Your opinion on God

You wouldn't be able to convince anyone with a modern worldview of God's existence if it wasn't already a widely held belief. The concept has no credibility.

I don't believe in atheism or agnosticism.

No atheist or agnostic has ever in the history of science presented any empirical evidence whatsoever that they actually disbelieve in God. All they have is subjective personal testimony, which is frankly worthless.

Give me an atheism I can hold in my hand, or an agnosticism I can weight and measure and subject to the scientific method, or I'm afraid I'm just going to have to reject your claims with the same amount of evidence you have presented for them: none.

>>2177515
>You wouldn't be able to convince anyone with a modern worldview of God's existence if it wasn't already a widely held belief. The concept has no credibility.

Depends on your definition of God, really.

Consider that science is the knowledge of what things are.
In the same vein, consider that religion is the knowledge of what you should do.
Thus, God isn't a physical entity, existing in the real of physics, but rather a metaphysical entity, existing in the realm of ideas.

This "God", the collective knowledge of a group of people (that religions community) of what you should do, what is to be pursued, what is to be avoided, doesn't physically exist, but you can clearly tell its presence or absence.
Similarly beauty, or courage, or love, don't physically exist, but you can tell their presence or absence. Nobody would say courage is a fake thing, that doesn't exist, and people can instinctively measure it, saying that there is more or less of it in this or that person or situation.

Basically drop the ideas of what things are, science handles these, and keep the ideas of what we should do, and you are set.
Since secular ethics are a joke, and science doesn't tell us what to do, only how to do it, there is still room and need for it.

>>2177515
>No one who would agree with my proposition would disagree with my proposition if everyone agreed with my proposition, therefore my proposition is right.

Flawless reasoning.

>>2177547
>reducing all of religious thought to ethics

Cringed.

>>2177570
All of religious thought is either wrong, or has to do with ethics.
Just trimming the fat to preserve whats worthwhile.

>>2177574
Pffft.

>>2177547
>dude, what if God is just, like, in our minds. *smokes joint*

>>2177556
By people with a "modern worldview" I'm referring to most people who have lived in the 20th century onward. The point is that God would not meet the standards by which we now evaluate new ideas. It only survives because it's become entrenched in our society.

>>2177589
>>dude, what if God is just, like, in our minds. *smokes joint*

Do you imply that God is a physical entity?
What is it made of? How much does it weigh? How tall is it? Why can't we detect its gravitational pull? Where is it?

God is not physical, he is a metaphysical concept. A personification of agreed on ideas.

>>2177530
The argument I'm giving is mostly directed towards religion. It's not about whether God exists or not, it's about how religious people claim to know him.

I´m not trying to give evidence on how I "disbelieve in God", as you said. That's not the point here.

>>2177515

you could abstract what god is defined as, and logicaly prove these 'things' are real, but in a sense this would mean you abstracted god out of the equation

as in, all things are manifestations of something unmanifested, thus removed and invisible, there are things which are non-local, so omnipresent, there are 'powers that be' in any sense from physical laws to whichever forces animate this reality, and put together these are omnipotent, there is information in countless forms being processed trough reality and reality itself seems to be just procesed information procesing information and the sum of all that is omniscient

the usual atheist critiques used nowdays are all pretty much shallow and naive, things like the problem of evil or scientism of one kind or another, none of that even comes near it

there are much more problematic issues tho, like the notion of a personal diety, the understanding of the godhead as a self of sorts, the notion of a divine agent making its own choices, the problem of the ante-primordial, what is before a divine person or the act of creation, by what 'mechanism' this is supposed to occur and so on, it all dosent realy make sense, but it dosent make sense in ways which are actualy quite problematic even in reference to basic human existance

realy such a thing as god isnt something that realy is or realy isnt, even in the sense in which its 'unreal' its still fully operative, and even in the sense in which its 'real' its still irrelevant and absurd, its almost like one of those geshtalt things, where a void is a form depending on how you look at it, as if the gramatical sequence - no-one created the world - is a positive statement rather than a negation

one could play with these things in all sorts of ways, take the catholic trinity for example, father-son-holy spirit translates into source-information-media, or whichever version one can think of

there is no truth about such things, in that context truth isnt real

File: jesus-taken-up-into-heaven[1].jpg (56KB, 557x700px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 557x700px

>>2177589
Argumentum ad novitatem writ large.

>>2177599
>Do you imply that God is a physical entity?
Yes.
>What is it made of?
Flesh.
>How much does it weigh?
~195.5 pounds
>How tall is it?
~5 feet
>Why can't we detect its gravitational pull?
Because we don't have measurement instruments that sensitive.
>Where is it?
Ascended to Heaven.

Have you looked into the basics of this whole God concept at all before dismissing it?

File: IMG_5834.jpg (21KB, 220x326px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 220x326px

>>2177459
If you are thinking if religion on these terms, why even believe at all?

Faith is a leap, not an indecisive bunny-hop

>>2177633
Of*

>>2177633
I don't believe. That's the point :P

File: MYtoxmC.png (80KB, 1087x1051px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1087x1051px

>>2177459
Okay so you're an agnostic, but do you believe in god(s) or not?
Your agnosticsm is irrelevant to whether or not you're an atheist or theist.
You either believe or you don't. It's that simple.

>>2177644
I don't believe he exists.
I don't believe he does not exist.
^ I thought this was the meaning of agnosticism.

>>2177657
>I don't believe he does not exist.

That doesn't make sense, it means the same thing as "I believe God exists".

Are you trying to say you are 50% certain God exists? What makes you so sure?

>>2177657
NTG, but I do like the colloquial definitions with qualifiers better than double axis politico-chart shit. It's much more nuanced than that suggests.

In a three-dimensional world, where people hold two-dimensional opinions, politicians have a field day.

>>2177664
In your chart, I'm an agnostic atheist.

>>2177459
no real evidence to prove or disprove but there are few moments in my life where i have felt a higher power. Plus the design of the universe indicates a creator of some kind

>>2177657
Either you're schizo or you're a doublethinking bastard as you're holding two mutually exclusive ideas.
Are you're sure that you are not just certain wether or not god(s) exists? As you put it you currently think that god exists and that he doesn't which doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Either way, agnostic simply means that you don't know if god(s) exists.

>>2177669
But how would claim to know God is Hindu, or Catholic, or Protestant, or anything of the sorts?
That's the point of my argument.

>>2177657
>>2177672

Forgot to add that atheism simply means that you lack belief in god(s). It isn't necessarily a belief in the non-existance of god(s).

>>2177672
I'm an agnostic atheist.

>>2177681
Aighto.

>>2177617
>>How much does it weigh?
>~195.5 pounds
>>How tall is it?
>~5 feet

Your god should consider cutting carbs.

File: Berruguete_ordeal[1].jpg (3MB, 1982x3071px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1982x3071px

>>2177644
>mfw some postmodernist cuck gaytheist calls me a "gnostic"

>>2177459

>having a religion is claiming to know god's opinion without ever having talked to him

having a religion is claiming you don't need to because it's already been revealed

>>2177717
I don't see why I should believe in visions and voices from people 2017 years ago.

Not to mention all the biblical nonsense like talking animals, walking on water, pregnant virgins and all that.

>>2177728

luckily for you theology exists so nobody is asking you to base your faith on sunday school stories that your priest doesn't even believe in

>>2177741
Touché, my friend.
But my argument is pointed towards religion.
Not theism.

File: 1383012534853.png (72KB, 735x422px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 735x422px

>>2177459
wait
that's what I think too, what the hell

>>2177749

I will try to expand on my point. People aren't attracted to the canon that organised religion presents because of ancient stories about miracles, most of which can be flatly refuted by a five year old, but because they engage with the literature, scholarship, ethical systems, rites and ceremonies, individual meditative and mystic practices that most religions offer in a way that makes them feel a personal connection with the divine

>>2177757
But how would you claim to know these ethical system, rites and ceremonies are the will of God?

>>2177757
>I will try to expand on my point. People aren't attracted to the canon that organised religion presents because of ancient stories about miracles, most of which can be flatly refuted by a five year old, but because they engage with the literature, scholarship, ethical systems, rites and ceremonies, individual meditative and mystic practices that most religions offer in a way that makes them feel a personal connection with the divine

Oh please. Close to 50% of Americans believe the world is 6000 years old.

You may have the sort of sophisticated relationship with your religion that you are describing but it doesn't mean that is typical.

>>2177753
This is called being an atheist.

>>2177763

Faith

>>2177764

unfortunately I agree with every word of your post but nevertheless my post does illustrate how it works for the clergy, or people who grew up irreligious or atheistic before becoming interested in religion, rather than redneck evangelicals who were born into some batshit protestant church

>>2177784
>Faith
Faith is dangerous, it's a shot in the dark.
It is safer not to impinge descriptions on God. You might be challenging him.

Not only because a lot of religious principles don't seem rational to me: combating lust, avoiding pre-marital sex, aesthetic culture, etc.
But also because we don't know if God has the same concept of reason that we do.

>>2177841

>faith is dangerous

yep

so is flying in an aircraft but people do it because it takes them where they want to be

>>2177846
When you are flying an aircraft you can see where you are going and you are putting reasonable science in practice.

Faith is not at all like that, you can't test the religious principles with God and you can't see where you are going.

>>2177459
An advanced alien intelligence that tried to teach Jews how to act moral and civilized but after that failed he said fuck it.

>>2177846
It is a lot more risky than being an agnostic.

Think of how specific is your claim (if you're a christian):
God condones pre-marital sex.
God impregnated a virgin.
God made someone walk on water.
God is against divorce.
God made a man split the sea.
God made the earth relatively fast.

Angosticism is a lot safer.

>>2177876
*Agnosticism

>>2177876

>believing jesus walked on water
>believing god impregnated a virgin
>believing god made a man split the sea
>believing god made the earth in seven days

i advise you to actually read what religious scholars and secular historians have written about biblical historicity

nobody seriously believes most of this

>>2177927
For many years it was the norm of what to believe.

And you haven't talked about how you claim to know God's ethical views.

>>2177927
My grandma goes to church and says that have her believe that.

>>2177937
*that they have her believe that

>>2177934

We are literally going around in circles

>How you claim to know God's ethical views

Religious belief is not based on a claim of knowledge it is based on faith

this is something New Atheists are incapable of comprehending because they've been brought up with this totally artificial and absolutely ahistorical science/religion dichotomy of the internet age

>>2177927
Jesus did walk on water. It is not magical, it is what later people called "Alchemy," and others enlightenment. Everything is made of color and light - waves. When you can truly SEE with your Eye and not your eyes, you can manipulate reality in such a wise that it appears to defy physics. Look inside yourself.

>>2177943
But you talked about how the main point of religion is ethical views and rites instead of superstitious stories.

And even if it is faith, it is more risky that agnosticism.

Btw, having faith that god believes in specific religious rites is even more absurd than ethics.

>>2177951

This isn't really a point because what you're saying is inherent in the definition of faith, there has to be some risk to be defied in faith or it isn't faith

>>2177966
But why would you chose the riskiest option, when agnosticism is safer?

>>2177876

god didnt make someone walk on water, christ walked on water, after calming the storm, pter could have walked on water too, but his faith faltered and he fell trough

since most newatheist attacks are on christianity they go out of their way to pick seemingly bizzarre moments from the new testament especially, even tho fun parts from old testament give them a lot of material as well

somehow in their carefull reading of it all they seem to miss the points where its repeatedly hinted at the allegorical, metaphisical or esoteric meaniong of varios parts

even tho protestant literalists and vcreationists are some seriously retarded people

>>2177973

Even if we play by your equally arbitrary definitions of risk and safety, on a cosmic scale agnosticism is only absurdly marginally 'safer' than embracing faith which for many people is far more real, tangible and personally fulfilling than Pascal's Wager which is a sixty-second mental exercise and not a way of life

It was cosmology and philosophy that got me into religion FYI so I'm happy to debunk New Atheist scientism all day long with you

>>2177996
I´m for one more hour or so :D
I don't know Pascal's argument :P, that's not what I am using.

What is your religion by the way?
How does cosmology and philosophy point towards this religion?

>>2177757
>most of which can be flatly refuted by a five year old
Yeah, but, there are plently of five-year-olds who get shushed when they start asking questions. This is mainly anecdotal evidence from some ex-southern baptists, so take that for what it is.
I personally got a bit of a weird one cuz my parent sat my sister and I down when we were in 3rd grade and said they were converting to Judaism. As kids we were more or less along for the ride, which really just meant going to a Jewish Sunday school. The stories might all be metaphorical but the way the teaching was conducted was such that you just assumed the details of a passage from the Torah were completely 100% verbatim.

>>2177459
The question about the existence of god is irrelevant

The god of the bible is a sadistic asshole and must be opposed, existing or not. By extension the same can be applied to any deity with delusions of ultimateness.

>>2178142
But if the deity is all-powerful, why would you fight it instead of submitting?

>>2178155
Because being defiant to the bitter end is one of the very few things you can level against an all-powerful entity obsessed with being revered to the exclusion of everything else.

>>2178228
I still think it's not worth the suffering he might inflict as revenge. This discussion is kind of pointless because we are arbitrarily defining deities.

Nonetheless,
That's very interesting, thank you.

>>2177459
tl;dr because I don't care what some random /his/ anon believes.

Why is people always forgetting agnosticism.

>>2177459
That's a long way to say you are an atheist. Do you feel a need to justify your lack of faith?

>>2178246
It's not pointless, it's an exchange without losses, making it fruitful is up to everyone present.

No deed should be carried out merely in anticipation of reward or fear of punishment.

File: Monty-Python-God.png (385KB, 709x400px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 709x400px

>>2178228
I sometimes wonder if that is the real test.

I mean, if I was god, and I wanted to sort the good and righteous souls from the self-righteous evil sheep, and had for some reason blinded myself to their potential actions by granting them independent free will - presenting myself as a jealous genocidal dick would seem to be a good filter.

Anyone who is defiant to the end, passes, and back to the furnace with the rest.

>>2178337
Why would that be wrong.

Reasoned disbelief is better than blind disbelief.

>>2177459

I think you will roast an eternity in hell for your foolishness. I think you're probably a little philosopher as well, is that right? Are you a thinking man? A little cuck? Hmm? You like thinking about women fucking big black cocks while you watch you sick little cunt?

Let me tell you something. It is better to believe in Jesus and find out that you were right, than not believing in Jesus and finding out you were WRONG. Because then you will BURN IN HELL! Suffering the flames of hell for all of eternity, with satans pitchfork up your ass! You like that don't you? Getting fucked in the ass in hell, together with all the muslims!

Yeah, that is what happens dude, look foreward to that on your deathbed.

Also, Jesus still loves you, please repent.

I will pray for you, since I am a good christian.

Apathetic.

>>2178410
Pascal's wager is invalid, because of the sheer amount of religions that there are in the world, that it is foolish to believe that the one that you are following is "right".

>>2178386
This idea has crossed my mind sometimes too, and I like it, BUT.

But you can't give any weight to it, or it automatically implodes - as passing through the "Ordeal of Rebellion" would be seen as a reward unto itself, thereby voiding the unconditioned element, and also turning into "You must rebel against god because God secretly wants you to"

TL;DR: Nice idea, more fruitful as a fantasy than as a reality.

>>2178430
So it's a memetic hazard, and now that we've figured it out, we're screwed? I like...

>>2178388
>I do not care about religion, since there is no evidence for its theories
>I do not care about religion, since there is little probability of its theories
There is minimal difference.

>>2178386
I've never figured out how anyone could worship the god described in the Old Testament and still be in any way moral - or even follow about half the dictates therein and still make that claim. Those books describe a pretty damned evil deity.

Less so with the New Testament, save maybe Revelations, where the jealous bloody war mode god kicks in again.

I mean it's like the difference between Mr. Rogers and BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

>>2178424

>Because of the sheer amount of women in the world, it is foolish to believe on of them is your mother

There is a planet here, something was made out of nothing. We have not seen the thing that made something out of nothing, so it must be the invisible thing that made something out of nothing. AKA god.

Atheist BTFO!

>>2178470
Yeah, but if you believe the wrong woman is your mother, she'll just tell you to fuck off.

If you believe the wrong god is the true god, odds whichever is the true god will damn you to eternity, or in some cases, worse.

Maybe we'll be lucky and there'll be a committee involved. (Celestial bureaucracy - oh gods...)

>>2178470
>There is no evidence to believe that your mother is your mother

>>2178462
Examples? The OT God is the same and acts the same aa tge NT God.

>>2178513
You've clearly not read that book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSKPkpTF1ns

>>2178524
The point of this video? God decides how much every human should live, yes. What are you trying to say?

>>2178410
>fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:

Does anyone else hear that

>>2178535
The OT god either personally demands the deaths of or directly slaughters millions.

The NT god kills almost no one (until Revelations, of course).

The OT god is all about obedience, fear, and glory, while the NT god is all about love and forgiveness. (Okay, not ALL about, but it's certainly a drastic change in theme.)

There's a bloody reason that the Cathars believed them to be two separate dieties, with the OT god actually being Satan, and the NT god being salvation from said tyrant. ...But of course the old Catholics went and slaughtered most of them as if to prove the point.

>>2178555
NT God constantly talks about being the OT god.

>either personally demands the deaths of or directly slaughters millions

See >>2178535

>>2178494
Oh don't you worry pal!

God will tell you to fuck off for not worshipping him soon enough! If that is what it takes he will happily take away a loved one, he will fuck you up!

Just remember you brought it on yourself the next time somebody near you dies!

Repent and pray to Jesus! He still has faith in you.

>>2178555

That is why that one poster threatning every person with hell fire, before exclaiming how much jesus loves them and telling them to repent, is a good christian.

>>2178564
...and Jesus talks about how no letter of the Old Testament or the laws therein shall be ignored, and all that... But if you look at the actions of the OT god, and the NT god, as well as the vastly more magnanimous proclamations of Jesus, there is a staggering difference. If you want to boil it down to numbers, a difference of several magnitudes: several million to a handful.

I mean, if you killed the OT god's chosen one, EVERYONE would die. Hell, he kills hundreds of thousands just for killing someone he liked a little, let alone his own son/mortal incarnation (or what have you). Having his death instead become a conduit for the salvation and forgiveness of all mankind is a complete 180.

Either god had an existential crisis and grew out of his angsty adolescence between the books, or those are two separate dieties. (Though, yes, again, the war god definitely makes a comeback in Revelations, and there's a few moments even in the NT that make you question his "goodness", but nothing like the blood drenched god of the OT.)

>>2178590
Fair point.

>>2178595

You see, that is why you ought to repent and kiss some serious jesus ass. Because when he comes back he's gonna be piiiiiiiiiissed!

Ever read the revelations? He is gonna make a comeback that makes OT look like a cakewalk, he is bringing a fucking army to fight another fucking army, and the people who hasn't licked enough ass is gonna get caught in the cross-fire.

If I was you I would drop to my knees, fold my hands and start licking them, hoping that somewhere in heaven he could feel my tongue rimming his ass. I aint' going back to hell! You do what you want, if you wanna roast for all of eternity that is on you!

>>2178608
>When Jesus returns he's going to look like Clint Eastwood and be carrying a rocket launcher.

And when Internet Jesus returns, 4chan will be the first place to burn! (...and Tay was his prophet!)

>>2178595
>Either god had an existential crisis and grew out of his angsty adolescence between the books, or those are two separate dieties.
Think it has more to do with western civilization growing out of its angsty adolescence (or at least attempting to), but point taken.

>>2177459
That is dumb.
Religion doesn't imply theism, or the belief in the supernatural. I am an atheist, a naturalist, and a very religious person. Not any organized religion, but a religion that is the practice and application of the spiritual beliefs I formed through the mystical perception of knowledge i aquired via the natural sciences, and my philosophy. What I have is basically very similar to Jain beliefs but derived from the "western" scientific understanding of nature. That is the Jains and I have mystically interpreted the same beliefs but have different explanations and applications of them because of our different perspectives, the Jains call this phenomenon aparighara.
And to assume the definition of God is limited to being an anthropomorphic deity is ethnocentric and silly. Even I could stretch the definition of God to its limits and call myself some sort of biological panthiesist, as living systems are essentially the central deity of my religion.

>>2178595
You still haven't explained what is wrong with God taking someone's life, whether directly or through natural causes.

I think religion is the result of a brain that can reason, communicate, think in abstracts and also have a sense of causality.

In the beginning i think man invented religion to explain what we did not have the tools to understand back then.

Then religion got a life of its own, diverging from science, or maybe science diverged from religion.

Religion is believe and science is understand.

>>2178638
Not aparighara, opps.
Meant to say this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

>>2178646
Well if anything a deity does is okay simply because the deity did it, then yes, there's no argument to be had.

But if that's what you really believe - that you can't make moral judgments yourself, despite the fact that the Bible itself specifically tells you that you can, then we're back to >>2178386

>>2178658
It's not okay simply because deity dies it. I'm saying that murder is wrong because it usurps the role of God, who alone has the right to decide when a man should die.

File: aztec-human-sacrifice-codex-photo-researchers.jpg (177KB, 900x658px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 900x658px

>>2178646
>>2178672
Ask these guys.

If any other god had that track record, you would call it evil. I mean, at some point, you just gotta say, "Fuck this, this is wrong." or there's no end to it.

>>2178672
How is that not saying it's okay because my deity did it or demanded it?

>>2178680
The thing which makes it wrong doesn't apply to God. On the other hand, what makes, for example, lying wrong would apply to God too and therefore God doesn't lie.

>>2178689
So a god can kill and cause mass suffering, and that's fine, but if he lies he's evil?

Mind you, I'm not blaming any god of creation for the state of creation itself, aging or what not, in this case (the Bible goes so far as to pin some of that on us - even if it is the deity that leveled the initial curse), but rather, how he treats his creation. The OT era god treats his creation with exponentially more malevolence than the NT era god.

Though he does contradict himself a few times, I suppose you could call that a "lie" - but I suppose you could just as easily chalk it up to someone misunderstanding him or times changing.

>>2177459
>Having a religion claiming to know God's opinion without ever having talked to him

What the hell
Do you also discredit atom bombs because you have never been hit by one?

>If you don't know it, don't risk it. Believe in what nature, reason and science proves to you

Confortable atop that fence you're sitting on, anon? Grow some testes for fuck's sake
God everything about this is so autistic.

>>2178714
I doubt OP has ever had a conversation with an atom bomb and asked its opinion, that doesn't mean he doesn't believe they exist.

His pic is not saying you shouldn't believe in god, it's saying you shouldn't assume to know his opinion, that it is indeed, blasphemous to do so.

Granted that does rather fly in the face of the fact that the Bible is believed by many Christians to be the infallible word of their god.

File: 1425869438160.jpg (307KB, 1500x1265px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1500x1265px

I no longer consider myself an atheist, but I don't consider myself a theist either.

I essentially live with a "God is dead" feeling now, a nostalgia for some Being that was lost in the ovens of Auschwitz.

My take is that you are a fucking retard

>>2178714
I have lots of proof atom bombs exist: pictures and videos. None of this in regards to God. And even less in regards to the God of a specific religion as opposed to all other religions.

>>2178733
>His pic is not saying you shouldn't believe in god, it's saying you shouldn't assume to know his opinion,
Nope. OP clearly stated that
>Having a religion is claiming to know God's opinion without ever having talked to him
>It is more likely that religious people are the ones challenging God

That is akin to say you should not have a religion because you might be wrong.
That is a really disrespectful and cowardrous stance to take.
Either have a religion or don't. Being a meek agnostic doesn't give you the right to talk shit about either side.

>>2178774
>I have lots of proof atom bombs exist: pictures and videos. None of this in regards to God
They have books, relics and a lot of other stuff. Wheter you believe they are true or not is completely subjective.

>>2178774
There's tons of pictures of God, thanks to the iconoclasts failing so hard, and there's even video of "God's Miracles", if you buy the Fatima thing.

>>2178778
...and if a religious person says "God is unknowable, it is impious to claim to know him!", then it's somehow valid?

...Cuz that's what a lot of religions say... And that's exactly what that says.

Granted, I could see where it'd be more directly insulting if you were among the many Christians that believe they have a direct line to God, and a communicable relationship, but so would the position of those religions that claim that cannot be.

>>2177530
You can't prove a negative. Burden of proof rests on proving the existence of God.

>>2178778
>Either have a religion or don't.
I don't :D
>That is a really disrespectful and cowards stance to take.
Ad hominem fallacy.

>>2178816
Claiming your argument is disrespectful is not ad hominem.

...okay, the "coward" thing is pushing it a bit, but he could easily make an argument as to why the position is cowardly, I'm sure.

>>2178802
>...and if a religious person says "God is unknowable, it is impious to claim to know him!", then it's somehow valid?

...Cuz that's what a lot of religions say... And that's exactly what that says.

Jesus man, strawmanning much? You could feed an entire horsefarm with that much straw

Just because "a lot of religious say" it doesn't give you the right to put them all in one package and dismiss them as invalid.

>>2177459
The first line assumes nobody has ever talked to God.

That is a billion times false.

You can attempt to act ignorant of the existence of God, but to God, you stand before him without excuse.

>>2178824
Well you seem to be claiming that the argument is invalid and insulting because a self-proclaimed agnostic is making it, despite the fact that many theists make the same argument.

>>2178813
>You can't prove a negative.

>This is what idiots actually believe.

There's no elephant in this box.

Open box.

No elephant.

Proven that there is no elephant in that box.

>>2178824
>Jesus

Just focus on this.

>>2178829
You would have to believe someone is talking to your religion's specific God instead of having an illusion.

>You can attempt to act ignorant of the existence of God, but to God, you stand before him without excuse.
Here you are assuming God exists, prove it first.

>>2178816
Ad hominem = To Man (loose translation)

Not every refute is an Ad Hominem, anon.

Also i said cowardrous, not coward's

>>2178835
Yeah, you're taking the Lord's name in vain right there.

...Not to mention the term "strawman".

>>2178829

>The first line assumes nobody has ever talked to God.

Lots of people claim to have talked to God. Unless you have done so personally what is your criteria for distinguishing between who has and hasn't?

>>2178833
No, man, i am claiming that the argument is invallid because it's condescending and a hell of an overgeneralization.

>>2178834

It's a magical, invisible elephant that you can't smell or touch.

>>2178847
Yes. But even if I "talked to God" I would go to the doctor to see if I don't have some sort of mental illness.

>>2178778
>That is akin to say you should not have a religion because you might be wrong.
That's not how I'm reading it myself - I'm reading it as saying you shouldn't assume you know the opinion of a deity you've never talked to. That it's hubris to do so, and more apt to run against the deity's wishes than not. Not anything in regards as to whether you should adhere to that deity, especially should he do so.

But yeah, a lot of people claim to talk to Jesus all the time, so I could see why it'd be a non-starter for that group.

And again, that whole Bible laying down a whole lotta opinions about a whole lotta things, nullifying it, among those who take the Bible as divine revelation (which, unlike the previously mentioned group, would be the bulk of Christianity.).

>>2177459
The idea that the world runs according to certain ubiquitos and constant laws is not new to science.
such ideas are as basic as hman beings. The first manifestation of such thinking was magic and science grew out of it see chemistry growing out of alchemistry and astronomy out of astrology etc...
Just like we are assured of the correctness of science so was primitive man assured of the correctness of his magical rituals.
Be assured that just like the primitive man eventualy realizes his magic was not working anymore so will we at some point abandon the scientific method.
Anyone assured the scientific method is some sort of eternal pinnacle instead of another mirage simply lacks historical perspective.

>>2178813
Go back to r/atheism, fool.

>>2178871

Magic never worked. Science clearly does.

>>2178766
>the ovens of Auschwitz
>implying this and not the countless mass massacred throughout history should somehow diswade us from being pious.
and this is coming from a jew.
If you go that route you might as well directly address it to the problem of evil since what is the fundamental difference between a baby dying in the crib and the nazis killing jews?

>>2178886
NTG, but science does have its limitations.

Dunno if religion is (or, if so, always will be) the best answer to said gaps though.

>>2178892
There's a difference between tragedy and evil.

Auschwitz wasn't a tragedy, it was calculated radical evil.

And what I want to find out, is what the opposite of that radical evil is, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then we are essentially doomed to do it again.

>>2178912
We're probably doomed to do it several times again, before we find "radical good" - whatever that may be.

Evil is easy, good is hard.

(Generally and broadly speaking, yes, I realize there's all sorts of exceptions. Shut up!)

>>2177728
>its 2017 dude, do you still beleive what some dude said 2017 years ago?

>>2178410
How funny. Can you please go back to plebbit now?

>>2178928
I agree with you. Good is hard. But maybe it's worth it.

>>2178462
Im sorry, are you moral? what makes most modern people moral? being moral today means being politically active because the actual immoral acts are perpetrated by huge systems and big groups of people.
It is only after people have exceeded themselves in evil, during the begining of the 20th century that these super moral groups appeared, like the most tender ones wanting to stop the killing of animals..
so Only after industrial slaughter of billions of animals and people there was some backlash and some groups and organizations sprung up cause we have done such unbelievably heineous deeds that all of histroy shuddered.
So contemporary high morality in western countries is simply a phenomena of the crazy and evil recent excesses of western civilization itself.
You think you are moral? if you think that you are moral for being vegetarian or cause you are giving full equality to women than know you are not moral at all, and we as a society are in no way more moral than the pople of old.

>>2178960
>Good is hard

Go on them, take the "easy" path. Rob a bank, rape a granny and kill a jew, then tell us how wide your butthole became on prison.
Think being bashed by everyone from everywhere is "easy"? Evil isn't easy mode, competence is.

File: pascals_wager2.png (276KB, 1685x2008px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1685x2008px

>>2178017
>Pascal's argument :P, that's not what I am using.
Actually, it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

You're basically saying it's safer not to have faith you have any clue as to what the deity's opinion is, despite the fact that, in the case of the religion you're likely referring to, its religious text not only sets down many of the god's opinions, but condemns those that do not enforce them.

As the other guy is trying to explain to you, among the more nuanced of the faithful, the dictates are merely guidestones as to their deity's nature, not necessarily to be taken literally, but designed to reveal, through revelation, the intent of the deity, and from there they are to follow that "heart-felt" belief when it comes to forming their own opinion as to what their god wills - what is good and what is evil, etc.

Though there's of course just as many Christians who take it all as literal dictates, and for that group, the offense of not knowing god's opinion with certainty is even worse.

The only group your position could hold sway over would be those of the more pantheistic and mystical bent, who believe their god is completely mysterious. Such groups might agree with you that to claim to know God's will is blasphemy of the highest order, but it is a position very few Christians tend to take, when most believe they either have the will of their god, or the path to it, and their fingertips and/or in their hearts.

>>2178886
You are clearly retarded.
The magic did work according to their standards of what works and what doesnt.
When they prayed for the sun to rise in the morning and it did magic worked.
Much like we see their beliefs as delusions so will future people, knowing what we are now missing, will laugh at our beliefe in science as truth.
Standards of what it is when something works or not change and we are just as blind to whatever fallacy is inherent to science as the magicians were blind to the fallacy in the ue of magic.
You can see it form another perspectie of ocurse, that both systems were good and workes but only in a local way and in a local time. After a while, as circumcstances change they simply stop being relevant.
So has it happened with magic and so shell it happend with science. Not saying science will dissapear but much like magic it will be relegated ot the sidelines in favor of something more appropriate to future times.

>>2178974
Okay, lets just say it like this then.

Since it's possible for humans to become something that is capable of committing heinous acts like Auschwitz or things analogous to it, what is the proper response to that?

To simply forget it, and leave it to the dustbin of history? I don't think so. I think the Holocaust, the Soviet gulag, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army, showed that humanity is actually capable of greater evil than people realize, and even if all of it happened just 70 years ago, I think people are still being naive about it.

>>2178912
Let me guess, you are a highschooler and have recently studied and learned of the details of the halacaust..

>>2178973
Not totally disagreeing with your point, nor am I claiming to be the ultimate moral authority here or anything, but I think even fairly young children, when presented with a powerful being that kills millions in a jealous rage, and another that teaches of forgiveness and love for your fellow man, would be able to pick which was "the bad guy", and be thoroughly confused if you told them both were the same character.

Unless you told them they were going to burn for eternity if they ever questioned it, or some such.

>>2179016
No I'm not, Mr. Hiding Behind 70000 Layers of Irony on the Internet Guy.

>>2179013
>he thinks nazi and japanese huamn experiemtns come close to the tortureous deaths inflicted on countless people throughout history.
People being sawn in half, people sitting on spikes, being burned alive etc..

>>2178960
By hard, I mean it takes time.

It's something we collectively strive for, it's just we do a lot of evil along the way. Even the holocaust you describe, was done in the name of good from someone's perspective.

>>2179013
Although if the nukes, the holocaust, and Unit 731, don't go looking into more recent dark corners, or you're going to get seriously depressed.

Man is a work in progress... Omelet, eggs, and all that.

>>2179020

Fuck the old testament! The old testament was written by the fucking jews, they can't be trusted! If you ask me we should put them all in camps and gas them all to death! Kill them all for daring to crucify Jesus!

New testament is where it is at. Jesus is the ultimate authority, he is the lord and saviour, that is why you gotta talk with Jesus, you don't wanna deal with OT God! You can't trust anything written by the jews, especially history!

The jews don't believe in Jesus. Look what happened to millions of jews because they didn't believe in Jesus! That was all their own fault for tempting God's wrath, if they had gone with Jesus they would have never gotten camped in the first place! But they had to push him! So they got what they deserved!

Don't be the next in line, get the fuck down on your knees and pray to Jesus for forgiveness before God smites you down! You need Jesus to sweet talk OT Gof!

>>2179037
The actions in isolation might be as heinous, but the scale was absolutely different in the 20th century.

Do you think humanity can afford another conflict on the scale of WW2 again, with the technological innovations the last 70 years?

Billions of people will die.

>>2179043
>Even the holocaust you describe, was done in the name of good from someone's perspective.

I'm not so sure it was you see. People tend to think about the Holocaust from a realist perspective, e.g a politically rationalistic perspective. But there's nothing rational about continuing a genocide when it actually makes you lose a war.

>>2178689
God not only DOES lie, but also instructs his servants to lie, and both profit from such lies.

>>2179002

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read.

Clearly magic played no part in the Sun rising. Clearly a knowledge of Nuclear Physics is responsible for us being able to create working nuclear power stations.

I can't believe you are calling me retarded. You're an imbecile.

>>2177459
>assuming 'god' exists and is a conscious supernatural being who gives a shit what one short-lived tiny life form on one tiny planet out of trillions thinks.

Just as pants on head retarded as any religious believer, to be honest. Except in your world, you're still going to hell and you 'know' it.

*Tips fedora* Come at me.

>>2179088
heh. You are completely missing my point. its ok, if you keep aquiring knowledge ull get it eventually.

>>2179055
As the story is told, someone decided that the Jews were the source of all evil, and decided to eliminate them for the good of mankind. (Truth is a little more nuanced than that, but I dun wanna drift into /pol/ ville.)

Point is, most evil is done in the name of good. At it's core, it's often about conflicting interest, yes, but everyone justifies their actions on some level, both internally and externally, individually and collectively. Be it the Nazi's or the more recent Islamic terrorists, the same mechanisms that allow such atrocities are the very ones allow civilizations to form to begin with - family, leading to tribalism, extended to party and nationalism, all coupled with conflicts of interests.

>>2179051
It'll probably happen...and if we survive that and reach the stars, we may end up blowing up planets with tens of billions in some future war.

But, as mentioned above, a lot of the same social functions that makes this great evil possible, are also what makes great good possible. The ability of people to bond together, to empathize with one another, is the very same force that tears them apart and fuels their excuses to kill one another, above and beyond simple conflict of material interests.

But hey, CRISPR's on the table now, maybe we'll find a way to make ourselves better, and resolve the conundrum. It's not as if we don't know what peace looks like, we just don't know how to obtain it. It may be, that one day, simply in order to survive, man will have to make a fundamental change in his nature, and thus, will do so.

Until then, rinse and repeat.

>>2179104

You don't have any sort of a serious point.

>>2179110
wahh wahhh but science is absolute truth wahhh wahh but science is amazing look at my iphone.
fuck off.

>>2179130

Yeah. Look at your iphone. It works.

Magic doesn't.

The comparison you are trying to draw is completely fallacious.

>>2179141
Im sorry to burst your bubble. I know science is the Bee's Knees on youtube and all but the fact we have different standards for what we consider effective then those of the magical scoieties in no way makes science superior universally, only locally.
It is obvious that from our current standards of what works and, older ones seem silly but to think this means that are inherently better as oppose to simply locally better is canity, the result of you living now and desiring to think your current time is better or special in some inherent way.

>>2179110
I think what he was trying to say is that they believed "magic" worked... (Though in a few ways it did - some of those strange concoctions and remedies turn out to have some merit). As far as they were concerned, it was working. It was only slowly and steadily abandoned as they found more effective methods that were also (and this bit is important) more widely accessible and discernable, allowing the common man to apply them, making your "magicians" all but obsolete (or at least fundamentally changing their form and function).

Science is a little different, in that it is a method of finding those very solutions, rather than a belief system unto itself. But empirical puzzle solving doesn't answer necessarily every question man has. There's several very fundamental questions that can never be addressed by such methodology.

Philosophy and religion substitute in lieu of more satisfactory solutions to said ponderings, but in the long run, it maybe that some more wholistic approach maybe necessary to unite the empirical with the undeniable yet unempirical, and that approach, should it exist and be found, may both envelope and replace all of these practices.

>>2179160
>Im sorry to burst your bubble. I know science is the Bee's Knees on youtube

What the fuck are you even talking about.

You're posting using a modern computer based entirely on modern scientific principles and you honest, genuinely think the issue is "science is the bee's knees on youtube".

This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

>>2179165

I understand what he is trying to say, but any effects of magic were purely coincidental.

Asking whether 'science' as a wide discipline can solve all the questions man has is a different issue and I am happy to agree with you it certainly can't.

Agreeing with you on that is not the same as "hurr the combustion engine works by pure chance science is just the same as magic".

>>2178839
There's only one God, and he's perfectly capable of communicating with his own creations.

>>2178841
I took the Lord's name, but not in vain.

>>2178847
I have done so personally, yes.

>>2178851
Weight of identical box same as weight of box with no elephant in it.

People prove negatives all the time.

>>2179175
How about you try to use your brain?
It is like saying that men 2000 years ago were evil shovinists despite the fac tthey had different circumctances and standards back then. The standards themsleves are always based on the nessecities and physical relaities and abilities of people of a time.
IN this example there had to be a divide between men and women and men had to be the ones making most descision comapred to today due to the more physical and agressive nature of daily lives.
So is it with the standards of effectivness and magic and contemporary standards of effectivness of science.
Stop thinking from the point of view of someone living in 2017 and believing you are superior as oppose to simply different, with different circumctances of all sorts and thus different standards.
again try to imagine futue people viewing science as we view magic.
As a result of these times and their social technological and physical circumctances.
Stop deifing science.

>>2179221
>Agreeing with you on that is not the same as "hurr the combustion engine works by pure chance science is just the same as magic".
No, but I don't think that's the position he really intended to take either - although it was clear he was also badgering you a bit, and I maybe giving him the benefit of the doubt.

...Not that there wasn't some "science" in "magic", in that often, trial and error was involved in finding what worked and what didn't - even if the stories made up as to why something worked often were sourced in mythos and had nothing to do with the reality of it. It's also true, in the distant future, a lot of what we think of as science might be considered "primitive magic-think", as in, similarly, stuff works, but may not for the reasons we think it does. It was only a handful of generations ago that nearly all the scientists believed everything ran on Aether, after all, and yet the experiments came up fine, and those devices kept right on working. Newtonian physics works just fine without relativity until you start going too fast or too far.

>>2179254

What on Earth does accusing me of thinking people 2000 years ago were "evil chauvinists" have anything to do with anything? I have never made any such claim.

Stop strawmanning and talking nonsense.

>>2179254
cont.
maybe try thinking of a specific technology, like the iphone, as not actually working.
You have to change what you mean by working, do you get that? the defiition of what it is when something works or not has to change in your mind. Now i dont know what these standards will be in the future but im positie they will be different!!
and as such, when standards of what it mean when something works or not change so will science which gets its authority in modenr times from modenr standars will fade out of popularity.
do oy get it yet??? that whoel thing that makes you think an iphone work, the way you define what it is when something works will change.

>>2179271
man you are thick.

>>2179278
Not him, but you've lost me too... But, judging by the way you are typing, it might help to take a few breaths first.

>>2179278

Dude, you are just talking gibberish.

This is the last 'you' for you by the way. You've bored me to death and responding to you coming out with stuff like "magic is just the same as science" then defending it with shit like "you just think science is the bee's knees on Youtube" and "you are claiming everyone 2000 years ago is chauvinist." Is not a productive or fun way to spend my evening.

You have not the slightest idea what even constitutes a serious non-fallacious point and your thought processes are just stunningly illogical.

>>2179312
You just dont have the background nessecary to get what im saying.
Thats fine.

>>2179319
What background would that be?

>>2178813
You claimed to disbelieve in God.

I don't believe you actually disbelieve in God.

Prove it to me using physical, empirical evidence or your claim is entirely dismissed.

>>2178766
>lost in the ovens of Auschwitz
I actually horse laughed. What a drama queen.

You can never know if there's something metaphysical existing outside of known science, but all organized religions are obsolete.

>>2179049

But the new testament is written by the fucking christians, and you know you can't trust christians.

They like killing witches, forbidding drugs, keeping dying people artificially alive, they like taking your money and they like molesting little children.

I don't think christianity should be taught to anybody under 18

>>2178438

I've been thinking about it on and off through the day.

Even if it IS the final test... such a scheme is still proof of an asshole.

>>2180235
>Prove it to me using physical, empirical evidence or your claim is entirely dismissed.
Prove you personally experience anything, and are not simply a biological entity mimicking consciousness through complex unconscious reaction, ya damn souless p-zombie.

File: Descartes.jpg (5KB, 256x273px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 256x273px

>>2180359
Well there is at least one thing, but not necessarily god.

>>2177459
Power corrupts. Give anyone a million dollars and they'll act like an asshole. Even God.

>>2178990
>despite the fact that, in the case of the religion you're likely referring to, its religious text not only sets down many of the god's opinions, but condemns those that do not enforce them

Not despite, BECAUSE. It is exactly BECAUSE religious texts set down god's opinions and condemn those who do not enforce them that religion is risky. The more specific the claim, the riskier it is.

In the case of Christians it is even more risky since its religious texts are filled with stories that defy the laws of physics. These stories only started to be interpreted as just moral lessons decades after the religion was created, I believe.

>designed to reveal, through revelation
Sure, but lots of religions have prophets with revelations, which one do you pick? Not to mention these "revelations" were either lies or psychotic episodes, most likely.

>The only group your position could hold sway over would be those of the more pantheistic and mystical bent, who believe their god is completely mysterious.

No, my position is actually a lot more compatible with these positions, since they don't claim (or have faith) that they know God's will.

>>2179234
But has he ever communicated with you?

And how do you know that the prophets of your religion weren't simply lying or having psychotic episodes when they claimed to have spoken with him? Do you really think it is reasonable to believe them because of faith, when there are tens of similar religions who claim the same?

>>2181997
>Not despite, BECAUSE. It is exactly BECAUSE religious texts set down god's opinions and condemn those who do not enforce them
Yes, but the bulk of Christians believe that the Bible is literally their deity's word revealed, that it is divined or divine text, a testament of direction communication with their god. So they have communicated with the deity, heard his opinions, and you're asking them to ignore him.

Now, for nuances and things not covered by the Bible, yes, despite some claims to the contrary, they are operating either on faith or inference. But among those that consider the Bible a series of guideposts to inspire the faithful to action, or are among the numerical bulk of the group, that believes in the divine word of the papacy, then you are again, asking them to ignore communication from their god.

>Sure, but lots of religions have prophets with revelations, which one do you pick? Not to mention these "revelations" were either lies or psychotic episodes, most likely.
If you haven't picked one you don't have a religion, and the statement doesn't apply.

>No, my position is actually a lot more compatible with these positions, since they don't claim (or have faith) that they know God's will.
...Which is what I said, only worded differently.

If God didn't send prophets or communicate with us from time to time what's the point of even caring about Him agnostics?

It's like having an absentee dad who never calls you or sends you birthday money. Who cares at that point

>>2182204
>Christians believe that the Bible is literally their deity's word revealed,
The Bible talks about people talking about/to God. Big shot in the dark compared to talking to God directly.

>divine word of the papacy, then you are again, asking them to ignore communication from their god.
In this case they would be talking to someone that talked to the deity.
It is risky and unreasonable to believe the pope actually talks to God.

>If you haven't picked one you don't have a religion, and the statement doesn't apply.
The statement still applies because the other religions still exist and claim the word of God in similar ways. When you believe in one religion you believe the others are false.

>>2182416
>If you haven't picked one you don't have a religion, and the statement doesn't apply.
The statement still applies because the other religions still exist and claim the word of God in similar ways. When you believe in one religion you believe the others are false.
Ignore this, it was a misread :P

religious people watch porn more than atheists do

>>2182416
>The Bible talks about people talking about/to God. Big shot in the dark compared to talking to God directly.
The Christians believe that every bit of the text is divinely inspired and divinely inspiring. It's not just about the bits where God is recorded as actually having said something. They generally believe the entirety of the work is their god's message to man, either directly or through the revelations the text inspires. (And the deity himself reaffirms this multiple times, through his avatar in Jesus.)

>It is risky and unreasonable to believe the pope actually talks to God.
Some would certainly argue that, but if they believe that is the case, they can't really ignore what he says, nor his opinions, for they are also that of their god.