Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience

[Husar]

I'd have to agree. There are so many gods on this planet alone, imagine how many gods there are across the universe if there is a minimum of one other sentient life force. Gods we can't even conceive of, gods not created under the influence of our human nature.

You either misunderstood his post or I did, according to my interpretation Lemur said there probably is a god but we have no idea who or what it/she/he is wants etc., you say there are many gods created by humans so "aliens" must have created just as many different ones. You just apply a typically atheist view to his view but I don't see where Lemur said that we created god, I think he is saying that god may have created us but we don't know/don't get his message if there even is any, not that we made god up, which is what you are implying. With Lemur's view one could say that we all have some sort of connection to god/know she exists/spiritualuity but we all interprete it differently, thus creating different religions, aliens might be worshipping the same god but in different ways, that wouldn't mean she was just made up by us, just that we cannot grasp her in any way.

At any rate, lots of famous, Gauloises-puffing, sexually experimentative French left bank philosophers disagree with you etc etc

What makes these probably unemployed lazy playboys any more right than Hosa, especially considering even you admit they were under heavy tobacco/drug influence?

The 'meaning of life' is to reproduce in a stable environment so life continues.

God would disagree and say the meaning of life is to worship it and spread its glory, we only exist as its status symbol. The latter part is added by myself, the rest is what I've been told at church.
Everything we do should serve to show god's glory, for it is loving us and giving us great things if we believe in it and accept it's son.

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

[naut]

You either misunderstood his post or I did, according to my interpretation Lemur said there probably is a god but we have no idea who or what it/she/he is wants etc., you say there are many gods created by humans so "aliens" must have created just as many different ones. You just apply a typically atheist view to his view but I don't see where Lemur said that we created god, I think he is saying that god may have created us but we don't know/don't get his message if there even is any, not that we made god up, which is what you are implying. With Lemur's view one could say that we all have some sort of connection to god/know she exists/spiritualuity but we all interprete it differently, thus creating different religions, aliens might be worshipping the same god but in different ways, that wouldn't mean she was just made up by us, just that we cannot grasp her in any way.

Lol. I think you misinterpreted my post. I didn't say we "created" god nor that I am an atheist. I'm a Yahwist. I believe in a god, but I don't know anything about him. And I can't, no one can. You can logically deduce certain things, like it may have an affinity towards life due to our existence, but you cannot know its motives. Lemur said we can't conceive of what any god is, wants and does, because we feasibly can't. I agreed with that statement, by saying that other sentient life-forces may also have a god/gods that they worship and the sheer number of these gods is a good way of coming to terms with the fact that we can't ever conceive of the actual details of a god, because every culture/race/species across the universe would apply their own view. That doesn't mean they can't sense or feel a god or a "divine presence".

[al Roumi]

I voted disagree but "Gah!" might be better.

As with religion, it's actually the people who make it, not a supreme being.

I think God's existence is of consequence to human existence, especially if you give a about him/her/it. In terms of day to day impact, I should imagine many faithfull people consider their actions acording to what "he" has "said" he would like/advise them to do.

But I don't really think I feel the tremours of a supreme being's will.

[The Celtic Viking]

If you're going to use the Old Testament to bash, this isn't even the best example (Issac was spared, remember?).

I am well aware I didn't even pick the worst one (which is kind of making my point for me), but it's something all the three major monotheisms praise as examplary behaviour. Muslims even hold a feast in celebration of the very act at the end of the pilgrimage. There are two hidden arguments you seem to be making, too:

1) It is easy to find horrible things in the "Old Testament", but the "New Testament" is an improvement.

No, it's not. The New Testament is literally infinitely worse, as it invents the notion of eternal torture (by this supposedly all-loving god).

2) The fact that Abraham was stopped in the very last second makes this a good, or at the very least acceptable thing.

Again, no. Are you a father? How would you react if you thought God, the God, whom you were intent on to follow, ordered you to murder your son? What emotional stress do you think you'd go through if you actually get to the point where you were actually intending to go through with it? What if God then, just before you struck the knife into your son's chest said, "oh, on second thought, you don't need to do this: I was only testin' ya".

How would you feel then? How would you feel to know that all the emotional scars, all the psychological damage that has been done to you and your son was just a joke?

Secondly, there's another passage in which god has a man sacrifice his daughter and doesn't stop it.

Thirdly... all this is irrelevant. What (believing) jews, christians and muslims alike are celebrating and praising is his willingness to murder his own son. Is this moral teaching to you?

Everyone's quoting and arguing with my "religion is still useful" line, omitting the following clause: "All things in moderation."

I agree. The Aztecs might have gone a little overboard when they sacrificed thousands of people every year. Really, it would've been enough with 365 to keep the universe going...

On a more serious note, I can take another example: the Jesus story. Even the most moderate christian must believe in at least that, right?

Well, the moral of the story here, is that you can put your sins upon someone else, have him killed and thus be washed free. It is scapegoating, and it abolishes the whole idea of personal responsibility, upon which morality completely depends.

How could you possibly say this is spreading morality?

Religion is very useful though, that I can agree with. It's what has allowed the Catholic church to get away with raping children for so long, after all. It's also a very good way to get money out of people, and to get respect that you don't deserve, and to get votes that you don't deserve, and to get people to do your bidding, and for...

[Vladimir]

Wow. You people really don't get it do you?

You claim certain passages are symbolic and not to be taken literally, then take symbolic passages literally. Basically whatever suits your agenda, which is the same thing you fault the religious for.

[Beskar]

God would disagree and say the meaning of life is to worship it and spread its glory, we only exist as its status symbol. The latter part is added by myself, the rest is what I've been told at church.
Everything we do should serve to show god's glory, for it is loving us and giving us great things if we believe in it and accept it's son.

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

If you make another post like that, Santa Claus will bring you a piece of coal for Christmas for being a naughty boy.


(That reply is as relevant as suggesting I am incorrect because of an imaginary being says otherwise. )

[Shibumi]

Wow. You people really don't get it do you?

You claim certain passages are symbolic and not to be taken literally, then take symbolic passages literally. Basically whatever suits your agenda, which is the same thing you fault the religious for.

Nope.

Just "no", mate.

Either we take everything symbolic (in which case there is no christian god and who would care about the bible) or we take nothing symbolic and god is a megalomaniac psycho that for some reason stopped interfering with our lives. Either or, nothing any thinking person would be much interested in.

Atheists do not pick and choose, we see it as either or.

Believers are doing the picking.

Hence my statement, that I respect some nutto hearing voices more than a man following religious dogma.

[naut]

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

Which in itself is a fail. Because, genetically, females have more complete DNA, as the Y chromosome is a shorter less complete genetically degenerated version than the X chromosome, so why would god create man in his image if it is less complete than woman. Surely it should be the other way round.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unless he were androgyn or suffered from Klinefelter syndrome.

[Vladimir]

Nope.

Just "no", mate.

Either we take everything symbolic (in which case there is no christian god and who would care about the bible) or we take nothing symbolic and god is a megalomaniac psycho that for some reason stopped interfering with our lives. Either or, nothing any thinking person would be much interested in.

Atheists do not pick and choose, we see it as either or.

Believers are doing the picking.

Hence my statement, that I respect some nutto hearing voices more than a man following religious dogma.

So you deal in absolutes? That makes you fundamentalists.

Everyone picks and chooses. The use of "you people" was to demonstrate that.

[Lemur]

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it.

Actually, if you re-read the first book of Genesis, you'll see that there are two versions of the creation of man. In the first version "male and female created he them." So man and woman are created simultaneously. The more elaborate storytime version where Adam comes first is the second version.

Even that is a cleaned-up hand-me-down. Depending on which ancient sources you want to credit, there are other versions, including (most interestingly to me) one in which God creates no fewer than three female companions for Adam, getting it wrong at least twice. First God lets Adam watch as he makes the mate, but seeing a human body in all its components disgusts Adam so much that he won't touch her. So God destroys her. She never gets a name.

Then the Lord creates an equal to Adam, who bosses him around and insists on being on top during sex. Adam, being a typical man, goes whining to the boss, and the boss kicks her out of the garden. She is named Lilith, and goes on to be the "mother of monsters." She gets referenced later in the standard Bible, with no explanation of where she originated. (Don't forget that the sons of Adam and Eve take wives from other tribes, with no mention of where those tribes came from.)

Lastly God puts Adam asleep and crafts an inferior, more submissive bride from Adam's rib. This is the second version of creation in the standard text, and the only surviving iteration of Adam's wives that is commonly known and accepted by Judeo-Christian-Islamic worshipers.

And if these stories are meant to be taken literally, then I am the Queen of Norway.

[Strike For The South]

Even that is a cleaned-up hand-me-down. Depending on which ancient sources you want to credit, there are other versions, including (most interestingly to me) one in which God creates no fewer than three female companions for Adam, getting it wrong at least twice. First God lets Adam watch as he makes the mate, but seeing a human body in all its components disgusts Adam so much that he won't touch her. So God destroys her. She never gets a name.

.

"Have you ever seen a vagina by itself? Not for me"

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am the Queen of Norway.

Sounds plausible enough. But boy, was Adam ever such a miserable excuse for a human being; I really can't see why Eve ever saw anything in him at all with others to choose from. God fails at QA.

[Fragony]

"Have you ever seen a vagina by itself? Not for me"

Don't worry it's only a fleshwound

oh TA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAW96N-Vms

[Skullheadhq]

Don't worry it's only a fleshwound

How do you know?

[drone]

Adam should have stuck with Lilith. She was hawt.

[Husar]

If you make another post like that, Santa Claus will bring you a piece of coal for Christmas for being a naughty boy.


(That reply is as relevant as suggesting I am incorrect because of an imaginary being says otherwise. )

Can you explain why? If my reply is irrelevant because you do not believe in God, then your replies are irrelevant, too, because I do not believe in worldly science or the logic of the devil.

Actually, if you re-read the first book of Genesis, you'll see that there are two versions of the creation of man. In the first version "male and female created he them." So man and woman are created simultaneously. The more elaborate storytime version where Adam comes first is the second version.

Or maybe it starts with a broad introduction and then explains the finer details.

And if these stories are meant to be taken literally, then I am the Queen of Norway.

Are you married to Beskar by any chance?
If it's not in the bible, it is not God's word as God inspired those who wrote these things and those who chose what gets in and what stays out.
Those who made our version of the bible of course, the other versions are inspired by the devil to mislead us.

[Fragony]

How do you know?

Just look at it, looks like an exploded lab-rat. But they seem to get around just fine so can't be all bad

[Kurando]

Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience, therefore we should not waste time trying to find him

Buddha taught that the human experience is by it's very nature inconsequential.

"The nature of all experience is like a bubble, like a mirage, like dew and lightning." (see the Diamond Sutra, Phena Sutta, etc)

Instead of philosophising about it why not examine experience directly for yourself and see if it holds water? If experience itself is proven to be inconsequential, the question itself will be answered in a most comprehensive manner.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Adam should have stuck with Lilith. She was hawt.

Yeah, what's the problem with riding cowboy...

[Skullheadhq]

Just look at it

I would if I could :(

[Hax]

Buddha taught that the human experience is by it's very nature inconsequential.

"The nature of all experience is like a bubble, like a mirage, like dew and lightning." (see the Diamond Sutra, Phena Sutta, etc)

Observe the Dharma of the Dharma King! Namo Sakyamuni Buddha

[Sarmatian]

I voted disagree. In fact, when anything about God is discussed, I generally disagree