom of action and thought, you choose a more agnostic path than an atheistic one.  To keep the door of possibility open.  After all, the existance of a god is unprovable, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

I fully agree that religion has been used to control the masses for ages.  However, I submit that it is how a few in power use religion as a weapon against the people; sometimes even formed the religion for exactly that purpose.  The in most religions is a message, usually one to find some sort of inner peace and tranquility, or to treat others kindly.  (Or to make war, as in Christianity, Judism, and Islam) 

Yes, too many people use it as a crutch.  Or as a tool.

I would think that, if you want freedom of action and thought, you choose a more agnostic path than an atheistic one.  To keep the door of possibility open.  After all, the existance of a god is unprovable, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
I follow the principle of Occam's Razor.  I assume the negative until I have proof of the positive.  It's kind of like the innocent until proven guilty idea.

More specifically, I'm a passive/weak atheist, not an active/strong one.
imortal
Member
+240|6634|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

I fully agree that religion has been used to control the masses for ages.  However, I submit that it is how a few in power use religion as a weapon against the people; sometimes even formed the religion for exactly that purpose.  The in most religions is a message, usually one to find some sort of inner peace and tranquility, or to treat others kindly.  (Or to make war, as in Christianity, Judism, and Islam) 

Yes, too many people use it as a crutch.  Or as a tool.

I would think that, if you want freedom of action and thought, you choose a more agnostic path than an atheistic one.  To keep the door of possibility open.  After all, the existance of a god is unprovable, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
I follow the principle of Occam's Razor.  I assume the negative until I have proof of the positive.  It's kind of like the innocent until proven guilty idea.

More specifically, I'm a passive/weak atheist, not an active/strong one.
And I won't fight you on any of that.  The entire purpose of this thread was to presuppose the existance of a God, and to debate whether that God can be considered Good or Evil, in light of events occuring in the name of God around the world.  That sound about right?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

I fully agree that religion has been used to control the masses for ages.  However, I submit that it is how a few in power use religion as a weapon against the people; sometimes even formed the religion for exactly that purpose.  The in most religions is a message, usually one to find some sort of inner peace and tranquility, or to treat others kindly.  (Or to make war, as in Christianity, Judism, and Islam) 

Yes, too many people use it as a crutch.  Or as a tool.

I would think that, if you want freedom of action and thought, you choose a more agnostic path than an atheistic one.  To keep the door of possibility open.  After all, the existance of a god is unprovable, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
I follow the principle of Occam's Razor.  I assume the negative until I have proof of the positive.  It's kind of like the innocent until proven guilty idea.

More specifically, I'm a passive/weak atheist, not an active/strong one.
And I won't fight you on any of that.  The entire purpose of this thread was to presuppose the existance of a God, and to debate whether that God can be considered Good or Evil, in light of events occuring in the name of God around the world.  That sound about right?
Fair enough...  I'm a compulsive derailer, so you'll have to excuse me.  lol

If I were religious, I'd simply assume that religious scriptures are highly metaphorical.  I'd also assume God is more like The Force from Star Wars -- a collective consciousness or energy form that is beyond good and evil.  I guess I'd be loosely Buddhist.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard