Existence of God -- Mega-Debate

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Existence of God -- Mega-Debate

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

SedanChair posted:

I guess there's no need to bother with the Islamic State's answers to that question, then.

Amergin on ISIS: "I needn't bother."

At least he's consistent.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 14:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 04:39

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

GlyphGryph posted:

I also agree that using science to try and disprove beliefs is a bad thing. So I guess you're actually agreeing with my goals and the basis of my argument here, and quibbling about the details of why?

Using science to disprove beliefs isn't a bad thing. Or, rather, it isn't a bad thing if the belief is making a testable, investigable claim. For example some people believe that vaccines cause autism, which is a belief that can be, should be, and has been disproved*. People still believe it, and those people should have the relevant evidence that contradicts this belief hammered into them at every opportunity. Likewise if someone says that angels (as in physical, observable winged men) exist and make his car move by turning gears with hand cranks it's worth popping the hood and investigating whether or not this is true.

Not all beliefs are equal, not all beliefs are beyond the realm of observation, and not all beliefs should be respected or tolerated. That doesn't mean you should belittle or harass believers (or non-believers as applicable), but the notion of "Well, like, that's just your ~~opinion~~ belief, man" is one that needs to die out.

_{_{*To a reasonable degree of certainty}}

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 1, 2015

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 17:39

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Vitamin P posted:

Also makes you have any quality of life if you are disabled.

Faith healers, whatever, there's a placebic place I'm sure. But it's hardly 'lightweight crutches and anti-spasmodic drugs' in terms of allowing people to pursue happiness.

The only place faith healing has is next to 'Dr. Thompsons Miracle Tonic Water!!!' in an exhibit called "Scams Across the Ages".

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 18:02

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

They are not gay, they are worse than gay. They are pussy lickers. Getting hosed in the rear end would be an improvement for their status. Catullus is suggesting the only remedy open to them.

The burn is even harsher once you really get the values of the society it is made in. It is an awesome burn.

The ancestors have so much to teach us. Now go read the Bible.

I'm pretty sure, "Haha, ur wussies" is a pretty weakass burn in any context.

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 1, 2015

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 22:24

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

sugar free jazz posted:

What's wrong with metaphysics

Too many people say "metaphysics" when they mean "supernatural" because they think using a sciencey-sounding word will make whatever bullshit they're spewing sound more credible.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 06:16

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Shbobdb posted:

Like 99.999% of ~~a discussion about the existence of gods~~ philosophy as a whole is "bullshit language games". An undefined term is a meaningless placeholder. Can't have much of a discussion about that.

FTFY

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 14:46

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

Do you sincerely think "extra-dimensional" is well defined in the context of a "dude"?

Just because something isn't undefined doesn't mean it can't still be poorly defined.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 17:16

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to be clear my understanding of this is that if I define God as "lsjd kj lsdj ljflskjf lkjf" then you would claim that God is not undefined, is that correct? (if you answer yes, your definition of "undefined" is stupid)

When I say "my best understanding" I'm trying to imply my understanding is bad, if you have a better coherent definition of "extra-dimensional" that doesn't come from a sci-fi novel or UFO cult feel free to share it.

If you could define "lsjd", "kj", "lsdj", "ljklskjf", and "lkjf" then no, it wouldn't be undefined.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 18:42

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I'm good with that, but our definition of "extra-dimensional" appears to be restricted to:

So my complaint that God is still undefined seems valid, unless you're willing to support "existing whatsoever" as a valid definition of "extra-dimensional".

It depends on what you mean by "existing whatsoever".

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 18:56

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I agree, which is why I'm waiting for a (edit: non-idiot) definition of "extra-dimensional" before accepting that God has been defined. I don't understand your contention at this point.

That being given a definition you don't fully understand is not the same as being given no definition at all.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 19:09

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

You seem to have switched goal posts. I certainly agree someone's attempted to offer a definition, I contend that the string of words offered is no definition at all, on the basis that there's no definition for "extra-dimensional" that has any applicability outside of a sci-fi novel. I would assume you would agree on based on this post:

Absent a definition for "extra-dimensional", God remains undefined. I see that as unrelated as to whether people are attempting to offer definitions, which isn't something I've intended to talk about. I realize in one of my earlier posts I did for a little bit, but in that post, I also said this which I want to repeat:

Then let me clarify my previous post. A definition's validity, to me, is determine by whether or not it has meaning intended in its usage, regardless of whether or not that meaning is understood. So if you define God as "ljklskjf lkjf jkl" or whatever, and you actually meant something by using that then you have given me a valid definition whether or not you actually further explain to me what the definition means, again, so long as there is meaning behind it. If there is no meaning behind it then obviously it's meaningless and not a valid definition. I feel reasonable confident that when Dzhay described God as "extra-dimensional" that he does have some intended meaning behind the usage of that word, and so it is a valid definition whether or not you or I understand or accept it as one.

Being giving a definition you don't understand is fundamentally different than not being given one at all, because at the very least a definition you don't understand let's you further pinpoint what your contention is, in this case the words "extra-dimensional". You're one step closer to understanding what the meaning is than had you been given no answer at all.

quote:

edit:
It's a little weird to me that when I attack a definition on it using basically a non-word, the people who reply don't have explanations for what the non-word means.

I have no need to defend Dzhay's position to point out that your criticism is flawed. If someone tried to argue that the Holocaust was bad because Hitler loved to suck cocks and shove wine bottles up his rear end I don't need to defend Nazi Germany to point out that their attack isn't valid.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 20:16

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I don't see how you can reasonably believe this without also possessing some sort of speculation of the meaning intended by "extra-dimensional". I've offered a speculation, but it was correctly pointed out my speculation didn't make any sense (which is in line with my belief that the words offered were word salad without a meaning). Absent even a single proposed non-idiot definition of "extra-dimensional" doesn't parsimony demand we treat the definition as not having meaning behind it?

That's an argument from ignorance, "because I can't think of a valid definition there isn't one".

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 21:21

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I've also read dictionaries and other people making similar word salad claims, so I'm also making an argument from anecdotes, but regardless, your argument is based on what? Blind faith? Authority? Why do you believe it has a valid definition, when you are unable to supply one?
edit:
We have two competing affirmative ideas, why is yours preferred? I've given why we should prefer mine.

So your default position is that anything anyone says to you is completely meaningless if you can't understand what they said? So literally all foreign languages you can't speak are nothing more than random gibberish? Because that's your argument right now.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 22:40

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

twodot posted:

I never said that, I specifically anticipated you going off the rails like this:

I'm familiar with "extra-dimensional" as a term, it does not make any sense in this context. If I hear a foreign language, I think "Hmm, I don't recognize those sounds, I won't make judgments about them.", if I hear someone say God is defined as an extra-dimensional being, I tell them their definition is garbage. Now are you going to support your asserted belief that there is any meaning or are you going to continue to straw man me?

So you haven't read any dictionary definition that fits, ergo ones don't exist, and you anecdotally didn't understand when a few other people used it, ergo they had no intended meaning when they used it. Two more arguments for ignorance. Well right now your argument has no good evidence behind it at all, so regardless of the validity of my position yours doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2015 13:40

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Why do you believe in God?

I don't.

twodot posted:

Were you honestly expecting to find evidence that a sentence is word salad? I'll go ahead and acknowledge that I don't actually have MRI scans of that poster's brain while they were making that post, so I can't directly prove anything about their state of mind. What I can do is read that sentence and think "Hmm, they're using a term I'm familiar with both in this context and its original context, science fiction novels, and this sentence doesn't make any sense". I can also see similar posts like:

and see that even when people provide a definition of extra-dimensional, it still doesn't make any sense. Also what kind of poster would ever write something like this:

You can't be bothered to give a single argument (edit: Note: literally the only thing you need to do to prove your point is provide a definition that makes sense in context) in favor of your position beyond "I believe", because the validity of your position doesn't even matter. Why are you posting?

Just because you aren't capable of understanding doesn't make whatever it is you're ignorant of meaningless. Just because you don't agree with the usage doesn't make it meaningless either. You don't like the definition he gave, but he still have one regardless of your personal feelings about it. How is that so hard to understand?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2015 17:42

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Oh look, you did mean something by that word, who would have loving thought?

# ¿ Sep 4, 2015 23:49

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

Well, consciousness isn't localisable at all. It is therefore clearly extra dimensional. Or do you argue that your own consciousness doesn't exist? This argument is to explain the concept of extra dimensional in an understandable way. You can refute this argument. But merely claiming it is irrelevant because it doesn't overlap with your previous notions of absurdity seems lazy.

To adress your second point. This would be irrelevant to this discussion. I can argue only from my own understanding of the world. I can try to express it in terms that overlap with yours. But I cannot claim that my understanding exactly mirrors that of people I regard as stupid. (woman who doesn't understand Jesus above for instance).

And I can definitely not claim to have more than theories with regards to the underlying belief systems of people who lived 2000 years ago. To claim that I not only understood this perfectly but also thought it naive and stupid, that would be arrogance of the highest order. Don't you agree?

What I can try do to the best of my ability is build a belief system that is a synthesis of the faiths I have encountered.

After all it stands to reason that all major religions have some basic insights in common. Humans tend to be rather alike after all. Maybe it's in our DNA?

Hence a belief system that merges sociology, politics, philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and ancient norse myths.

I can argue for my faith. And explain it logically. But this is in no way relevant for people with little faith, like teleevangelist idiots or wabbahists. But for instance sufi Islam folds neatly into my own faith, which has much of its foundation in gnostic thought.

In short, my belief is that there are many ways to achieve knowledge and enlightenment. All paths are not equal but once arrived the path you have taken becomes meaningless, since you can see all paths from there.

It is like going to geography class. You can get there by boat, fly or take the scenic route. But once there you learn geography.

The bible is full of symbols like the geography class and boats. Idiots 1000 years later then try to locate an ancient classroom and think that God should look like a geography teacher. The discussion becomes more interesting if we decide that God probably doesn't look like a geography teacher at all.

And my definition of God is as ancient as humanity, since it is the expression of humanity. Which is both within me and outside of me. Transcendental so to speak. God didn't create humanity as an act of will, nor did humanity create God. We are the ants in a hive. Is a single ant living alone really part of ant-dom?

From here I can go through Catholic thought, Islam, sociology or Hinduism or Buddha, they are all just paths. Dao if you will.

The global consciousness. God. Brahma. The balance.

Of course something like that cannot be reduced to something tiny that cares about men holding hands. That would be ridiculous. Most people who believe are after all not extremists or fundamentalists. They are normal happy people who try to teach some basic decency. Mostly because so many of the churches are so full of poo poo. Hence all the agnostics who sort of believe in God but don't want to get within a mile of fundamentalism.

Can I get your dealers contact info, I want to get whatever you were on to come up with this poo poo.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 16:18

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

Have you looked where you left your consiousness?

Consciousness is not a thing, it's an action or process at best and something that doesn't actually exist at worst. Asking "where is consciousness?" makes no more sense than asking "where is running?".

quote:

Extra dimensional is just a clumpsy way of expressing levels of abstractions. Some things exist only thanks to the existance of other things. Like forests for instance.What we call a forest is an ecological system that exists thanks to the existance of a number of concrete things. Like trees, beetles and birds. Together though they form a forest. The same is true for most biomes. So in a way biomes are extra dimensional. To not see this is literally to not see the forest for all the trees. The same way our collective self can exist thanks to the existance of our individual selves, which in turn can only exist thanks to the collection of neurons that carry our consiousness.

The key to understanding systems is often left where you last used it. I would recommend the entrance of your domicile. Look for the key to understand the world in the hallway of your mind.

In a sense forests really don't exist. It is a label of convenience, nothing more. What you're doing is confusing the map for the place, saying that a label or a abstraction is the same as a physical thing, which is absurd. A street map of Chicago is not literally Chicago.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 18:55

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

You can't admit that something doesn't exist and then in the same breath ask where it resides. That's literally asking the same question. Instead of clumsily using metaphors you read in the thread why don't you start over?

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 21:57

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

What is relevant is that enlightenment exists.

Does it? Do you have concrete evidence that this is the case or can you demonstrate it?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 00:44

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

He was banned for being the only poster in these threads worse than me.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 02:31

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

mandatory lesbian posted:

guy doesn't need therapy he just needs to do less drugs

Or more drugs.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 16:54

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Stop worshiping things you'll never ever see and start worshiping the sky.

The sky isn't real, worship the endless void and the looming specter of inevitable heat death.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2015 17:03

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

dk2m posted:

A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up?

Now why would a forum comprised primarily of people living in places where Christianity is by far the dominant religion always talk about Christianity in these threads? Well golly loving gee what a head scratcher this one is.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2015 13:57

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Nintendo Kid posted:

Well it looks like he cast Confuse Ray, and it was super effective. Too bad it's his only attack.

Non-damaging moves are not subject to the type chart and thus cannot be super effective. loving idiot baby scrubs.
:fishmech:

# ¿ Sep 30, 2015 23:16

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

That was not what I read. The first passage below is my understanding of his argument, the second my reply.

The brain has some troubles using a reductionist approach to itself. Perhaps this could be because it is bigger than itself?

A question my jungian definition of God would be a possible, maybe even viable, answer to.

One of us must be having a stroke because no matter how many times I read this it's still meaningless.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2015 14:05

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

No man is an island. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants etc. we do not store that much of the knowledge we have as a species in our individual brains. Most of the stuff we Google or go to a library.

You know, that vast repository of knowledge that we use on a daily basis to think for us.

Our collective consciousness if you will is that thing you use when you ask someone else for the time. The mundane life and practicability aspect of it impedes you to see its vast greatness. it is not infinite, but I guess it is larger than your own brain. Could I have a name for that thing?

Any name other than God will do as long as it is not too small.

Are you thinking of zeitgeist?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 02:38

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Quift posted:

I did say that the sheer mundane aspect hides it's true glory 😉 It is the simplest possible answer. I tend to like simplicity.

We take it so much for granted that we cannot see it. Yet we wouldn't be able to physically survive without it.

It is the simplest possible definition of the term. Trivial even. Sort of exactly the word of Jesus himself on the subject? Actually yes!

I do understand the need to make things bigger and more theoretical, but that is a need that arises out of you. I have a hard time to think God himself tries to make things as complicated as possible given that the rest if creation can be reduced to such beautiful simple concepts.

Because nature tends to be lazy the easiest way is most often the one followed.

I claim that our specific human God was created by evolution, since we created the concept in both words and actions.

Unless we can agree on the smallest of possible gods how can we discuss possible bigger ones?

This is the reductionist approach and I'm quite certain reduction to first principles is not a "weed" thing.

How is it possible to say so much without saying anything at all.

Ok, assuming you aren't just a lazy troll, start over. As clearly as possible, explain who or what you believe God to be.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 18:10

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Miltank posted:

I would agree that few really believe for its own sake, but it doesn't really matter how many do or do not believe.

It would be silly not to worship God imo, regardless of what material reward you think could be gained.

Worship of anything is inherently morally reprehensible, HTH

# ¿ Oct 9, 2015 18:41

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

BrandorKP posted:

Monotheism as we know it owes a lot to the Romans. The idea of one world, with one god figure at the head of it is Roman. This gets combined with the evolving Jewish idea of one national God.

Look at Luke. The birth narratives are structured in the same way as an Roman emperors birth narrative. It's just inverted. Rome had a emperor as god, as the head of state of the most powerful empire, with all the accompanying mythology. Christianity inverts that, it takes it and puts a executed, embarrassing, backwater, nobody in the place of emperor and just steals the accompanying mythology.

The myths of the time used to talk about the divinity of the Roman emperor, it takes to talk about Jesus.

Is that a good way to attack power in this world? To take the structures of the powerful, and to turn them on theirs head and to put the rejected other, the outsider, the marginal outcast, with a message of "'You shall love your neighbor as yourself', in the place of the powerful and the influential.

Who cares about the question of the existence of God.

The structures of power, the myths society is based on now, need to be inverted in this same way and the brothers and sisters of Jesus (all of us who make up humanity) should be put in the place of the powerful and influential in those myths.

Unless you have an actual idea of how to accomplish inverting society's power structures then all this is is a load of meaningless, pompous, and most of all useless bullshit. We already know what needs to be done so needlessly dressing up the message in Jesus terms doesn't help in the slightest. So great job, Brandor, you've independently came to the same conclusions political activists did more than half a century ago.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2015 07:41

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

I wield power every time I turn on a light switch. :smug:

# ¿ Oct 18, 2015 16:31

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

SedanChair posted:

Which political activists would those be?

Anarcho-Communists, I'd imagine, what with the whole "overthrow the powerful at the top(the capitalists and bourgeoisie classes) and love your neighbor as your brother (in a stateless cooperative society)" thing. Unless Brandor isn't talking about inverting power and instead only means that the powerful need to be replaced with Jesus. Which would be much more akin to Stalinist Communism, being based around a cult of personality of a man of humble beginnings (the son of a cobbler vs the son of a carpenter) and the message of mutual cooperation for the benefit of the greater good (and the party/church most of all) that says it's going to change everything but in reality changes very little.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 15:58

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

SedanChair posted:

I don't think we'd be talking about "the powerful vs." at all if it wasn't for Jesus.

What? There are plenty of stories about a humble, weak person standing against the powerful. Just in the Bible alone there is David and Goliath or Moses (ok, Moses wasn't very humble a lot of the time) vs the pharaoh. Jesus was hardly the first underdog in human history.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 16:43

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Maybe. I'm not familiar enough with non-abrahamic faiths to be confident making that claim, though.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 19:43

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Why are you so lovely at your job?

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 01:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 04:39

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

BrandorKP posted:

Well there is that matter of that example written about that one guy. For the life of me I can't think of it.

Yeah, "get yourself executed by the state" seems like a really lovely plan to me.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 14:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Existence of God -- Mega-Debate