Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

[_sabotage_]

No 10,000 years show people fucking each other over for their own interest, it doesn't refute the point, it reinforces it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? :P that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?

if there is a bottom then there is probably a top

Yeah, but the chance that we're the top is small.

but the ultimate question of origin remains unanswered

Yes, but I wasn't that ambitious in my initial claims. I merely stated it was an argument for the existence of our deistic god.

God's god's god's god is another matter/ :p

[Haggis_McMutton]

No 10,000 years show people fucking each other over for their own interest

So then 10,000 years of history shows that acceptance of god does not lead to acceptance that "everyone was put here for a purpose, god is within them" and definitely does not lead to the conclusion that we should "treat each other well".

[_sabotage_]

10,000 years show that people who didn't believe this spent their life dominating others.

[jonesthecurl]

I don't need God to tell me to be a good boy.
And I don't need to follow the tenets of a holy book which includes, for instance,
"blessed shall he be that dashes the heads of their children against the rocks".

[Haggis_McMutton]

10,000 years show that people who didn't believe this spent their life dominating others.

Are you claiming that belief in god leads to those other beliefs or not?
That's what I thought you were saying in the first post.

[_sabotage_]

It would appear people mistake religion and god.

[_sabotage_]

I never said belief in religion, belief in religious leaders, belief in superiority because you feel you have a superior position bc you have a god or a superior god to others.

Perhaps you can read what I said, and perhaps you can even attempt to answer some of the questions I posed.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I never said belief in religion, belief in religious leaders, belief in superiority because you feel you have a superior position bc you have a god or a superior god to others.

Perhaps you can read what I said, and perhaps you can even attempt to answer some of the questions I posed.

Belief in god will naturally lead to belief in your superiority when you realize that other people don't share your unique and 100% true insight about the universe. Certain scientific beliefs will cause the same things, but at least those have some grounding in reality.

All your post is just a story. You are telling a story about how belief in god is good for society, but you're not basing this on any facts or reasoned arguments, it's just a story. I can tell the exact opposite story from yours if you want, but it still won't be worth anything.

Anyway, if you wanna start this discussion in earnest, problem #1 is: define your god

In another thread you're talking about souls and afterlife which indicates your god probably isn't just "the universe". It also appears your god is not of the classic abrahamic variety. So please define what exactly you mean by god.

[_sabotage_]

God is everything.

We are part of everything. We are equal parts of everything. Attacking any part is attacking the whole.

Being part of everything, we will always be part of everything.

[Haggis_McMutton]

God is everything.

We are part of everything. We are equal parts of everything. Attacking any part is attacking the whole.

Being part of everything, we will always be part of everything.

Are you a physicalist?
If not what else is encompassed in "everything" other than the physical universe?
If yes where does the soul and afterlife talk come from?

[_sabotage_]

i've defined my position, if you don't want to define yours, that's ok.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i've defined my position, if you don't want to define yours, that's ok.

You didn't ask me to define mine.

Also, just fyi passive-aggresive internet behaviour will fall flat on me. I encourage you to either drop it or upgrade it to full aggression.

[john9blue]

i recommend full aggression.

I don't need God to tell me to be a good boy.

no, you just need a society influenced by religion to tell you that.

[_sabotage_]

I posted a position and questions. You post misrepresentations of my position and therein say I'm wrong. Passive-aggressive, aggressive or non-aggressive, it doesn't make much difference, I am proposing, you are nitpicking. This thread asked us for our reasoning for or against god. I have followed through.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i recommend full aggression.

I don't need God to tell me to be a good boy.

no, you just need a society influenced by religion to tell you that.

Perhaps, but this says nothing about whether religion is still necessary in the developed world. (hint: it's not)

[Haggis_McMutton]

I posted a position and questions. You post misrepresentations of my position and therein say I'm wrong. Passive-aggressive, aggressive or non-aggressive, it doesn't make much difference, I am proposing, you are nitpicking. This thread asked us for our reasoning for or against god. I have followed through.

I assume that by posting your opinion on this forum you are open to discussing it's validity. I had tried to refute one of your points when you said I misinterpreted you. So I've been trying to understand your position since.

It now seems that you are avoiding any clarifications regarding your position, both here and in the other thread. I wonder why this is. Is your position too fragile to survive debate perhaps?

Anyway, since you (sort-of) asked, my position (which is pretty obvious I think) is one of naturalism. This life is all there is, there is no ultimate purpose, our fate is ours to make, etc, etc.

[Neoteny]

I like this thread. The best argument for god, I think, is the one about feeling Jesus pulsing in your heart of hearts, or however that goes. I think the human experience, and a certain amount of psychology, connects well with that concept for some reason. It's effective for that reason, and what I feel a lot of theism really boils down to. And necessarily so, or what's the point of it?

[_sabotage_]

Can you agree that everything comes from nothing?

If so, can you agree that inherent qualities in matter construct the world and we can reasonably decide that these are random or guided?

If so, what does the choice say about out interest? What does it say about our belief in a purpose?

[Symmetry]

Can you agree that everything comes from nothing?

If so, can you agree that inherent qualities in matter construct the world and we can reasonably decide that these are random or guided?

If so, what does the choice say about out interest? What does it say about our belief in a purpose?

I think you should reply to Haggis, and possibly offer an apology, don't you?

[_sabotage_]

I respect that you have an opinion.

[_sabotage_]

Belief in god will naturally lead to belief in your superiority when you realize that other people don't share your unique and 100% true insight about the universe. Certain scientific beliefs will cause the same things, but at least those have some grounding in reality.

Reality, we can never define where we came from. If we say the big bang, it is no different from saying god, because you are saying that something was there. Where did this something come from, you are not saying. Reality is it will eventually come down to a choice, is it random, or is it guided. Do we just happen to be here because of the interrelation of matter which sprang from nothingness, or is the fact that matter has interrelation which has resulted in us some meaning. If, like me, you say it has meaning, then that meaning is god. There is no more grounding in taking one point than the other. Therefore there is no 100% that you mention, it will always be 50/50.

All your post is just a story. You are telling a story about how belief in god is good for society, but you're not basing this on any facts or reasoned arguments, it's just a story. I can tell the exact opposite story from yours if you want, but it still won't be worth anything.

Shakespeare just wrote stories. He is quite well known, his critics aren't. Science is just a story. I have tried to post both sides of the story. I have tried to define my position through the sides and show where my conclusion comes from.

Anyway, if you wanna start this discussion in earnest, problem #1 is: define your god.

God is everything. I'm part of everything. Each one of us is part of everything. Combined we all make up god.

[Gillipig]

Don't we have like 100 of these threads?

[kentington]

Don't we have like 100 of these threads?

Nope only 99. Looks like we need one more mockery of gods and religions thread.

[crispybits]

To be fair well over half of them are started by the religious themselves in an effort to prove something to us heathens