Originally posted by Slash_KMCFor the same reason that people worship country's and Emperors and leaders, and are willing to blow themselves up for them and slaughter people for them.
If this God does nothing to interfere with anything that happens around us, why do he get worshipped and do we try everything to please him. More importantly, why does something that doesn't do anything divide so many people into groups. You don't see huge buildings being build for an invisible monkey, right?
There isn't one earthly persona that could convince me to blow myself up. Not one.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not sure I follow you completely there. While I definitely do see how the characteristics that the Bible, for example, attributes to God are not realistic, I don't think there's an objective behavior that an interventionist God is supposed to display.
Proven how? For every scientific explanation there is a religious one behind it, and vice versa.
Ontologically, it is possible to conclude the existence of a first cause, but that does not necessitate a personal, interventionist God. To jump from "first cause" to "listens to prayers" is such a large leap so as to be ridiculous. Even the most sound philosophical arguments (here I'm using "philosophical arguments" to refer to actual scholarship by smart people, not an academic pissing contest) has not established the existence of God as a universal necessity.
Moreover, the world simply doesn't act as though there is a God. If there were a God, surely something during the bloodbath of human history would have been enough to warrant intervention, something terrible enough to be simply too awful. But if such a line exists, then it has not yet been crossed, granting tacit approval to all of man's actions thus far. His stillness is the loudest argument for nonexistence I've ever found.
^^The paragraph directly above is a personal evaluation of moral weight; someone else might find a different moral line separating the existence of a spectator God from cruel apathy. Although the last argument is subjective and personal and not conclusive at all (although I think it is the most persuasive) it is not the core of my argument. The objective, empirical, testable absence of any sort of action that can be directly attributed to Divine Intervention is more than enough to support a claim that the Christian cosmology, at least, is inaccurate. A key pillar of that faith is a deity that grants miracles; no such miracles have been found. In that sense, the claims of Christianity regarding God's physical manifestations have been proven incorrect.
Spoiler:
This of course does not reach into the metaphysical. I can offer no such knockdown argument about the afterlife and have made my peace with that. Belief in an afterlife is not demonstrably silly, so long as it stays firmlyoff my lawnout of the physical universe.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
For the same reason that people worship country's and Emperors and leaders, and are willing to blow themselves up for them and slaughter people for them.
Those are more tangible than the "nothingness". They mostly get worshipped for their power or ability, which God isn't proven to have.
A country is also part of you. While I agree that your imagination is also a part of you, it is still not as real as a person or a Nation.
Originally posted by Zampanó
This of course does not reach into the metaphysical. I can offer no such knockdown argument about the afterlife and have made my peace with that. Belief in an afterlife is not demonstrably silly, so long as it stays firmlyoff my lawnout of the physical universe.
The afterlife is one of the dumbest concepts ever created out of fear. When you die, your bodily functions fade and your concience ceases to exist. Concience that is created by connecting nerves in your brain, these connections nullify when dying, hence there is no way they can be transferred. There are also so many versions of afterlife that it gets absolutely ridiculous. Some say that your spirit moves on but what the hell is your spirit? It probably doesn't have a form but it has your energy, I'm not even going to think about that one. Reincarnation is even more ridiculous though, I can state a number of reasons why reincarnation doesn't happen. What else, oh, heaven and hell. So you keep your body there? Which body, the one you died in, the one you were more happy in or a completely different one you can choose.
On the other hand we do have one awesome Afterlife and it comes along with an awesome song: YouTube video
<33333333
Moreover, the world simply doesn't act as though there is a God. If there were a God, surely something during the bloodbath of human history would have been enough to warrant intervention, something terrible enough to be simply too awful. But if such a line exists, then it has not yet been crossed, granting tacit approval to all of man's actions thus far. His stillness is the loudest argument for nonexistence I've ever found.
You're assuming that a God would care about the bloodbath. For all we know, said bloodbaths were all 'P4RT OF T3H PL4N'. A benevolent diety is not the only option.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
The afterlife is one of the dumbest concepts ever created out of fear. When you die, your bodily functions fade and your concience ceases to exist. Concience that is created by connecting nerves in your brain, these connections nullify when dying, hence there is no way they can be transferred. There are also so many versions of afterlife that it gets absolutely ridiculous. Some say that your spirit moves on but what the hell is your spirit? It probably doesn't have a form but it has your energy, I'm not even going to think about that one. Reincarnation is even more ridiculous though, I can state a number of reasons why reincarnation doesn't happen. What else, oh, heaven and hell. So you keep your body there? Which body, the one you died in, the one you were more happy in or a completely different one you can choose.On the other hand we do have one awesome Afterlife and it comes along with an awesome song: YouTube video
This is a rationalization for "I don't believe so I'll make something up to make them look stupid." You aren't an authority on the afterlife or why it was created. Keep your insecurities to yourself.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This is a rationalization for "I don't believe so I'll make something up to make them look stupid." You aren't an authority on the afterlife or why it was created. Keep your insecurities to yourself.
Don't feel so insulted, it has never been my intention to make anyone look stupid. And I certainly don't feel insecure about anything because I have nothing to be insecure about.
Enlighten me about the afterlife then. Or who is an authority on the afterlife? Why was it created? I'm always open to learn more and discover new information.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Don't feel so insulted, it has never been my intention to make anyone look stupid. And I certainly don't feel insecure about anything because I have nothing to be insecure about.Enlighten me about the afterlife then. Or who is an authority on the afterlife? Why was it created? I'm always open to learn more and discover new information.
I'm not insulted, it just gets a tad bit annoying when someone talks about something he doesn't understand. You think I believe in the after life because I need validation? The only people that need validation are those trying to disprove God.. Or science.
Originally posted by Slash_KMCThey don't have any power that isn't given to them by other people, they're just people. It's the same situation. As for "proven to have", proof is completely relative.
Those are more tangible than the "nothingness". They mostly get worshipped for their power or ability, which God isn't proven to have.A country is also part of you. While I agree that your imagination is also a part of you, it is still not as real as a person or a Nation.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanI think what he means is that for some people, it's easier and more practical/sensible to give such loyalty and devotion to a physical entity than it is to a god. Every civil war England ever had that involved a pretender to the throne involved people loyal to both camps. I'm willing to bet their followers' loyalties lay more with the person and their position/power/money than their supposed divine connection.
They don't have any power that isn't given to them by other people, they're just people. It's the same situation. As for "proven to have", proof is completely relative.