The God topic

[nyquillyn]

I agree with about 95% of what LV is saying.
I'm surprised at the number of people who think "god makes me feel good about myself" is a valid enough reason for believing in god. And it frustrates me when they try to pull that out in a conversation/debate about religion, like it's some kind of trump card.

[surfndestroy]

I agree with about 95% of what LV is saying.
I'm surprised at the number of people who think "god makes me feel good about myself" is a valid enough reason for believing in god. And it frustrates me when they try to pull that out in a conversation/debate about religion, like it's some kind of trump card.

I agree with a lot of this too. But people believe in all sorts of irrational shit. People believe their marriage will last and their spouse will stay faithful. Given reality, it's pretty irrational to believe that about any marriage. Others believe in karma when there's no substance for that. I think it's all the irrational shot that people believe in that makes them interesting, like the Broncos losing really matters.
I think the only problem is when unexamined irrational beliefs drive government actions.

[LoathedVermin72]

I'm so tempted to derail this thread by engaging in a discussion about marriage-related cynicism. Must...resist...

[@SkitchP]

[quote="surfndestroy"People believe their marriage will last and their spouse will stay faithful. Given reality, it's pretty irrational to believe that about any marriage. [/quote]


That just reeks of some personal shit making YOU irrational.


That's not to say it's a guarantee, but to think it's irrational to believe it? Come on now.

[Jorge]

lol married people get so defensive!

[@SkitchP]

lol married people get so defensive!

And we can't quote for shit!

[Kaius]

lv, that claim of credibility should be looked at as the continued either desire or need to believe in something other than what people see in front of them. (my opinion, of course)
perhaps humans still need god, a god, any god...

And regarding this: I don't believe that mankind has an innate desire for theistic belief. I think mankind has an innate desire to understand reality, and that theism has been a way of understanding things that were difficult to understand. But as we move further and further into consciousness, science, logic, reason, etcetera, and as we understand more and more about our planet and ourselves, theism has become less and less relevant or needed. We don't need the supernatural once we understand the natural.

I agree with this entirely.

I still find us in very different positions regarding respect for the perspectives others, but it's not for lack of understanding. Quite pointless to twice slay the slain.

[surfndestroy]

That's not to say it's a guarantee, but to think it's irrational to believe it? Come on now.

What do you rationally base your belief in marriage on? Is it backed up by reality and the statistics surrounding marriage?

[@SkitchP]

That's not to say it's a guarantee, but to think it's irrational to believe it? Come on now.

What do you rationally base your belief in marriage on? Is it backed up by reality and the statistics surrounding marriage?

Considering less than half end in divorce, yeah.

and even if 20% survived believing it to be possible isn't irrational.

[Rangi Guy]

I don't trust my wife - I trust the statistics

[pnjguy]

lv, that claim of credibility should be looked at as the continued either desire or need to believe in something other than what people see in front of them. (my opinion, of course)
perhaps humans still need god, a god, any god...

And regarding this: I don't believe that mankind has an innate desire for theistic belief. I think mankind has an innate desire to understand reality, and that theism has been a way of understanding things that were difficult to understand. But as we move further and further into consciousness, science, logic, reason, etcetera, and as we understand more and more about our planet and ourselves, theism has become less and less relevant or needed. We don't need the supernatural once we understand the natural.

Science can only answer the hows, not the why. Theism exists because of the why questions.

[BurtReynolds]

i think philosophy handles the why much better, (though ultimately there probably is no "why"). Theism is a poor substitute.

[pnjguy]

i think philosophy handles the why much better, (though ultimately there probably is no "why"). Theism is a poor substitute.

The idea of an intelligent designer comes in many different forms. Theism just has not updated their manual about it.

[LoathedVermin72]

This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

[Alex]

This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

if you say there's no meaning to life, or consequences in the afterlife for choices made on earth, you open the door to things like lenny buying a dr. pepper at 8 in the morning

[LoathedVermin72]

This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

if you say there's no meaning to life, or consequences in the afterlife for choices made on earth, you open the door to things like lenny buying a dr. pepper at 8 in the morning

Now I think I'm gonna buy a Dr. Pepper on my first break

[tommymtcom]

Good call, LV. Dr Pepper is delicious.

[Alex]

tommy, i see now that you are the scott aukerman of RM

[tommymtcom]

Who is the Reggie Watts?

[Alex]

there isn't one, which makes the comparison all the more tragic