Your opinion on God

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.

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

Argumentum ad novitatem writ large.

>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?

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

Faith is a leap, not an indecisive bunny-hop

Of*

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

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.

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

>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?

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.

In your chart, I'm an agnostic atheist.

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

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.

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.

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).

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Aighto.

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

Your god should consider cutting carbs.

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

>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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

>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.

This is called being an atheist.

Faith

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

>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.

>faith is dangerous

yep

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

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.

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

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.

*Agnosticism

>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

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.

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

*that they have her believe that

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

tl;dr because I don't care what some random Veeky Forums user believes.

Why is people always forgetting agnosticism.

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

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.

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.

Why would that be wrong.

Reasoned disbelief is better than blind disbelief.

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.

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".

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.

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

>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.

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!

>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!

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...)

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

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

You've clearly not read that book.

youtube.com/watch?v=TSKPkpTF1ns

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

>fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:

Does anyone else hear that

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.

NT God constantly talks about being the OT god.

>either personally demands the deaths of or directly slaughters millions

See

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.

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.

...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.)

Fair point.

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!

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

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

>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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.