The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó

Not "literally no active relevance to [my] life what so ever[sic]" but "literally no active effects whatsoever." The behavior of cepheid variable stars has literally no active relevance to my life. Knowing about the phenomenon does not make me more effective in school, more attractive (than I already am) or better able to do anything. However, I am interested in the topic (for example) because it helps us understand how the universe really works. A god (God) that does not interfere in the universe can claim no such accolade. If god (God) is undetectable and inactive then what do you gain by suggesting that it exists? Can you better predict how the natural wold will behave? No, the answer goes, because god (God) does not interfere with the universe. Put simply, the concept is useless. It's like a skin tag or barnacle, hanging off your mind without actually doing anything. Worse, it's like a tumor, ready to spread to other parts of your mind.

What do I gain from thinking about a being that has no affect on my life? Satisfaction. That's more than a good enough reason.

What does this mean? Is there a location, perhaps a localized energy field that has the attribute "consciousness" that you can point towards and label "God?" Is God made of particles? Is it a term for various processes?

I don't know what it is.

If you are positing a God that interfaces with the universe in some region of space that we have yet to observe, then I ask you: Why do you think such an entity exists? We have not observed the entity, or even its effects, so what cause do you have to believe it exists? What pushed you to belief, instead of unbelief? What flipped the switch?

I don't think it exists. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it either exists or doesn't exist.

I suspect that it is a desire not to offend your peers in the United States of America, many of whom are virulently religious. Deism, on the American stage, is generally atheism without proselytism, dismissal of the Christian God while conceding just enough not to have to make a big deal out of the issue.

I think you think too much.

The question of free will still exists.. I don't believe I understood the Rabbi's explanation because God both knows what we're going to do and doesn't.. Ok... Anyways, it appears that we have the illusion of free will. That is, we think we have choices and don't know that someone greater than us knows what we're going to do.

Who is that post a reply to?

I think you think too much.

I don't think it exists. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it either exists or doesn't exist.

going back: DE, were you talking about Equis, the play? Boy that sexes it up with a horse before putting the eyes of the horse out?

You mean Wizard that sexes it up with a horse.

so... someone ripped off the play to make a freaking wizard story out of it, are you kidding me? ( I think its equas actually...)

...

LL was talking about how Daniel Radcliffe was the boy in the play once.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't think it exists. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it either exists or doesn't exist.

Proving that stuff doesn't exist is more difficult and less viable than proving stuff does exist.

An invisible monkey has been following you around your whole life. Now proof that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by truejedi
going back: DE, were you talking about Equis, the play? Boy that sexes it up with a horse before putting the eyes of the horse out?

No, I'm talking about this guy. Or should I say, this guy.

He was a little bit wierd.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Proving that stuff doesn't exist is more difficult and less viable than proving stuff does exist.

An invisible monkey has been following you around your whole life. Now proof that it doesn't exist.

Invisible Monkey AIDS is the worst kind of AIDS, I hear.

Except of course for Super AIDS...

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why? What do I care if there is an invisible monkey following me around?

I'm comparing an invisible monkey to God. Both have no proof of their existence and both can't be proven to not exist.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Proving that stuff doesn't exist is more difficult and less viable than proving stuff does exist.

An invisible monkey has been following you around your whole life. Now proof that it doesn't exist.

^^I think that is the general idea of casual deism that Blax was going for.

Unless someone says bacon is bad. Then they deserve to DIE. That splitting into factions, i can understand, pro-bacon and the dead.

Originally posted by Zampanó
It's a cultural thing that we have to take a stance on the issue. You disbelieve in an invisible monkey that may exist, or believe in a monkey that may not exist. Why not just leave the issue in a null state? If it doesn't influence your life, then having an opinion one way or another doesn't make much difference, except to give us more ways to split into factions.

^^I think that is the general idea of casual deism that Blax was going for.

It doesn't influence my life? Surely deities influence life when mass murder occurs in the name of or for a certain deity.

If a person kills a group of people because an invisible monkey told him to do so, should you leave the issue in a null state? Shouldn't you persuade other people that they shouldn't listen to an invisible monkey?

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
It doesn't influence my life? Surely deities influence life when mass murder occurs in the name of or for a certain deity.

If a person kills a group of people because an invisible monkey told him to do so, should you leave the issue in a null state? Shouldn't you persuade other people that they shouldn't listen to an invisible monkey?

Bad example. God doesn't tell them to do anything. They use God as a justification, just like you can use relativism as a justification. Neither religion nor the absence of religion are necessarily better than the other. With that said, I would prefer to follow the morals, ethics, and precepts handed down by what I think is a superior being, rather than trust man to tell me what's right and wrong.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
It doesn't influence my life? Surely deities influence life when mass murder occurs in the name of or for a certain deity.

If a person kills a group of people because an invisible monkey told him to do so, should you leave the issue in a null state? Shouldn't you persuade other people that they shouldn't listen to an invisible monkey?

Yahwe, on the other hand, is another case entirely. The skygod/personal God theory has many points of interaction with humans' daily lives, and thus many points of falsifiability. People are much more likely to use this kind of deity as a justification for atrocities than to use a deist god to justify something. In the case that something reprehensible is done in the name of a personal God (e.g. Islamic terrorism) you should consider the factors that caused the action that needed justification (i.e. why someone felt the need to act in a way that requires justification at all) and focus on those. I suspect that religion is more often an ad hoc rationalization than outright cause of tragedy, although there are certainly prominent exceptions (such as the murder of Dr. George Tiller). When trying to reduce the amount of tragedy in the world, reducing economic inequality will probably be more effective than reducing the prevalence of religious faith.

Of course, if your only goal is to encourage the use of rational thought, or increase the number of people that agree with you, or even just spread a more accurate picture of the physical universe, then it is acceptable to attack religious faith. In those situations, challenging religious worldviews is an avenue of attack that, while not necessarily effective, is not strongly dominated by other options.

TL;DR
Attacking faith will not help the world as well as other options.
If being right is more important than relief work (which it very well could be, for some people) then go nuts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Bad example. God doesn't tell them to do anything. They use God as a justification, just like you can use relativism as a justification. Neither religion nor the absence of religion are necessarily better than the other. With that said, I would prefer to follow the morals, ethics, and precepts handed down by what I think is a superior being, rather than trust man to tell me what's right and wrong.

Only some use God as a justification. The ones who kill themselves truely believe that the act of killing themselves while killing a lot of others will grant them access to a great afterlife. There is no reason to take your own life without absolutely being brainwashed into thinking that it will be beneficial for yourself.

I trust myself and my own experiences, knowledge and common sense for what would be most beneficial for everyone to guide my morals and ethics, not other people nor a superior being.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Bad example. God doesn't tell them to do anything. They use God as a justification, just like you can use relativism as a justification. Neither religion nor the absence of religion are necessarily better than the other. With that said, I would prefer to follow the morals, ethics, and precepts handed down by what I think is a superior being, rather than trust man to tell me what's right and wrong.

DS, I'd like to point out the generally shitty state of the world before the onset of the Enlightenment, and note that it took man's reason to figure out that Slavery is morally wrong. Divinely Revealed morals, ethics, and precepts didn't purge the world of that injustice. Instead, contemplation of natural rights did. Say what you will of the academic pissing contest that Philosophy departments are today, but the founding fathers of philosophy were damn good at what they did.

Edit: DS, what would you do if God appeared to you, offered whatever evidence you needed to be absolutely certain that He was who He claimed to be, and then told you that eating babies is the morally correct thing to do and you must begin right away?