MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin

> Edit: Anticipating this arguement "But God is not imaginary". The simple answer is
> "Prove it." There is absolutely no more evidence in the existence of God than there
> is in the existance of a Spagetti Monster. How can faith in one be any more or less
> silly than faith in the other. It's hypocritical to argue that point any other way.
> For all we know, they are one in the same... who's to say what God's true physical
> manifestation looks like.

First off, your last sentence. May I refer you to Genesis 1:26. Then...

Saying FSM, IPU, or (since the other 2 are being categorized as "Gods" I'll have to go with another familiar 'logos' if I can't just use "God") YWHW... Well, why not put any other God into the same category and say all religions are the same? You can't. All religions are different. YWHW and Allah? You can't compare the 2 if you really study the differences (it would be silly to presume they're alike in the first place). So you have to get specific. But what are we 'specifying' here? Perhaps a universal Life force that everything is the source of. I don't mean "a" God, but "THE" God.

I guess I should stop here and say that I'm breaking away from "Religion" - where you have a set of rules and standards to live by. Then there's belief. Putting faith in something that can't be proven - either well made arguments can support them, or steadfast conviction in the miraculous for which only supernatural forces can account for. This can apply to secular 'beliefs' as well. Erm, so, anyway... That brings us to into the realm of 'Deism'. Saying there IS a God, but who or what is he it?

Okay. We could put a badge on this "God". Say it's FSM. But to apply a title you're then attributing characteristics to this being. Let's change the badge to IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn). Well, IPU and FPM aren't the same. Does that mean we cop-out and say there is no God because we can't fit him into a certain category or description, or (the argument) my idea of God doesn't match up with your idea of God? Right there is the problem. It's presupposing.

So what's my point?

Quote:

"But God is not imaginary". The simple answer is "Prove it."

Well "Dis... Prove it".

Why presume that all there is to life is what our 5 senses "prove" to us there is? Is the idea that there is more to life that what we merely perceive -too far fetched? Is the idea that there can be a higher intelligence, far greater than us too far fetched? What about (things) outside of our dimension? Or are 'Dimensions' just an unprovable fabrication of the imagination?

Saying "there is more to life" or what EXISTS in life... What is "Life"? What our senses perceive? Or what lies beyond our senses? What about a WAY of life? There's more to life than just taking advantage of everything life has to offer (hedonism

doing what feels good and 'live and let live'). I guess those are good in their own way, although they're selfish. Doing what feels good isn't always the best way of living a life. It might feel good at the moment, but you'll probably feel sorry or reap the consequences later.

I guess I've said enough. :-/

eta: Okay. I can say s'more.

You, being a father, can relate to this. Lets say you want what's best for your children. You wouldn't want them to get into something that is destructive or that will end up hurting them in the end. You would also appreciate it if they were to help others that are in need.... Right? I'll assume the answer is 'yes'. It's essentially the Golden Rule. If you need help - you'd appreciate it when/where you could get it. But you're also free to refuse that help.

Things that are addictive, have negative side effects... Vices. It's generally considered by people that have 'vices' that those that don't partake in said 'vices' must have a conviction against using them. If they have a conviction they must have a belief. Or maybe it's merely wisdom to not do foolish things. Why else wouldn't they want to 'join in the fun?

Doing/taking things in Moderation. etc. etc.

I guess when you get down to it, there is a way one can live their life. Add to it ones willingness to acknowledge that there is a Creator... One that wants what's best for his creation and to give their best to others in need - even if it means showing them the right way to live to avoid what will hurt them in the end... If that just so happens to line up with what is titled as a "Christian" religion - well.... That that's just what it is. That is the 'Brand'.

It's possible to live by the same exact principles, but tag on another/different Deity and call it something else. If so you should still be despised by the world (others that do not follow or subscribe to your "brand" of beliefs).

I often think. When someone labels themself as "Atheist"... First, as a rule, they should merely proclaim that they do not believe in ANY God. This would include the "God" or "Gods" of ANY religion. Yet, it seems like 99% of the time the target of their spite and ridicule is the God of the Christian (or even Jewish) religion. How many remarks or articles or whatever - do you see where they're bashing Buddha, or Krishna? Not much really.

That sort of hints as to what/who they believe the one true God to be. The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease.

Anyway, what I was thinking. It seems like a majority of the time they don't act so much like an 'Atheist' as they do an 'Anti-Theist'. Or just mocking/ridiculing the ONES that believe in a God. I guess it's like MAME that way. Atheism is all about perceived accuracy, getting to piss on Christians is a cool side effect.

Edited by T0M (07/15/11 12:49 AM)