Scientific/Philosophical/Religious Debate.

[d_pet_vet_seeker]

Ants?

I must have gotten off on the wrong thread. Here I thought we were debating the existence of God and instead I find a tribute to the instinct of ants? Yes, brainless following can accomplish a lot, both good and evil. (Look at the Egyptians and their pyramids as good and yet Hitler and his Nazi followers... evil). oh hey wait, also look at religious devotion vs. religious exploitation. Charity groups and the Crusades. Society works on the premise that a select few are leaders and the rest are followers. The followers usually don't have the life lessons to realize that there are exploiters and the exploited. Anyone else would have to live life on the fringes of society, go away and be independent. Independence can become lonliness. How does any of that either prove or disprove God? Chemical markers are responsible for the behavior of ants. These subordinate creatures can be amusing to analyze though, one female controls the actions of hundreds of males, and chases away all of her daughters so that they don't rise up in insurrection... hmm... interesting. So are you saying that ants are like Allah's people, and therefore Allah's government would be a woman dominated government?

 

[AlejandroX]

Simple minds require simple answers. Silly bear.

 

[Medjai]

The ants are organized as are all things within the universe for without organization their can be no absolute means of existence. In essance, without something to compare one variable to the next with one can not logically believe that anything exists.

As many of you on this forum are very feeble minded I will attempt to explain my view on the organization of the universe as simply as possible.

First I will tell you the neccassary means as to any form of matters existent to be relevant.

[code:1]1. All things relevant indefinately definable.

2. All things relevant can be compared to that of some other thing which is relevant.

3. All things relevant must have a purpose, hence giving them the means to their relevancy.

4. All things relevant must be involved in some way with that of another relevant variable whether it be an action or an object of matter.

5. All things relevant must be distinguishable. (I.E.: They must be identifiable as one form of relevant matter or action from another.)

6. All things relevant are by definition valid.[/code:1]

According to Theists, God is uncomprehendable. Yet they would claim he is Infallible, omniscient, and omnipotent. An undefinable being is by definition undescribable and therefore the Theists can not, without directly contradicting themselves, logically state that God is any of these things for the only possible way to know any attributes of anything one must be able to mentally comprehend it. In this sense they have already proved for me that God is irrelevant. As this directly opposes the definition of relevance we can from this alone conclude that God is irrelevant to mankind.

We have concluded that God is not definable meaning that one of the parts of Relevance has now been covered. Let us try and see if God has any forms of relevance at all.

The second part of this definition is easy to explain as it has in essance already been proven that God does not apply to this part of the definition. Let me explain, as it is simple. In order for anything to be comparable to another, both objects must be individually definable. As we have concluded God is not a definable being and thus is directly in opposition with being a comparable being. Thus God now only has four chances left to be a relevant form in the universe.

Because of the fact that god is undefinable and uncomparable one can not with any rational thinking assume that God has any purpose other than that to be God. In being undefinable God is neither static or active. For if he were either he would be definable and comparable to other static/active forces in the universe. Yet there is no in between therefore it is logical to conclude that God does not exist. If this can be logically concluded than their is no purpose to the existence of God. If you need further convincing consider this: a rocks purpose is evident though apparently trivial, it merely exists for that of existence itself. Its only purpose it to exist. Thus it is unchanging unless affected by outside forces of which have the purpose of disturbing this static existence. Since God is above everything, no outside forces are able to affect the being meaning that he would simply continue to exist in a state of undefinable, uncomparable, and purposeless existance. Thus we can now conclude as to the fact that God has no purpose.

In order to be relevant, something must influence that of another relevant force. In other words it must have an effect on something of importance to effectively have done anything worth doing. Do not get me wrong, a relevant object can simply change itself in order to satisfy this part of the definition yet God fails to do even that. As he is undefined, uncomparable, and without purpose. Thus he is simply unmotivated to change anything to to the fact that he is neither active or static (which by the way is impossible in itself which explains his non-existance). Thus we now know that God is unable to chage anything of any value to anything in the universe.

Since God is entirely uncomprehendable and undefinable he is obviously undestiguishable as you can not portray him at all meaning he could be nothing or everything. It is because of this that we know God is undestinguishable.

Now we come to the final argument: is God valid? The answer is simple and a foundation for its presentation has been laid out with logic analytical thinking. The validity of something is shown through its accuracy and necessity. Since God has been proven as undefinable, we only have necessity to lay back on. Let us review on a pass fail basis those parts of the definition of relevance God has shown to attribute to.

[code:1]1. All things relevant indefinately definable.[/code:1]
FAIL
[code:1]2. All things relevant can be compared to that of some other thing which is relevant.[/code:1]
FAIL
[code:1]3. All things relevant must have a purpose, hence giving them the means to their relevancy.[/code:1]
FAIL
[code:1]4. All things relevant must be involved in some way with that of another relevant variable whether it be an action or an object of matter.[/code:1]
FAIL
[code:1]5. All things relevant must be distinguishable. (I.E.: They must be identifiable as one form of relevant matter or action from another.)[/code:1]
FAIL
[code:1]6. All things relevant are by definition valid.[/code:1]
FAIL

God doesn't seem to have a very good track record on the subject of his relevance.

If I have pissed any one off or offended any one in any way please realize that I don't give a shit and I plan on pissing you off as often as possible.

Insanity is by definition the repetition of an action (PRAYING), getting a result (GOD DOESN'T REPLY), and expecting the results to change.

 

[AlejandroX]

That insanity quote sounds familiar. What is it from?

 

[Jada]

All this argument about religion!!

Well, in my opinion (and yes, you can very well argue that my opinion doesn't matter), religion isn't something that can be rationalized with cold logic - it belongs in the psychology department. Religion was founded for various reasons, to explain phenomenon, provide a source of hope, create a societal "rule book" or moral code to follow...all that good stuff. When you think about it, the concept of religion was inevitable - people who cannot understand something will create a rationalizer so they aren't so confused (isn't that what scientists did because they couldn't figure out how light traveled through space? They decided that it went through "luminous ether", a completely made-up idea).

Anyway, I'm an atheist (well, not completely, I'm partially Buddhist, and have been brought up with Confucianism, which isn't a religion anyway), so I guess my views are biased and analytically-based...

Finally:

As many of you on this forum are very feeble minded I will attempt to explain my view on the organization of the universe as simply as possible.

WOW, you are really arrogant. Feeble-minded? Oooookay...

 

[Medjai]

I got that sanity saying from a site a while back, I didn't invent it, I just though it was appropriate to end my post with it. I would have quoted its source had I remembered where I had gotten it from.

 

[Medjai]

The mere act of calling someone arrogant is in itself arrogant. If someone lacks the ability to properly analyze texts which are clearly described and easily understood are lacking in certain mental aspects of which I merely decided to label feeble as in weak and inferior.

Ratfink is a perfect example of this just read his posts, if you want I will gladly quote them and point out his obviously flawed logic. I guess I could have used the term retarded instead of feeble, if that would suit you better I am fine with that.

As for my arrogance, read my other posts and see my consideration for others thoughts, I have just reached a point with some of you that I can't stand the stupidity. I've tried to deal with it by being reasonable yet that has failed as many of you discard logic and "arrogantly" believe in the flawed rational false fantasies of higher powers.

 

[Nemesis]

Contradiction

I find religion hard to accept because they contradict one another. If I am a Jahova's witness(not sure of spelling), isnt god's name Jahovah? But if I am instead Muslim, there's no doubt we call him by Allah. Think that's a stupid example? Ok well the bible was God's words verbatim right? So why doesn't every religion call him by the same name?

Pagan's believe in the existance of many God's, while Christian's and Muslims believe there is one higher being who oversees all.
Now logically speaking, can there be many Gods and only one God at once? Obviously someone is wrong here. Now I know that members of either side would say their religions view of deities is the right one. Which supports my belief that one of the few things Religions are good for is, starting wars and killing off others that do not share your Religions ideals and beliefs. To debate that one, is a losing cause. History proves this.

In all honesty, neither side can prove to me that their side holds more credebility over the other.

Im sure theres many more contradictions from one Religion to the next. With that in mind, why should I or anyone believe in a God/s when there so many Religions out there that can't prove he/they exist?

I think that in early times Religion was an invention to give people a feeling of hope that theres something out there looking after them, and that theres consequences after death. People were told good things come to those who follow the Rules of God, while those who are bad shall burn in an eternal fiery hell.
Personally my believe is such, peoples morals(which are made by people), determine someone's fate/punishment and when someone dies, regardless of how many people they have killed/raped/some other bad shit, they are gone. Death to me is nothingness. You become worm food and rot in the earth, no afterlife just nothing as it was before you existed.
You possess no brain, and therefore thought is impossible. Hey remember the days before you were born, heh those were great days werent they? Wait I can't remember those times! Oh yeah I didn't exist, kinda like death huh?

Returning to the invention of Religion theory, if I were a poor peasant with no hope of ever being financially secure. Working hard days in the fields with no chance of ever advancing in my status and dieing as a pauper whos entire life was dedicated to work and exhaustion, as many of the poor lead such lives. The idea of a supernatural being that was looking out for me. On top of this, as long as I acted good and followed his rules I would enter an eternal paradise called heaven, the idea of Religion would work for me. I believe that kings and leaders of countries adopted Religions to act as a government for their people in early times. In the modern world I believe that Religions do good things for people like give them hope, raise money for the misfortunate and care for one another. But there are many modern organizations that do this as well.

Well this post has got quite long, ill quit for now. Let's hear some replies.

 

[Dalius]

Re: Contradiction

I find religion hard to accept because they contradict one another. If I am a Jahova's witness(not sure of spelling), isnt god's name Jahovah? But if I am instead Muslim, there's no doubt we call him by Allah. Think that's a stupid example? Ok well the bible was God's words verbatim right? So why doesn't every religion call him by the same name?

Pagan's believe in the existance of many God's, while Christian's and Muslims believe there is one higher being who oversees all.
Now logically speaking, can there be many Gods and only one God at once? Obviously someone is wrong here. Now I know that members of either side would say their religions view of deities is the right one. Which supports my belief that one of the few things Religions are good for is, starting wars and killing off others that do not share your Religions ideals and beliefs. To debate that one, is a losing cause. History proves this.

In all honesty, neither side can prove to me that their side holds more credebility over the other.

Im sure theres many more contradictions from one Religion to the next. With that in mind, why should I or anyone believe in a God/s when there so many Religions out there that can't prove he/they exist?

I think that in early times Religion was an invention to give people a feeling of hope that theres something out there looking after them, and that theres consequences after death. People were told good things come to those who follow the Rules of God, while those who are bad shall burn in an eternal fiery hell.
Personally my believe is such, peoples morals(which are made by people), determine someone's fate/punishment and when someone dies, regardless of how many people they have killed/raped/some other bad ****, they are gone. Death to me is nothingness. You become worm food and rot in the earth, no afterlife just nothing as it was before you existed.
You possess no brain, and therefore thought is impossible. Hey remember the days before you were born, heh those were great days werent they? Wait I can't remember those times! Oh yeah I didn't exist, kinda like death huh?

Returning to the invention of Religion theory, if I were a poor peasant with no hope of ever being financially secure. Working hard days in the fields with no chance of ever advancing in my status and dieing as a pauper whos entire life was dedicated to work and exhaustion, as many of the poor lead such lives. The idea of a supernatural being that was looking out for me. On top of this, as long as I acted good and followed his rules I would enter an eternal paradise called heaven, the idea of Religion would work for me. I believe that kings and leaders of countries adopted Religions to act as a government for their people in early times. In the modern world I believe that Religions do good things for people like give them hope, raise money for the misfortunate and care for one another. But there are many modern organizations that do this as well.

Well this post has got quite long, ill quit for now. Let's hear some replies.

Fully agree.

Here's what I have to say...Prove to me God exists and I'll beleive him

 

[d_pet_vet_seeker]

Since we agree that religion has both positive and negative effects, it would be best to keep the beneficial aspects(treating others wtih respect, honoring the sanctity of life) and do away with the hurtful aspects (killing someone else because his book or God has a different name or interpretation). However, this idyllic situation cannot exist, because a fair means of determining morals would still require the belief that someone out there would have a higher authority. (who would decide what would be moral or immoral? Someone representing the government? that would infringe upon the separation of church and state, and is unfeasible) Besides this, most people (even below - average humans) find subordination to the morals of others difficult to swallow unless they are threatened with the fires of hell or other (unproveable and inherently self - invented) punishments to which one might sell himself for happiness, success, or pleasure now, in actual life. This would make the goal impossible to even eventually achieve. If the world didn't have any concept of religion at all, the "feeble minded" as you call them would find another pariah to worship, and if this was a live person, the power would go to his or her head and inevitably, would be exploited, beyond that which religions have done historically. Hence, if the populous believed that no God or religion was valid, it would just find another idol to worship. Another idol worshipped would do nothing for the stupidity of mankind. Some people need to be blind followers so that the leaders in a society have someone to do all their work for them. Even if a mass movement of atheism was to take the country by storm,(which would not happen overnight, because christianity is a tradition and some people blindly follow tradition the same way others blindly accept religion) it would never solve the problem of exploitation. All the people who need to be exploited would just find someone else to feed them what they want to hear.

 

[ratfink]

Re: Contradiction

I find religion hard to accept because they contradict one another. If I am a Jahova's witness(not sure of spelling), isnt god's name Jahovah? But if I am instead Muslim, there's no doubt we call him by Allah. Think that's a stupid example? Ok well the bible was God's words verbatim right? So why doesn't every religion call him by the same name?

AFAIK:
- Jahovah was a prophet. JWs are Christians.
- God vs Allah is reallly an issue of language they both are the same thing however most muslums prefer to refer to him in english in their native tongue.

 

[Dalius]

Re: Contradiction

- Jahovah was a prophet. JWs are Christians.

So then I can say "Jesus Was Jewish, All Christains are jews" then right?

 

[ratfink]

Re: Contradiction

So then I can say "Jesus Was Jewish, All Christains are jews" then right?

*shrugs* It's a free country you can say whatever you wish. Is it accurate? No not really. Christianity is a branch in the religion, they do have a common root however. The most core difference between Judaism and Christianity was that Christians belive that Jesus was God's son and Jewish do not. Christianity as a movement really happend only after the death of Jesus.

 

[Xenon]

Look at it like this. The three well-known religions are very similar, so in the study of theology, they are known as Judaeo-Christian-Islam religion. Look at it with the three most important members: Abraham in Judeaism, Jesus in Christianity, and Mohammed in Islam. They are just continuations. Truth is, Islams have no real problem with Christians; they hate Americans, which its dominant religion is Christianity. This is what is known as the Judaeo-Christian-Islam timeline:


|----------------------|-------------------|-------------------|
Abraham------- Jesus -------- Mohammed ---- Jesus(Judgement)

This diagram shows how this group of monotheistic religions is grouped together. The hindu timeline looks like a circle, With a waking period and a slumber period of the ultimate god, and his sleeping period is where we exist in his dream. When he wakes, everything is the same, and all matter is uniform, with only this god existing. Whatever. By the way, Jehovah is one of the many names of god, and in the bible, is equal to what is represented by the capitolized word LORD in the Bible (In the Bible, Lord and LORD are different representations of God).

 

[Nemesis]

Ok, what about Pagan's and their belief of many Gods? Do you agree there are many gods out there?

If so, how can Christians, Muslims, Judaism be correct?

If you believe in one God, how can Pagan's be correct?

As you can see if one side is correct, the other is obviously wrong. This is why instead of try and take a side on which neither can be proved. I'd rather default to none, than assume mine is the "correct" Religion.

 

[ratfink]

By the way, Jehovah is one of the many names of god, and in the bible, is equal to what is represented by the capitolized word LORD in the Bible (In the Bible, Lord and LORD are different representations of God).

I stand corrected on that issue.

 

[Xenon]

One more thing:

One should not be as pretentious to claim that they have proven God's irrelevance. You have no physical justification, which mainly constitutes a proof.

 

[AlejandroX]

Proof is impossible either way. All we can attempt to offer here is probability. The only way to prove God's nonexistance would be to search everywhere that God could theorically be hiding. A daunting task at that. A more appropriate argument I think would be:

what evidence do we have that God does exist?

Well we have a book written over the course of a few hundred years by many people thousands of years ago. Why do we believe in what it says? Because someone told us to. Of course I'm simplifying and sounding rather disingenuous but that's really what it boils down to.

 

[Xenon]

Exactly. That's why religion is a question of faith. If it were proven/disproven, what would be the purpose?

 

[Medjai]

Why would a higher being have the need to sadistically trick people into damnation by not offering proof of his existence? If this being is perfect, he has no reason to hide the truth from us and force us to guess as pertaining to his existence. The truth of the matter is this, religion was conveniantly created with self serving matters as to justify every possible way of disproving it. This is ultimately because anything a Theist is unable to answer logically is because "we are unable to comprehend God". Since we are unable to comprehend him any ways, why should we care, he can not blame us for not understanding him when we have not the brain power to accomplish that task. This is the extremely simplified reasoning to which I have said in evidence towards his irrelevance.

Secondly it is impossible for anything in the universe to be perfect unless everything in it is perfect. For being in the environment of imperfection is not a state of perfection as in order to be perfect everything must be percieved as perfect by the being itself otherwise it will analyze the imperfect environment and as a result will be thinking of imperfect things which means the beings thought is imperfect ultimately meaning the being is imperfect.