Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Let's talk about atheism (WALL OF TEXT IN OP DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU)


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#41 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:17 AM

i will ask a question that adds something somebody posted earlier about the invention part, then i will get back to this.

for the inventinon of "god" and the purpose of social control. how many humans were around when "god" was first invented?


This seems irrelevant since a deity of one form or another was invented by multiple cultures throughout human history. Are you referring to a specific god here?

My assumptions are that deities began as a method to explain the natural world that was not understood. With that came reverence of those mythical figures to bring good fortune. If you are going to revere something, you need to have some guidance in how to do it, and thus, social control was born. But that is just me making assumptions.

#42 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:12 AM

since many think man invented his own god, although it doesn't make sense he would make a god to tell him not to even lust after a woman, but i digress.
so if that potential is there for a human to invent their own truth, isn't it highly plausible that is what some here are doing? inventing the answers to the questions they don't know?

as i stated earlier. we all will get our fair shake at the how the cosmos play out. spend all the time and energy you want on figuring things out while on terra firma. just don't come up snake eyes at the worst possible time in your existence. all im saying.


So all religious laws are divine? Everywhere? Man would never willingly ( for whatever reason) constrain his most base nature? The dark ages would like a f*cking word.

We're all inventing answers to questions we don't know... Of course that's what we are doing, that's what we've always done...

As far as turning up snake-eyes... Well, it always comes down to threats doesn't ?

#43 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,958
MFCEO

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:21 AM

Hey look a religion thread! I bet lots of opinions will be changed in here!

#44 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,071
  • Reputation: 1,993
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:35 AM

Why would I invent a God who would want to limit my lusts? Money, sex, and many other areas to be put in a box? Why would I not invent one that gave me freedom in all areas?

Sadly, many who claim Christianity are very distant from the true meaning. Those, like Ray Lewis who think God is more for the Ravens than the other 31 teams are very passionate but their belief is about a quarter inch deep in its understanding. Same with those who pray about math tests and such.

Becoming a Christian, or Hindu or anything does not mean you instantly have all understanding. It is not conveyed upon you in an instant. Like your first day of school does not produce a masters.

Some here understand that, others use it for their arguments against God.

Agree with Pstall, the search is worth the effort.

#45 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:48 AM

i will ask a question that adds something somebody posted earlier about the invention part, then i will get back to this.

for the inventinon of "god" and the purpose of social control. how many humans were around when "god" was first invented?


2+

People have been forcing other people to follow rules for as long as they have been around. All it takes to start a religion is one creative guy with a desire to be more important that everyone else

#46 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The Yumbo of the Huddle

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,723
  • Reputation: 2,198
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:06 AM

If eternal damnation is the only crutch to err for semi-belief in a deity (which you will be eternally damned anyway) then it is only wasted energy. The whole existence of a "soul" has to be explored and when one dies how this "invisible you" transfers to the afterlife. Does it fly? Do you awake in a flower bed? Is there really a dude with a list? Are you really in fear or a red goat man with a farm tool?

From the early days of man Sun worship and astrology guided all beliefs of mans understanding of the world and is natural to "humanize a God/Sun/Nature. How would one not understand why an invention of God and the eventual use to control masses of expanding kingdoms is just being Matt Lower "glib"

Dont be Matt Lower glib.



#47 Coheed

Coheed

    Loves Jon Beason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 306
  • Reputation: 143
  • LocationVirginia
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:13 AM

I look at it this way:

I would rather believe there is a God and live my life as such....and be wrong about it.

Rather than not believe there is a Hod and live my life as such....and be wrong.

First case....maybe I missed out on some pleasure and fun while floating around in this rock.

Second case....eternal damnation.

Just a thought.


Bit late to the party but I've always really, really disliked the whole "what if you're wrong" argument.

(Just for clarification, I'm an atheist) - I've always felt that if God were hypothetically real that one would be judged based on the merit and content of their character, not on what they believed in while they were alive. If one's belief system is the ultimate decider in damnation, and not their character, then I'd prefer to be damned. Any "God" that condemns someone to a life of torture over such a trivial thing is not a "God". The idea of damnation over who one believes in just seems utterly silly to me. If a President were to execute any who supported a different politician than him, would that be right? No, so why does God get a pass? It just seems ridiculous.

Something as personal as religious conviction, be you of a faith or of none at all, isn't as easy as "well, what if you're wrong..." What if you're wrong, and the ancient Greeks were right? The whole notion of being "wrong" is applicable to any religion/non religion. The only thing that separates me, an atheist, from you, a theist who I assume to be monotheistic (correct me if I'm wrong) is that I personally deny the existence of all Gods, whilst you deny the existence of all except one; the one of your particular belief system.

Religion always seemed to me to be the result of humans wanting to attribute anything they can't explain to the work of divinity.

#48 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,120
  • Reputation: 2,947
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

from the sounds of the thread. i'm not the one trying to convince anyone. i think some of you are trying to convince yourselves.

you can hate the what if you're wrong argument all you want, at some point, no matter your belief systems, socio-economic background, skin color, favorite James Bond or whatever, you WILL die. that might be the only thing that 100% of humanity agrees with.
after that. well.

#49 Dex

Dex

    Knight of Sunlight

  • Joined: 25-July 11
  • posts: 7,520
  • Reputation: 7,056
  • LocationConnecticut
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:40 PM

When I die that's it boom. Night.

#50 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,433
  • Reputation: 3,528
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

good to see pascal's wager is still taken seriously these days


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users