Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[neyo the king]

So, your saying that, when it comes to God, its best to just blindly say yes, because thinking rationally about it is pointless?

That, my friend, is faith, and faith is not a good argument. I like to think faith is somewhat akin to the argument, "I believe it is so, so it must be." That might be horribly biased and rude, but that's the way I see faith.

Also, please don't compare religion to chemistry, physics, or, any other scientific thingy. Sure, they are both mysterious, and are hard to explain, and some stuff we know happens, but not why. The difference between them is that science can be proven, where as religion is nothing but faith, faith, mindless, stupid motherfucking faith!

We don't have faith that water is wet, and the gravity keeps us grounded. We know they are because they have been proven to be.

We (by this I mean religious people) do have faith that a big ol guy/girl/guys/girls/guys and girls/guy and girl/something entirely different in the sky made everything.

You look at the above statement, and you don't think that religion is just something conceived by man thousands of years ago, to explain the unexplainable before science was known?

Then, I have to call you a fool. A fool who is to afraid to look at the simple truth.

Religion, all of it, every last motherfucking God/Goddess/Alien that is worshiped is made to either:

A) Explain the unexplainable to people, pre-science.
B) Make a quick buck from the confused masses.
C) Both A and B.

I, personally, don't see what there is to debate, when the answer is right there in front of your eyes.

The problem is that a majority of the world has a problem with letting go of the past. Religion was always a fail-safe against the unknown. And it still is today, in a world in which everything unexplained is explained, or is becoming clearer and clearer.

In my personal, completely biased opinion, religion is a thorn in the side of humanity, and the sooner it is out, the sooner we can continue on to more important things, like discovering the indiscoverable, or solving the problems of this planet.

I mean, God, what does it take to get through to you people?

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Alright, I think I see...

It's like, visiting a town where every other day the citizens' toes are smashed with a board, and being all like, "What the deuce?", and having the townspeople all confused that you're confused about it, because it's normalcy to them.

Or something.

Somewhat... except in this case there can never be an outsider and it's impossible to change anything, ever.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Alright, so now we all know the story. If my story was inaccurate, that's only because that's how I was taught it in church.

Yeah... to be honest, churches re-he-heally aren't the best place to learn about the bible.

Don't ask me, it's just what I've seen.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Makes... sense? God didn't want us to know things, because knowing things meant not being always happy? But... then... why even bother with all this? God only wants us to be happy? Then why let all that "original sin" stuff happen. He could have just, you know, not put the tree into the garden, within man's reach...

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

You see, my version, the serpent being the Devil and all that, was just what I was taught in church. Also, if God was willing to let us think, why didn't he give it to us in the first place, instead of pussy-footing around with all this tree nonsense?

God is indecisive!

Yes, I meant to put in there that my point was somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand, since mainstream Christianity as a whole accepts the serpent-devil... thing. And, really, it's not my job to be up here making all kinds of statements about which religion is more right or what the crap have you. I seem to have forgotten to put that in there.

However, looking at the same narrative from multiple perspectives seems, to me, to be the most encompassing way of getting at what it's saying. And the Genesis as Judaic Narrative and Genesis as Ubiquitous Creation Narrative are as legitimate a way of looking at it as Genesis as Christian Narrative.

I think mainstream Judaic and Christian interpretations say something about what the mainstream wants the story to purvey. I have absolutely no idea what that is, since the differences are principally minute and generally of little meaning, but there you are.

Now, back to God is indecisive: there was a whole thing, if I recall, about God granting free will. If we have ignorance is bliss on one side, and knowledge is suffering, but with KNOWLEDGE, maybe that's an equal trade, to him. The reason God doesn't pick one is because we were supposed to choose one. And God's something-of-an-arbiter-of-misfortune got the task of talking up the one that came with suffering.

The fact that there's no thinking about it in there may just indicate that the parable is poorly written. And I mean... read that book, it's poorly written. However, that's something of a cop out.

Now, if it were me (and we're all lucky it isn't) it'd work like my mafia game. A big place full of unknown rules where nobody knows they can trust anyone else. Then I just wait to see how long it takes them to hang themselves with the rope I've given them.

But I need to stop comparing myself to God. At least, that's what Jen tells me. Well she doesn't tell me, but she's sure thinking it pretty loud.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

But, then who would God have sex with?

Whoever he wants.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Would God have sex?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

No?

I said yes!

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Then why have a tree of sex fruit?

Given half the chance, who wouldn't want a "tree of sex fruit" in their backyard garden?

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Or, you know, it could mean that the story is false

Yeah, probably.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

and God doesn't exist.

Doesn't logically follow, but sure, whatever floats your boat.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

How then do I get to the existence of God? Well I don't. It's not something that can or cannot be argued and I can't prove it, just like you can't disprove it.

Oh, I think that the Christian God is pretty disproved just by looking at the world. If an omnigood being created this world, why the fuck is there so much hate and suffering and pain? That would be like saying that I designed something which was full of things that I didn't like. Possible if there's a power above me, possible if I'm not perfect, but God has neither to resort to.

Is it because of free will? (this is the typical theological argument for evil - that enabling people to do it is necessary for the existence of good, so I'm going to guess that that's the route your following)

But if free will creates hate and suffering, what does God have?

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

What I have a problem with, however, is those who are trying to apply rationality to him when rationality is merely a way that humans think and structure our thought and there is no basis for assuming that God acts in rational ways.

So God is irrational? Thanks for that. Rationality and logic are inextricably linked, so by devaluing rational thought, you're devaluing logic.

Logic is a fundamental unit of reality. Attempting to remove it in order to support your deity is like trying to use the fact that people rely upon objective reality in order to structure their lives to support God (I have actually seen this argument in play - once in the sense of "logic, reason and my five senses are what I rely on to determine reality" "but you can't prove that statement with logic, reason and my five senses", thus devaluing objective reality in order to support God). It is like removing causal relationships from your view of reality to support God.

[neyo the king]

Heh, I totally ninja'd KP.

Anyway:

Originally Posted by KP

Doesn't logically follow, but sure, whatever floats your boat.

I say it does logically follow.

It's the Bible, book of God. Everything in it must be true, or why even have the bloody thing? A falsehood in the Bible would imply a falsehood in God's Word, which is impossible, because God is infallible. He's perfect, can't make a mistake. Saying he made a mistake would be basically saying he doesn't exist, because how could he make a mistake if he did? He's perfect, remember?

[Archbio]

God is signified as an emotive being because this is the way our discourse is structured. Anything outside that discourse is fundamentally nonsensicle to us and can't be concieved, let alone written.

Untrue. While the limits of what we can conceived are determined by our own experience, the lack of emotion isn't something we can't express verbally. Of course, maybe the absolute absence of emotion can't be imagined (I wouldn't venture on that at the moment), but that's not what would have been demanded of a narrator accurately reporting on a deity's lack of emotion.

Simply avoiding to make non-existing emotions (assuming again that there's something existing to narrate) up would have been sufficient.

So why do I make any claims at all? A very valid question.

Your answer is spectacularly beside the point, though. "Attempting to be reasonably accurate" is a phrase fairly empty of sense. Your inappropriate example* of the witchcraft trials contains an hint, though, of my point: "useful for analysis."

'God isn't rational/you can't conceive God' isn't useful for analysis. It makes any claim you make about the concept moot. It makes discussion moot. You have a problem with people trying to use their own mental faculties to try and understand what you claim? Don't claim it.

I'm going to leave the portion of the text that fully dives into the fuzzy 'everything is true, nothing is true' territory of convenient intellectual paralysis well enough alone. Quantum, schmantum.

*I wouldn't know where to begin. Lets just say that chemistry doesn't rely on only pure logic for exploration and that the existence of the 17th century is a fact.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Of course, maybe the absolute absence of emotion can't be imagined (I wouldn't venture on that at the moment)

Sociopaths lack all emotions (and their sense of empathy). They even lack fear or anxiety. It's alien, but just because it's alien doesn't mean it can't be imagined. I'm quite certain a sociopath can imagine what it's like to not have emotions, at the very least.

[Archbio]

Sociopaths lack all emotions (and their sense of empathy). They even lack fear or anxiety. It's alien, but just because it's alien doesn't mean it can't be imagined. I'm quite certain a sociopath can imagine what it's like to not have emotions, at the very least.

It was just something that was immaterial to my point, but yes, I suppose you're right.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

I say it does logically follow.

It's the Bible, book of God.

Well, it's the book of one specific "God" (moreso god, but even God).

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Everything in it must be true, or why even have the bloody thing?

Maybe it's the message? Maybe he hates us very, very much.

If I were God, I'd love to have a book that's a massive, incomprehensible joke.

Of course, not long ago, I created seven commandments of which, the first four were "Man, I'm awesome" so that's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

A falsehood in the Bible would imply a falsehood in God's Word

No it wouldn't. It would BE a falsehood in God's word. That is, if the bible is the book of God.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

which is impossible, because God is infallible. He's perfect, can't make a mistake. Saying he made a mistake would be basically saying he doesn't exist, because how could he make a mistake if he did? He's perfect, remember?

Well, fine, the Christian God.

I mean, okay I could well have garnered from the context, but "God doesn't exist" is an awfully encompassing (without qualifications) statement for all the people who call their god "God" but aren't Christians. Or are anti-biblical Christians, who do exist. Or... at least... they tell me they exist, I'm not sure if I should believe them.

But, anyway, the point is I honestly am more likely to think of forumer Silly Kitty as "God", instead of any one people legitimately worship. I kinda' got hung up on the general term instead of the one, specific, particular God that requires Christians who believe the Bible is right to be... God... something... That whole sentence failed.

THE POINT IS: fine, the Biblical Christian God. Then it could logically follow. But only that.

Not that there aren't, other, better reasons to go around saying God doesn't exist.

[neyo the king]

Well, you see, I'm targeting Him, the Christian God, because

A) I know more about him.
B) I used to believe in him.
C) There are more people who believe in Him than in any other god.

See, if we can convince everyone that He doesn't exist, then the largest religious belief in America (maybe the world?) would be Atheist/Agnostic, meaning that we might actually be able to participate politically.

Also, I restate my stance to be more accurate. "No God/Goddess/Alien/Unicorns/Teapots of supernatural powers governs our lives, tells us what to do, requests from us money, etc."

Better?

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

So get off my back!

Well, I tried to use terms like "hung up" and "could well have gathered from the context" to try and indicate my own culpability in not seeing things like a normal person. I mean, I should have seen what you meant, but I didn't.

Possibly because I'm stupid. Probably because I just don't care which God the whatwho in the wherewhat according to anyone.