[Terez]

Silencer, on Oct 19 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

Gem, your first response to this thread was pretty much on the level of Terez at her worst. I'm shocked.

You shouldn't be, since "Terez at her worse" came in response to such.

[/end hijack]

[Osric]

Bent, on Oct 20 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

Osric, on Oct 19 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Anyway, what's always bothered me about religion is the blind belief part. You are basically not allowed to have doubts, to ask questions, the only thing you need to do to get into heaven is to believe what people tell you, what you read in the bible. Is that something God would want for us to do? Would God want us to blindly believe? If so why did he make it our nature to find out new things and why would he make it our nature to doubt? General answer is to test our belief but what's the point? Maybe someone with more knowledge about religion can answer that.

To answer this question, I believe you have to look at what God had already created, Angles. The were mindless and had no free will, Lucifer even tied to step away in jealous rage. He was cast out of heaven and sent to hell for his digressions. God =, didn't want that, he wanted a free minded people, and in order to secure that we were free, he gave us the traits of curiosity and cynicism. Free will is again the key. If we never doubted or questioned, we would be mindless slaves, therefore, he left our choices up to us, even the wrong ones. Not a test per say, but instead a security that we can choose which path to take.

To be honest with you, while I appreciate the expanation, it seems slightly ridiculous. You're saying it's perfectly alright that we don't "blindly believe" and that we should not turn into "mindless drones", that we are free to choose wether to believe or not and god wants that. But then why is it that when we don't believe, we get subjected to eternal torment in hell? That's like pointing a gun at someone's head and telling him to give you all his money or you'll shoot him dead. Sure, he doesn't have to give you the money but if he doesn't he's dead.. You threaten a woman you'll kill her children unless she has sex with you, same thing. That's not free will mate, that's rape.

God "loves us all" but if we don't do whatever the hell he says we suffer a faith unimaginably bad, eternal torture. You know, the god people are trying to push down our throats from birth is sounding more and more like my friend's wifebeater dad.

Seriously, not wanting to offend anyone or anything like that, I respect everyone's belief, I agree with a lot of things religion is about, love, family, respect, but someone please tell me that what bent has said there is not true.. Please..

Silencer, on Oct 20 2008, 06:14 AM, said:

Interesting perspective on the thing, Osric. I can see how that would work. Although I still don't see how matter couldn't also have always been there. (But that puts us back in the logic loop created by my original question, so I'll leave it).

The human mind works like this: we use what we see and experience to create our awareness. We are not able to imagine or form in our minds something we haven't seen or experienced. Even when we create fantasy and things that aren't real, we use things we've seen or experienced to form them. We invent magic by using what we already know for example, using mass and physics, simple things like fire and ice and that. It is impossible for us to imagine what a universe without basic rules like "matter" and "time" would look like, it's beyond our ability to comprehend, so that you don't see isnt that weird, nobody can. However that doesnt mean it can't exist. It also means nobody can explain what "god" is, since it uncomprehendable. This is why I'm agnostic.

This post has been edited by Osric: 20 October 2008 - 07:54 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Silencer, on Oct 20 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

Gem, your first response to this thread was pretty much on the level of Terez at her worst. I'm shocked.

Not really, since I actually had a point, but you're right I could have expanded a little, like with the post directed at Cause - my apologies.

The reason I kind of don't like these kind of threads is because their only purpose is to start a war with speculation and "I know the truth" "no I know the truth" kind of debates. If it was all good fun, I would have something to say, and I would say it.

But as I turns out, I have nothing to say on this subject, which is why I unwittingly impersonated Terez. Won't happen again, sorry.

*steps away from the thread*

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 October 2008 - 12:44 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Japanese anime Lain or Ghost in The Shell in particular plays with the idea that a God is created whenever a large multitude of information is condensed to a point where that information can be viewed as something more than it's constituent parts. IE in the internet there's a multitude of personalities which form nodes of information around certain meeting points such as blogs forums IRC.

Thus japanime sees God as a being created whenever there is such a vast amount of information around us that we cannot comprehend it all and instead we begin to mystify it. The first such accumulation of information was the world itself - people did not understand the world so they explained everything with God.

In present day God is manifested as a form of Super-culture - whenever a subculture grows beyond certain limits a form of mutual understanding appears as well governing each individuals interactions within the group.

You can look at God and look at how He represents everything people 2000 years ago wanted to be - all the values that you need to teach your children - all the lesson that will make you a better human being. Kids these days want nice clothes they want their favorite music at their disposal at all times - most of all they want more and more contact and communication.

You do the math.

Now that is an interesting idea IMO I'm not saying that God is in the internet but that God represents all forms of interaction between human beings and not just the traditional methods. And anime takes that one step further to explore what would that really look like if you add some mystica to the whole story.

Consciousness arising from over-complication. God arising from a super-accumulation of data. What do you say about that

[frookenhauer]

Osric, on Oct 20 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

...God "loves us all" but if we don't do whatever the hell he says we suffer unimaginably bad, eternal torture.

Seriously, not wanting to offend anyone or anything like that, I respect everyone's belief, I agree with a lot of things religion is about, love, family, respect, but someone please tell me that what bent has said there is not true.. Please..

Yeah that sucks a little bit, kind of puts a damper on that whole free will scenario. Don't believe a word of it Oz, Its not true...well at least its not provable anyway.

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Oct 20 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

Consciousness arising from over-complication. God arising from a super-accumulation of data. What do you say about that

Show me proof and I'll be a believer . Its a good idea, but I don't think it seems enough, might form a minor god possibly: Binor the IT god and his XOR hammer.

[Obdigore]

Hey guys, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Bill Maher's new movie/documentary Religulous is nifty.

[Cause]

Obdigore, on Oct 20 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

Hey guys, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Bill Maher's new movie/documentary Religulous is nifty.

Its been scientifically proven the egg, why do you ask?

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on Oct 20 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Hey guys, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I love you Obdi. :gaes-orfantal:

---
And I say the Chicken! - Mostly because Cause said the egg, though, but does it still count?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 October 2008 - 08:04 PM

[Obdigore]

Cause, on Oct 20 2008, 02:29 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Oct 20 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

Hey guys, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Bill Maher's new movie/documentary Religulous is nifty.

Its been scientifically proven the egg, why do you ask?

Give me links or retract that statement good sir! I demand satisfaction! And I know Aretha Franklin is with me on this one!

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 20 October 2008 - 08:17 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Nobody said it has to be a chicken egg - so dinosaur eggs were by far the first.

And then the dinosaur (everybody look away right now!!!) evolved (ok you can look now) into a chicken.

[frookenhauer]

and before that is was trilobite eggs or somesuch, ha ha!

[Terez]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Oct 20 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

Consciousness arising from over-complication. God arising from a super-accumulation of data. What do you say about that

Sounds like a good SF theme. Or GEB, which left out the god bit and just talked about consciousness arising from patterns of meaningless symbols...sort of...

[frookenhauer]

I think its high time someone set up some sort of deep thought mega computer to figure it out, but if it just comes out with a random number...

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 21 October 2008 - 10:59 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

I dunno about that one but I'm now inspired to buy The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy collection

Then again I want to buy stuff like Dune the rest of the Eragon series etc. etc. and monies are low these days. :/ [/offtopic]

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 22 October 2008 - 08:01 AM

[Cause]

Eragon? Away with you sir! Away!

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Cause, on Oct 22 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

Eragon? Away with you sir! Away!

It's a nice book - easy to read. At least that's my excuse

[Terez]

Read some Dr. Seuss. He's nicer, easier to read, and far more intellectual...

[Silencer]

Totally off topic guys.

And you wonder why a separate forum was requested?

[Terez]

What does that have to do with the reason why the separate forum was requested? Topics meander. It's the nature of internet forums, and the ADD kids that inhabit them (including me - if I see something I want to respond to, I respond to it without caring much what the original topic was about). Usually the meandering doesn't go too far and people get back on topic fairly quickly, but when the hijack persists, it's usually because the hijack is a more interesting discussion than the original was.

Feel free, though, to move this "spam" conversation to a separate thread in the regular discussions forum, where we can discuss the merits and faults of Strict Adherence to Original Topics to our hearts' content.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Darkwatch, on Oct 19 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

See Aristotle for answers.

Aristotle answers nothing.

Kierkegaard is better for this. Essentially belief in God cannot be proved or disproved conclusively, and religious people should not try to prove God exists, as it defeats the entire point of faith. That's an incredibly rough outline.


In the theist or athiest conception, both go back to an orginial cause (think basic Kalam cosmological argument) using the reasoning that everything has a cause. There must be a first cause using this logic, with necessitates a causa sui.

For theists, this is God, as he is omnipotent etc etc and timeless. For atheists, the Big Bang is the start of things. For noth, the argument "well what caused that then?" doesnt hold, as the notion of cause and effect is a property specific to time. Before the big bang there was not ime, therefore no cause and effect. For thesits, standard laws dont hold to God and therefore he similarly avoids the constraint.


Therefore, both explanations require a little faith to get them going.