God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Arbolvine]

I underlined the part you're not reading.

He said that corruption wasn't possible where money wasn't involved.

Meh. I just wouldn't classify moderators as dishonest or corrupt. More of biased and overzealous. Corrupt implies intent to abuse their power.

[Fralinia]

He said that corruption wasn't possible where money wasn't involved.

Meh. I just wouldn't classify moderators as dishonest or corrupt. More of biased and overzealous. Corrupt implies intent to abuse their power.

I would classify this discussion as roaming into off-topic, but that is my opinion.

To push it back I posit this: can God be considered corrupt? Some of the things he does certainly seem malicious to a human, but are they done for some sort of personal gain? Can you even have personal gain if you're omipotent?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

To push it back I posit this: can God be considered corrupt? Some of the things he does certainly seem malicious to a human, but are they done for some sort of personal gain? Can you even have personal gain if you're omipotent?

I feel that obviously the answer is yes, but if you accept no concept of morality other than the dictates of a higher power, then the answer would be no.

[The Alma Mater]

Meh. I just wouldn't classify moderators as dishonest or corrupt. More of biased and overzealous. Corrupt implies intent to abuse their power.

I would classify this discussion as roaming into off-topic, but that is my opinion.

To push it back I posit this: can God be considered corrupt? Some of the things he does certainly seem malicious to a human, but are they done for some sort of personal gain? Can you even have personal gain if you're omipotent?

Sure, it is called pleasure. I am nearly omnipotent in the Sims and certainly derive pleasure from torturing the poor little sprites.

[Land Der Volkeren]

Meh. I just wouldn't classify moderators as dishonest or corrupt. More of biased and overzealous. Corrupt implies intent to abuse their power.

I would classify this discussion as roaming into off-topic, but that is my opinion.

To push it back I posit this: can God be considered corrupt? Some of the things he does certainly seem malicious to a human, but are they done for some sort of personal gain? Can you even have personal gain if you're omipotent?

The problem with attributing God with human attributes is that it tends, in my opinion, to corrupt the concept of God (as it is a mystery).

[Risottia]

Meh. I just wouldn't classify moderators as dishonest or corrupt. More of biased and overzealous. Corrupt implies intent to abuse their power.

I would classify this discussion as roaming into off-topic, but that is my opinion.

To push it back I posit this: can God be considered corrupt? Some of the things he does certainly seem malicious to a human, but are they done for some sort of personal gain? Can you even have personal gain if you're omipotent?

Amusement would be a kind of personal gain.

[Arbolvine]

The ideas thrown around as to how God would find pleasure sound like the amusements of a psychotic dictator.

[Risottia]

The ideas thrown around as to how God would find pleasure sound like the amusements of a psychotic dictator.

Exactly what I would think about the God of Abraham, especially the variant given in the Torah, in the Book of Job, or in the Book of Revelation.

[Fralinia]

The ideas thrown around as to how God would find pleasure sound like the amusements of a psychotic dictator.

Exactly what I would think about the God of Abraham, especially the variant given in the Torah, in the Book of Job, or in the Book of Revelation.

The Book of Job essentially amounts to two celestial cats fighting over and toying with a mouse that they caught.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Is Atheism a godless belief? If you were given substantial scientific proof that a god did exist, wouldn't Atheism become a theory with a god? Atheism isn't a godless belief. Atheism is belief of material and scientific evidence before a strong claim can be made. Atheism is a belief without book, because they know books become outdated and incorrect as time goes on. But would all Atheists convert to a belief in a god if a god appeared and substantial evidence was given to prove his existence? Probably not. Because there is no way to fully prove the existence of a god, or lack of a god. There is no way that anyone can say that with complete and utter certainty. Is popular Atheism actually Atheism then?

Maybe I'm on some sleep deprivation induced rant but I think I might be onto something.

[Arbolvine]

If you were given substantial scientific proof that a god did exist, wouldn't Atheism become a theory with a god? Atheism isn't a godless belief. Atheism is belief of material and scientific evidence before a strong claim can be made.

Atheism would disappear if God were proven.
It is godless. That's why it's called atheism. But yes, it relies on science and evidence.

Atheism is a belief without book, because they know books become outdated and incorrect as time goes on.

If you are referring to our rejection of biblical information, we don't reject it for being old. We reject it for being unprovable and self-reinforcing (which involves circular logic).

But would all Atheists convert to a belief in a god if a god appeared and substantial evidence was given to prove his existence? Probably not. Because there is no way to fully prove the existence of a god, or lack of a god. There is no way that anyone can say that with complete and utter certainty.

If Jehovah, Brahman, Zeus, whatever were to demonstrate its existence, or if we found strong empirical evidence for a Creator, I would believe in it. We rarely have incontrovertible evidence for anything. But if the probability that the evidence is correct is high enough, it is illogical to deny it. Atheists reject God because there is no reliable evidence for its existence. If there were evidence, there would be few to no atheists.

Is popular Atheism actually Atheism then?

I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I suppose...

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

If you were given substantial scientific proof that a god did exist, wouldn't Atheism become a theory with a god? Atheism isn't a godless belief. Atheism is belief of material and scientific evidence before a strong claim can be made.

Atheism would disappear if God were proven.
It is godless. That's why it's called atheism. But yes, it relies on science and evidence.

Atheism is a belief without book, because they know books become outdated and incorrect as time goes on.

If you are referring to our rejection of biblical information, we don't reject it for being old. We reject it for being unprovable and self-reinforcing (which involves circular logic).

But would all Atheists convert to a belief in a god if a god appeared and substantial evidence was given to prove his existence? Probably not. Because there is no way to fully prove the existence of a god, or lack of a god. There is no way that anyone can say that with complete and utter certainty.

If Jehovah, Brahman, Zeus, whatever were to demonstrate its existence, or if we found strong empirical evidence for a Creator, I would believe in it. We rarely have incontrovertible evidence for anything. But if the probability that the evidence is correct is high enough, it is illogical to deny it. Atheists reject God because there is no reliable evidence for its existence. If there were evidence, there would be few to no atheists.

Is popular Atheism actually Atheism then?

I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I suppose...

So to answer my own question- it was a sleep-deprivation induced rant.

[Arbolvine]

Atheism would disappear if God were proven.
It is godless. That's why it's called atheism. But yes, it relies on science and evidence.

If you are referring to our rejection of biblical information, we don't reject it for being old. We reject it for being unprovable and self-reinforcing (which involves circular logic).

If Jehovah, Brahman, Zeus, whatever were to demonstrate its existence, or if we found strong empirical evidence for a Creator, I would believe in it. We rarely have incontrovertible evidence for anything. But if the probability that the evidence is correct is high enough, it is illogical to deny it. Atheists reject God because there is no reliable evidence for its existence. If there were evidence, there would be few to no atheists.

I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I suppose...

So to answer my own question- it was a sleep-deprivation induced rant.

Not so much a rant as a misconception. You had some good ideas that just suffered myopia due to exhaustion.

[The East Asian Post-Apocalyptic Pact]

What kind of heresy is this? The thread died?

BUMP

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

What kind of heresy is this? The thread died?

BUMP

You know, you could have posted some kind of argument or discussion topic rather than just spamming with a bump.

In order to not be a hypocrite, I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

[Twilight Imperium]

I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

It's almost like people are using God as spackle to paste over things they don't understand. But that can't be it, there's so many logical reasons to believe in him!

[Distruzio]

I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

It's almost like people are using God as spackle to paste over things they don't understand. But that can't be it, there's so many logical reasons to believe in him!

What logical reasons are there?

[Fralinia]

It's almost like people are using God as spackle to paste over things they don't understand. But that can't be it, there's so many logical reasons to believe in him!

What logical reasons are there?

I believe that may have been sarcastic.

[New Werpland]

Why can't we all agree that god is unprovable, and that his existence is unprovable, so that we can deal with more important things in life?

What kind of heresy is this? The thread died?

BUMP

Why? Why didn't you let it die?

[Risottia]

It's almost like people are using God as spackle to paste over things they don't understand. But that can't be it, there's so many logical reasons to believe in him!

What logical reasons are there?

Lots of booze and wild sex.

If you aren't getting them, you're clearly believing the wrong kind of deity.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

What kind of heresy is this? The thread died?

BUMP

You know, you could have posted some kind of argument or discussion topic rather than just spamming with a bump.

In order to not be a hypocrite, I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

Yeah. Isn't weird how in early Christianity, everyone thought the Bible was the direct word of god? Now everyone thinks that it's mostly metaphor. It's almost like every time science and logic proves them wrong they cover it up with "figurative language".

That's the problem with organized religion. When taken literally, they can incite violence. For Christians, it's the Crusades and the Pope. For Islam, it's jihad and the Sharia law. These things dilute when they start taking their book a bit less seriously.

[New Werpland]

You know, you could have posted some kind of argument or discussion topic rather than just spamming with a bump.

In order to not be a hypocrite, I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

Yeah. Isn't weird how in early Christianity, everyone thought the Bible was the direct word of god? Now everyone thinks that it's mostly metaphor. It's almost like every time science and logic proves them wrong they cover it up with "figurative language".

That's the problem with organized religion. When taken literally, they can incite violence. For Christians, it's the Crusades and the Pope. For Islam, it's jihad and the Sharia law. These things dilute when they start taking their book a bit less seriously.

Which is a horrible argument against it, there are many organized religions that are not violent.

[Distruzio]

You know, you could have posted some kind of argument or discussion topic rather than just spamming with a bump.

In order to not be a hypocrite, I'll just say that it's amazing how conceptions of gods get more ephemeral and less solid the further we understand the world, isn't it?

Yeah. Isn't weird how in early Christianity, everyone thought the Bible was the direct word of god? Now everyone thinks that it's mostly metaphor. It's almost like every time science and logic proves them wrong they cover it up with "figurative language".

That's the problem with organized religion. When taken literally, they can incite violence. For Christians, it's the Crusades and the Pope. For Islam, it's jihad and the Sharia law. These things dilute when they start taking their book a bit less seriously.

Ummm... youve got that twisted. Biblical literalism is the new kid on the block. Early Christianity was most certainly NOT literalist.

[Distruzio]

What logical reasons are there?

I believe that may have been sarcastic.

Indeed.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Yeah. Isn't weird how in early Christianity, everyone thought the Bible was the direct word of god? Now everyone thinks that it's mostly metaphor. It's almost like every time science and logic proves them wrong they cover it up with "figurative language".

That's the problem with organized religion. When taken literally, they can incite violence. For Christians, it's the Crusades and the Pope. For Islam, it's jihad and the Sharia law. These things dilute when they start taking their book a bit less seriously.

Ummm... youve got that twisted. Biblical literalism is the new kid on the block. Early Christianity was most certainly NOT literalist.

I'm pretty sure it was.