Language…
16 users online: deported, Domokun007, eltiolavara9, GiraffeKiller, Golden Yoshi, gothic251, h.carrell, koffe190, Maw, OEO6, OrangeRock57, RicardoDeMelo, Rykon-V73, SirGabe, The_Uber_Camper, yoshi9429 - Guests: 257 - Bots: 420
Users: 64,795 (2,375 active)
Latest user: mathew

A thought about God

Link Thread Closed
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

All hail saint ignusius, Bringer of emacs!



Ontopic:
I don't really believe in god. I believe in the big bang theory and evolution.
And if someone created us, it would be most likely an alien that messed with the DNA of apes, thus creating mankind.








   

My Rips/Exgfx:
01|02
Originally posted by Kojeco2
I think all religion and God does is cause wars. Just take a look at this thread, I've never seen people get angry before on this website, even if the original intention of this thread was not to talk about god specifically but to take about some all-mighty entity. Just take a look at history for goodness sakes.

I have to disagree with this. While it's truth that religion has brought and is still bringing a lot of wars and conflict, you can't say that's all it has done. Believe it or not, for a lot of people religion is the only thing that keeps them sane, the sole fact of believing in god, regardless if he exists or not, gives them hope they wouldn't find anywhere else. The problem is not religion itself, the problem is fanaticism, and this goes for both sides, I think it's equally wrong to try to convince someone to believe in your religion at all costs and to try to convince people god doesn't exits.

As an agnostic I think for this specific kind of things that no one should be attacked for their beliefs and people have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to impose it.
Some people still missed the point. But whatever, i'll reffer to the ones who are not saying stupid things just for the sake of it.

I'll try to resume in one line with few words the definition i adopted in the text in case to the word "God":

It is something that gave a start.
Be it bigbang, aliens or evolution of human beings. There is something that started the process.

Originally posted by QB
It's something like when we read numbers: we can count infinitely both backwards or forwards.

Hmmmm.... That's a rather interesting idea. That makes me assume "God" Is everything in this cycle of unending "numbers", or that "God" is the point zero. As a cycle, God must be somewhere, i take this as a snake eating his own tail, an unending cycle, yet it does have a start, it's head.

It is a really nice point you made. Made me think a little ^-^


Originally posted by
Do you have even an ounce of valid logic, a drop of real physical evidence, to support your religious fallacies?

Never gone and talked about my religion, just my definition of God as a starting point, you gone and took the wrong idea of my post. But going in deep about my concept of "God" as a being i could say that in my conception, God had no thought, but he developed one over time, and he got his pieces over everything since, so he could trace and learn from his "creations" (Created by an event of the starting point, accidentaly). So "God" does not know everything, but rather, he is learning with us.

That is mine conception of "God" as being, so i do not take this as a fact. That's just a thought of mine. And i find interesting to read other thoughts. Don't know why people go mad when they see a topic about this.


Oh, and another reason i started this thread was to make me continue thinking about this kind of stuff. Since the game i aim to create focus in this topic, i want to see the reaction of people when they talk about this.
God was created by man, to watch over man. It is not a physical entity, nor a spiritual one; it only exists as a collective idea. The more that believe in God, the more it exists. God cannot be stopped. YFW God is a meme.

Also, I'm a Haruhist. She is my God
Deism is the most logical choice of religion. Think about it. It's the more refined and polished form of Agnosticism (Agnosticism is basically a fancy term for imbeciles who want to sound smart by using a big word to describe their foolish indecisiveness over religion) and contains no faith. Gnostic and Agnostic Theists and Atheists need faith to believe their teachings. Deists do not. Deists simply understand the pure mystery of the universe and leave it at that. It is this fact that allows Deists to live a truly religion free and humbling life. There cannot be an extremist Deist. It is absolutely impossible. Therefore, Deists cannot cause wars. They cannot provoke arguments amongst themselves about opinions over belief (like Theists and Atheists do; they all "believe in God", but each person believes in God in a different, unique way). Atheists claim that religious people are the problem. Theists claim Atheists are the problem. To see this from a Deist's standpoint... You would understand how idiotic these two types of religions are acting. It's like a middle-ground, per se.

tl;dr Deism is the most logical religion, and Atheism and Theism are not.
Originally posted by King Boo
Deism is the most logical choice of religion. Think about it. It's the more refined and polished form of Agnosticism (Agnosticism is basically a fancy term for imbeciles who want to sound smart by using a big word to describe their foolish indecisiveness over religion) and contains no faith. Gnostic and Agnostic Theists and Atheists need faith to believe their teachings. Deists do not. Deists simply understand the pure mystery of the universe and leave it at that. It is this fact that allows Deists to live a truly religion free and humbling life. There cannot be an extremist Deist. It is absolutely impossible. Therefore, Deists cannot cause wars. They cannot provoke arguments amongst themselves about opinions over belief (like Theists and Atheists do; they all "believe in God", but each person believes in God in a different, unique way). Atheists claim that religious people are the problem. Theists claim Atheists are the problem. To see this from a Deist's standpoint... You would understand how idiotic these two types of religions are acting. It's like a middle-ground, per se.

tl;dr Deism is the most logical religion, and Atheism and Theism are not.

Okay, let me clarify some things:

1. You claim that "atheists need faith to believe their teachings"; this is wrong in a couple of ways. First of all, atheism has no teachings, and is not actually a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deities. As the saying goes, "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." Therefore, because there is no actual belief, no faith is required; you don't need faith to not believe in something.

2. You claim that "agnosticism is basically a fancy term for imbeciles who want to sound smart by using a big word to describe their foolish indecisiveness over religion)." First of all, let's define agnosticism. A good definition is this: "a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God." So this means that agnostics simply make the claim that one cannot know for certain whether or not gods exist, which is absolutely true. I don't see how accepting an absolute truth is foolish at all.

3. You claim that "deism contains no faith." Well, faith is the acceptance of something as true without any evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any deities, so yes, there is faith involved here.

4. You claim that "[Deism is] the more refined and polished form of Agnosticism." This is not true, as deism is a belief and agnosticism is not.

There's probably more I could point out, but I'll leave it at this.
Originally posted by K3fka
1. You claim that "atheists need faith to believe their teachings"; this is wrong in a couple of ways. First of all, atheism has no teachings, and is not actually a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deities. As the saying goes, "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." Therefore, because there is no actual belief, no faith is required; you don't need faith to not believe in something.

2. You claim that "agnosticism is basically a fancy term for imbeciles who want to sound smart by using a big word to describe their foolish indecisiveness over religion)." First of all, let's define agnosticism. A good definition is this: "a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God." So this means that agnostics simply make the claim that one cannot know for certain whether or not gods exist, which is absolutely true. I don't see how accepting an absolute truth is foolish at all.

3. You claim that "deism contains no faith." Well, faith is the acceptance of something as true without any evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any deities, so yes, there is faith involved here.

4. You claim that "[Deism is] the more refined and polished form of Agnosticism." This is not true, as deism is a belief and agnosticism is not.


1. Atheists do have faith. They have to have faith in no faith. Hard concept to grasp, I know. Don't worry, you'll get it. And I apologize for calling Atheism a religion. That was a mistake on my part.

2. I was trying not to go there, but I guess I will. Agnosticism isn't really a religious choice. Why? Because agnosticism is just a damn opinion. An Agnostic Atheist would be what we call today "an Agnostic", because they say there "can be a God or no God, but it's uncertain", meaning that they are leaning towards the Atheistic side since they implicate that God has not made any appearances. That is what an "Agnostic" is. Although, by the books, Agnosticism is what you say it is, technically speaking, and with a bit more research, it isn't. It's just an opinion. It can't be classified as a religious choice.

3. Yes, I do assert that Deism contains no faith. Deism is the lack of believing in the nature of God, but not denying his existence. It is merely a recognition you might say. Deists say that God has to be out there, logically, not religiously, because through science, we deem it necessary for him to exist, yet we do not use belief to say what God it could be.

4. Running out of steam? You didn't even bother to throw any evidence in this one. Anyway, I already explained that Deism contains no belief. Only the truly lazy and incompetent use Agnosticism as their choice for religious views. Why? They think it makes them seem smart. Every one of those idiots I talked to, I asked "Are you an Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist?" and they just looked at me like I was speaking Mandarin.

By the way, a quick definition of Deism for you: [Deists] accept the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but reject belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Quick definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist.

You also seem to have the incorrect idea that Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. I'm here to tell you what Atheism really is. Atheism is the belief that all known deities are false. In truth, Atheism wouldn't exist without Theism. Therefore, if religion didn't exist, neither would Atheism. So stop identifying Atheism as its own thing. It isn't. I'm sure you are familiar with x and y, correct? Well, x is Theism, and y is Atheism, constantly changing according to x.

Originally posted by K3fka
There's probably more I could point out, but I'll leave it at this.


Don't flatter yourself.
More than half of the people in this thread didn't even understand the OP.

Originally posted by BE
I don't really believe in god. I believe in the big bang theory and evolution.

Yea, so your answer to the thread would be that you believe in "god", as the thread defined it.
Ladida's post was pretty much off-topic too.




Originally posted by King Boo
Quick definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist.

Care to share where you found that definition?
Preferably from a reliable source, making it up yourself or reading it on forums isn't exactly reliable, and since I share K3fka's thoughts I'm not exactly sure where you got that from.
Wikipedia says, with two citations so I'd assume it's pretty reliable, that Atheism "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [...] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist".
There is no faith involved in saying that there's no dog biting your leg, since you're clearly not feeling any pain.

That Atheism wouldn't exist without Theism is self-explanatory, the name itself already suggests it, after all nobody would have gone "dude, I don't think god exists!" when the concept of god hasn't even been created.
I'm not exactly sure how this backs up any of your (or my) arguments anyway.


Originally posted by King Boo
Because agnosticism is just a damn opinion.

But that's what all religions are.
Originally posted by Wikipedia on Opinion
In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.

Sounds exactly like every religious argument ever, wouldn't you agree?
However, you're right that Agnosticism isn't a religious choice, but rather the choice not to make any religious choice.
Which conflicts with your own point

Originally posted by King Boo
4. Running out of steam? You didn't even bother to throw any evidence in this one.

a) His "evidence" was in his second point; he specifically stated that agnosticism is the acceptance of not being able to know whether god exists or not, which is true, and as such much different.
b) Deism is most definitely a belief, the belief that there is a god with the rejection of any revelations, i.e. interaction with humankind of any kind.

I know this must be getting old, but check out ye olde wikipedia articles on Deism and Agnosticism.
Observe how the agnosticism article specifically avoids the use of the word belief in its definition, but rather pinpoints that it is the stance that no belief, be it leaning towards theism or atheism, has sufficient grounds to be considered rational.



Originally posted by King Boo
Hard concept to grasp, I know. Don't worry, you'll get it. [...]
Don't flatter yourself.

This is not how you lead an argument, this is just insulting the person you're arguing with (ad hominem) and is not acceptable, especially since you have yet to give any sources for your points. Always assume the opposing to be just as, if not more intelligent than you.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

And don't go "but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, everybody knows that!"
Please, we don't live in 2007 any more.
Your layout has been removed.
Way to derail the topic of this thread. That was not the point ludus was making. Since this is turning into a "I'm right, you're wrong" thing now as I predicted, I'll close this. Any mods care to disagree, be my guest.
I think a post layout goes here somewhere...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Link Thread Closed