The Religious Thread...... 1667 replies

Please wait...

jackripped

People say I post too much

50 XP

2nd December 2009

0 Uploads

1,430 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Originally created by Hitman_47. Can we do what Necrosect suggested please ? Quote' The best idea might be to just lock archive and redirect this thread to another one with an active poll (if that's what people want) as I don't think anyone really reads over the discussion from more than a few pages ago. So we can, over time, get a better idea of the broader base of opinions that visit these boards, l have created a poll to go with this thread since its seems to never die ! __________________

3rd time lucky ? ! Cant make it anymore optioned than that , it'll get silly.So l've just lobbed a few of the main religions dont be offended if yours isn't there.




Captain Fist

DEUS LO VULT

113,265 XP

17th December 2005

0 Uploads

10,629 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son. This, of course, turned out to be Zeus, who kicked his father's ass and assumed control as King of the Gods.

Obviously.




jackripped

People say I post too much

50 XP

2nd December 2009

0 Uploads

1,430 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

Obviously !

Why is it that some humans even in today's age of scientific discovery , cannot accept that everything we see leading us back through the big bang is a natural occurring event and that is more likely the big bang was the result of a yet unknown natural event? And why do some who follow evolution and the big bang , which is logical , and then when no answer can be found outright either way , yet , do the illogical thing of jumping to a god for a result?




Captain Fist

DEUS LO VULT

113,265 XP

17th December 2005

0 Uploads

10,629 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

There's so much weird unanswered shit in the world, I can see why people believe in God.




evildude

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

25th August 2003

0 Uploads

4,300 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago

jackripped;5320508Obviously !

Why is it that some humans even in today's age of scientific discovery , cannot accept that everything we see leading us back through the big bang is a natural occurring event and that is more likely the big bang was the result of a yet unknown natural event? And why do some who follow evolution and the big bang , which is logical , and then when no answer can be found outright either way , yet , do the illogical thing of jumping to a god for a result?

Because having an all knowing perfect thing love me and make a world just for me......makes me feel wonderful




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 9 years ago

Because they want to justify their beliefs in a god and think that being atheist automatically means your an asshole who hates religion.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago

As for me... the universe as we know it resulted from the Big Bang, all life on earth from evolution and natural selection. I have no idea what caused the big bang, or why the universe exists, and don't claim to. But that doesn't give me any more reason to believe a god was involved. I won't say there definitely isn't anything that could be thought of as a god in existence... only that there isn't any evidence for it. But all the gods actually described in religious texts are illogical and impossible, as far as I can see.




jackripped

People say I post too much

50 XP

2nd December 2009

0 Uploads

1,430 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

l find it sad that so many people can follow a doctrine/religion that has been used as a cause for so much death and suffering and still argue that its all about morals....... Incredible in fact. Its even more incredible that the same people will then argue based on that religion and its writings/scriptures , that a god started it all. Like the above post states, 'But all the gods actually described in religious texts are illogical and impossible, as far as I can see'' , here we are missing a point , all of our godly religions all have come from the traditional scriptures at some point as a matter of faith even the modern ones, even religions evolve, point being they have more evidence of a traditional god because at least it has very old scriptures than any new idea gods, like ID where god started the big bang. So l guess there really is no god !

Some would argue failing to respect 'fluffy the pigs' authoritah will get me thrown into a very hot meat blender !




crisissuit3

We will rule you

101,365 XP

17th August 2007

0 Uploads

9,209 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago
jackripped;5320508Obviously ! Why is it that some humans even in today's age of scientific discovery , cannot accept that everything we see leading us back through the big bang is a natural occurring event and that is more likely the big bang was the result of a yet unknown natural event? And why do some who follow evolution and the big bang , which is logical , and then when no answer can be found outright either way , yet , do the illogical thing of jumping to a god for a result?[/QUOTE]
Ihaterednecks;5320513There's so much weird unanswered shit in the world, I can see why people believe in God.[/QUOTE] what he said. [QUOTE=Warforger;5320521]Because they want to justify their beliefs in a god and think that being atheist automatically means your an asshole who hates religion.
I don't know, a lot of the things I've read from you guys doesn't really make all atheists look like christ incarnate. [QUOTE=jackripped;5321521]l find it sad that so many people can follow a doctrine/religion that has been used as a cause for so much death and suffering and still argue that its all about morals....... Incredible in fact. Its even more incredible that the same people will then argue based on that religion and its writings/scriptures , that a god started it all. Like the above post states, 'But all the gods actually described in religious texts are illogical and impossible, as far as I can see'' , here we are missing a point , all of our godly religions all have come from the traditional scriptures at some point as a matter of faith even the modern ones, even religions evolve, point being they have more evidence of a traditional god because at least it has very old scriptures than any new idea gods, like ID where god started the big bang. So l guess there really is no god ! Some would argue failing to respect 'fluffy the pigs' authoritah will get me thrown into a very hot meat blender !

wasn't it fluffy the PIG? now theres more then one piggy god? now we compare your religon to others. you obviously messed up and said there is now more then one god. others will read this thread and go "hey, there are piggy godS!" when it was originally one pig. same with other religons, time is a mean thing.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,833 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,181 Posts

6 Threads

#10 9 years ago

I have insufficient information to reach a meaningful conclusion on the presence of omnipotent creator figures in general. That's the problem with omnipotent beings: They might just be fucking with you. You'd never know unless they allowed you to. Since I don't get to see multiple instances of the universe some with creator figures and some without I can't even work out the odds that this is one with a creator figure.

However this very absence of information makes it inherently meaningless to speculate on one way or the other. Pascal proposed a bet in answer to that point -

Spoiler: Show
"you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

Pascal's Wager

  • If there is a god and you believe in him you go to heaven.
  • If there is a god and you don't believe in him you go to hell.
  • If there isn't a god and you believe in him you live a life within the bounds of certain religious structures.
  • If there isn't a god and you don't believe in him you live a life without those bounds.

Pascal was arguing for a certain type of betting strategy here. His argument rather obviously being that it's better to lose a little in the event that there is no god than lose a lot in the event that there is. From the perspective of someone with zero information the knowable probability of any of the imaginable choices is equal. His argument doesn't work however because we can add at least two more choices.

  • If there is a trickster god and you believe in god you go to hell.
  • If there is a trickster god and you don't believe in god you go to heaven.

There's another set of arguments that invoke ontological grounds, the most famous of which is probably Anselm's argument. It runs something like this:

[INDENT]God, by definition, is that which nothing greater than can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding then we can imagine him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.[/INDENT]

Which is a really bad argument - a modern person would probably just reject the second premise outright and say that an idea of God exists.

Objections to generalised god concepts run into similar problems.

Happily; since we actually have decent historians who tell us how the religious texts were made, and an understanding of science that renders them largely unnecessary; we can dismiss an awful lot of specific gods. Religions that want to invoke a specific god are potentially in a lot of trouble.