|
What is God?
|
 (August 9, 2015 at 9:05 am)Nope Wrote:(August 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm)pool Wrote: I used salt because if someone asks what the taste of salt is the answer would be salty. Nope,i didn't mean it in that sense. xD 
I think that there is a quirk of the human mind that makes it difficult for some people to be atheists. This doesn't make them bad or stupid but I wish that they wouldn't try to convince everyone that their religion is logical or true.
The human mind is wired to pick out patterns in random things. That is why some people imagine that they see Jesus on a slice of toast or faces in the cloud. I wonder if some people apply that to life. They see the random events in life and try to find a meaning or pattern to them even though there is no deeper meaning. God is so broad a concept that it is hard to define but I think the need to find patterns is behind the human desire to create religions in the first place. Maybe that is what god is in many people's minds, the ultimate pattern in life?  (August 9, 2015 at 9:05 am)Nope Wrote:(August 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm)pool Wrote: I used salt because if someone asks what the taste of salt is the answer would be salty. Hey, no need to get salty, man! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped. Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses. Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder. Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids." 
God is a mixture of:
1: Anthropomorphism of abstract concepts. 2: Primitive and unscientific explanations of natural phenomena 3: A Method used to control the masses by an elite cadre. 4: A way to explain dead relatives to their children as in "she's with god now" The concept of gods belongs to the infancy of our species and the sooner it's rejected by all the better. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (August 9, 2015 at 11:33 am)Lucanus Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 9:05 am)Nope Wrote: I know that I am getting nitpicky but salty is not the definition of salt. If I eat a grape, the definition of grape is not sweet. You know what else tastes salty (apparently)! You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped. Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses. Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder. Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."  "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it. I think my doubts will be cleared and i will live happily ever after if someone could answer what my course of action should be given the situation. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(August 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm)pool Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it. If you don't know what something is, the first step is figuring that out. If someone tells you that a god exists, if you do not know what the person means by "god," then you are not in a position to say whether it exists or not. So, until you know something about that, you should neither believe that it exists, nor believe that it does not exist. It is only after you know what the person is talking about that you will be in a position to look for evidence. If you do know what someone means by their claim, then the default position is still that you do not know whether it exists or not, until after you get some sort of evidence regarding it. Then you should believe what the evidence supports, and you should believe in proportion to the evidence. Which is to say, you should only have a slight tendency to believe something if you have weak evidence for it, and a strong tendency to believe something if you have strong evidence for it. Right now, I am more certain that I am sitting in front of my computer, than I am that the car I have been using is parked out front. The reason being, I presently see my computer and notice that I am sitting in front of it, but I cannot see the car out front from my present position. It is possible (though unlikely) that someone has stolen the car since I last observed it. So my belief that I am sitting at my computer is stronger than my belief that the car is out front. In the case of the god question, if you find that the person does not mean anything by the term "god" (which is more common than you might think), then the proper response is NOT to say that "god does not exist;" the proper response is that the person is just speaking gibberish and is not really saying anything meaningful. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
