Simtropolis Religion Thread

[Themaroonday 40]

I'm don't believe in the existence God, but I respect anyone else's religious beliefs. 

[Terring 6,473]

I'll try to be as simple and understandable as possible. Our technology is so advance, that our ancestors would worship us like gods if we could travel back in time. And yet we're talking about a time gasp of centuries. So what about the future? I predict that in the next centuries, we'll have the technology to recreate matter and life. With nanotechnology and genetic engineering, we're already in the very beginning. In the next thousands of years, we could build artificial world like planets and even stars. And what about the next millions and even billions of years? If we still live, we could probably build artificially new universes, just like our universe! I'm not kidding, there are scientists who strongly believe that an advanced civilization could build a new universe. Maybe it could be something like the finale of The Last Question, the epic story made by Isaac Asimov.

 

 

 

But if it's possible to build a new universe, could be possible to already live in an artificial one, made by a superior God-like intelligence way more advance than we can even imagine? Could we also evolve in this state, with technologies indistinguishable from divinity? If the answer is yes, I'm sorry friends but I have no reason to support any human-made religion and god. On the other hand, I have no reason to worship the Creators of our Cosmos too. Religion is something out of my life. I don't need rules after all. I'm a citizen of the Cosmos, just like you and everybody else. I want to be kind with everybody else, because we're all brothers and sisters, not because I want to be in Heaven after I die!

 

Feel free to believe in whatever you want. I don't care, I have no problem with it. Just be yourselves, be nice to the others... and be awesome

 

But if I want to support a religion, it will be this...

 

[GeometryMath Algebra 614]

I too reject religion. Being a citizen of a deeply religious country, I have to respect every citizens' religion. I also am a student in a catholic high school, (because we can't find any good school that aren't under a religious affiliation. ) so I have to hide my beliefs to avoid being expelled.

 

A lot of religious people think that all unbelievers are criminals, drug addicts, and else, but, meh.

I am a well educated, mild mannered person, and plan to contribute to the development of my country, but I don't believe in a God. And of course, there are billions of people out there who are successful, but don't believe in God. So what's the point of saying that unbelievers are criminals and drug addicts?

 

And also, man didn't come from dust, we are relatives of primates and possibly every organism in this planet, so sorry, people who made the Genesis, the Evolution theory is FAR more accurate than Creationism.

 

Just like what Terring said, our minds have unlimited power, so we can have God-like powers to alter nature, time, and even the universe.

 

Don't mean to sound rude, but I respect everyone's religion, I'm not that guy who'll shout out "GOD IS FAKE!", something like that.

 

Feel free to believe in any religion, I have no problem with that. 

 

-GMA

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My mathematical friend, you haven't looked hard enough nor lived long enough to reject the existence of a supreme being.  I reject organized religions simply because they are mechanisms for the aggrandization of a few bloated ministers.  However, as you live longer and delve deeper into the universe(s), you will find that the order of things is such that there quite possibly might be some sort of super intelligence in operation. 

 

There is still no "scientific" accounting for the big bang, yet it is accepted as scientific dogma.  Currently it is also fashionable to believe in dark matter holding the universe(s) together and dark energy pushing them apart, and a general belief that the dark energy will win.  Recent astronomical observation has found that there is an intergalactic structure where super-galaxies are gathered into 'filaments' and the whole thing could be said to look like a humongous rug in three (or more) dimensions.  Such fun!

 

I think it was Voltaire who said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him".

[Terring 6,473]

A lot of religious people think that all unbelievers are criminals, drug addicts, and else, but, meh.

You can hear this stupidity everywhere. I mean, come on! I have many friends who are unbelievers but you want them as your friends too, because they're kind and awesome. And don't forget that Adolf Hitler was believer, while Steven Hawking is unbeliever.

I'm not that guy who'll shout out "GOD IS FAKE!", something like that.

Believe me, those guys are even more annoying than the extreme believers.

However, as you live longer and delve deeper into the universe(s), you will find that the order of things is such that there quite possibly might be some sort of super intelligence in operation.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe there is an intelligence way more advance than we can even imagine, that made our Cosmos and let the things do the rest. Something like an experiment, a successful one in our case.

Remember friends that I'm not here to proselyte anybody and I have any prove for my ideas, even if they're based on scientific speculations

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I fail to see the point.  There is obviously another airplane.

 

Anyway, if anyone would like go join my church of god the utterly indifferent you'll find all our buildings are cylindrical so that the devil can never get you in a corner.  The existence of the devil is also a rather nice myth for less enlightened times.  There is a theological snap-back that if God created everything, he created evil too.

[AkemiAzula 280]

It would not surprise me if i tardised five hundred years into the future and found we could sculpt universes

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Mark, remember that after hubris comes nemesis.

[dabadon5 295]

Im a believer of God, but I'm a very liberal person . I'm pro gay marriage, i don't believe in the bible, lol. I skip church to watch football on sundays. I sin, i sin everyday and i plan on sinning for as long as i can.

Im catholic and know a lot of hardcore conservative people and they drive me nuts. I think the problem with religion today is how conservative it is. Everyone is trying to judge and condemn one another, instead of guiding and helping those who need it.   People ask why I believe in God ????

 

 

 

 

Because I believe in Satan, the devil......but that's a different story.....

 

btw I'm not a devil worshipper hahaha

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Judge not lest ye be judged."  -- Somewhere in every holy book.  Man may not judge the state of grace of his fellows.  Just assume that everyone who is not a saint is a sinner and you won't be far wrong.

 

Everyone who insists he is saved is guilty of the deadly sin of presumption.  It is impossible for man to know the mind of God.  Not even Joan of Arc fell for that one.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well I am not afraid of being judged, so I feel entitled thus to judge others lol. We all have the right to judge others, and to not judge others is to be guilty of the sin of ignorance of ones fellows condition lol.

 

But seriously I think the problem with religion, and I speak generally referring to Christianity as that is the religion I have had the most contact with, is that while churches be fine structures and well made, and while organs sound excellent in such acoustic environs, and while ancient texts are beautifully ornate and hymns are sung by perfectly pitched choirs and priests iron their suits regularly and church lawns are maintained with a pair of scissors by a team of virgins or saints

 

The problem is that all this effort, all this art and direction, is celebrating this present universe. And I have questioned, ever since I was a boy and my mother still went to church back in Adelaide, why would we celebrate our present condition, be joyful of our present condition, and wish to preserve the status quo, when it was so flawed? So I have always been a God instead of a believer.

 

Which is why I played Simcity rather than a FPS. I design and create universes, to be forced to live in one which is highly flawed and awfully designed... Is hardly ideal for one who knows how things should be laid out. 

 

The problem with religion is that the church is a fine institution, but it needs to throw away its Bibles and start upholding rationality and logic. Priests should be replaced with robots, churches should be houses for productive effort, factories. Graveyards should be turned into farmland and plowed over. And I think that there should be a single church, a government if you will, run by a computer.

 

As long as there are more than two religions neither will be correct. Correctness comes not from compromise but from absolute proof and conclusiveness.

 

And thus all religions are wrong.

 

Or at least that is my logic. But before ye condemn me as Hitler allow me to say that if people wish to strive for a goal that is not in itself heretic against science and reason. However let not mortal effort and resources be wasted as the church does on airy whims and concepts above this world. Let our timber not go into crosses but into work benches, and our silver not turned into virgins and saints and vessels but into useful materials for work.

 

Timewasting is the principle reason I am against the church because people have, as a poster above mentioned with his reference to footy matches,. much more useful things with which to be occupied on weekends than attending masses where priests read from a publically available literature the same old quotations. 

 

Timewasting is a heresy in the 'religion' of rationality and science. Thus as a rational man I suppose I condemn all religions lol.

 

Having said all that my Grandfather (who was religious all his life)'s funeral at the local COE church was very well conducted, and while I didn't know the words to the hymns they were well played by the organist. The decoration within is artistically good, although the subjects seemed obvious and predictable. The stone of the church itself is finely built, although modern additions ruin it somewhat, and the wooden pews have been blasphemously relaced by modern chairs... They have televisions in their for goodness sake... I think if anything conservatism should be the policy of the church. Preserve what little remains lol.

 

I don't know. The trend is to be rational or create new religions and ways. The trend is globalisation and multiculturalism, and while my great aunt does painting at her local methodist church she celebrates hannukah... 

 

If I created a religion I would have more than one god as a single god religion would be dull and boring I think. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

All these old arguments are exactly that: old arguments.  Mere puffing about something no one knows anything about.  There are only two possibilities: afterlife or no afterlife.  "That unknown country from whose bourne no traveller returns." -- Hamlet.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I was raised a Catholic but I agree more with Deists and Henotheists than some other Christians I know. I am also rather progressive. I do, however, disagree with Anti-Theism and various Satirical religions. Unfortunately, some fora I visit are full of Anti-Theists, coincidentally many of them are Communists.

--Ocram

[Terring 6,473]

Today I discovered Pantheism. For what I can understand, Pantheism is the belief that the Cosmos is identical with divinity or that everything composes an all-encompassing immanent God. This means that Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god, something good from my point of view.

But wait a minute. Do you know what's the first thing that comes to my mind? Those quotes:

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." Cicero

"The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Carl Sagan

I know that we're all connected by many ways, biological, chemically, atomically. We are all live in the Cosmos and the Cosmos lives in us. Science have proved that. We are all one entity. But can the entity be the God we're searching for? Are we the gods of ourselves, our society, our planet and our Universe? Or I'm just an idiot?

[Meg 368]

It sounds like you have a good understanding of the basics of pantheism.  Like most philosophies and religions, it has been debated over the centuries, including the question of whether it is a philosophy or a religion.

 

A variety of religions touch on pantheism at some point.   For instance, check out Psalm 86.  People have been trying to decipher that one for a while.   Many indigenous religions use some form of the phrase “We are all one with Mother Earth.”

 

Or you could go Hollywood with it.  As Yoda says:

 

"For my ally is the Force – and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you: here. Between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

 

The problem with pantheism is that it does not provide the answers to questions and needs that many people have.   Yes, we are all connected in a variety of ways but many people are not aware of it; they do not feel it so it is not real to them.

 

Many people prefer to feel a relationship with “the big man upstairs” to use my friend’s phrase.   They don’t see the big picture but they are confident that there is one somewhere.  After all, they are only human.

 

Pantheism, on the other hand, is not warm and fuzzy.  The basic tenet is that all of us, and everything else, taken together, comprise God.  That takes, in some people’s view, a certain degree of arrogance coupled with a lack of ego.  Not an easy combination.

 

If you want to read more about pantheism, I suggest Robert A. Heinlein.   He wrote about it a lot.

 

"Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God"

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

That quote from Stranger in a Strange Land reminds me that it is quite possibly the only good explanation, if one is required.  Descartes summed it all up in a simple sentence: "Cogito ergo sum". {I think, therefore I am}.

 

Basically, this can devolve into solipsism as described by the phrase "Thou art god" which really implies everyone is god and god is both internal and external.

 

@Terring:  Well, you are in the land of the western philosophers.  Why was it that the Athenians forced Socrates to poison himself?  Perhaps you should reread the Georgias.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Is this really solipsism ? I thought solipsism was believeing that reality only exists in your head.

 

Anyway... the question this post makes me want to ask is : why do most people want to find a "god". Why this need for a "superior" being or power.

 

In the case of pantheism, why call it god ? The universe is the universe, one can admire everything that exists without trying to finger it with religious nonsense.

[Terring 6,473]

I believe there isn't a settled view about what's God. What somebody has in her/his mind may be much different than what you have in your mind. I believe that if there is God, it will be something way more different than most people believe. But alternative thoughts are always welcomed, for as long as they are not insulting.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

"God"...

 

 

Applies to any god.

[Duke87 1,070]

Why do I feel like Pantheism should be the worship of Pan?

 

Or better yet, the cooking kind. He fried eggs for your sins!

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I have merged the "Pantheism" topic into our Religion thread.  It is the most appropriate place for this discussion.  Enjoy!

[LexusInfernus 908]

"God"...

 

 

Applies to any god.

All that does is show that Atheists are at exactly the same logical position as Theists. Or in other words, the difference between Atheists and Theists is just one letter. 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

No I think you got it completely wrong.

 

This shows that the only argument that believers have is pointless by reversing it.

 

This is sarcasm, no atheist will actually say this, it's just made to show how illogical the point of view of believers is.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Atheism is just more religious cant.  You have to work at it to be one.  I prefer the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.  Started the ball rolling and hasn't given a jot or tittle of attention to it since.  All the churches are cylindrical so the devil can't get you in a corner.

[Duke87 1,070]

All that does is show that Atheists are at exactly the same logical position as Theists. Or in other words, the difference between Atheists and Theists is just one letter.

 

Depends on how you look at it. I as an atheist do not vehemently assert that there is no god - what I assert is that I see no evidence or logic to suggest that there is one, and that therefore the idea has no credibility.

[LexusInfernus 908]

No I think you got it completely wrong.

 

This shows that the only argument that believers have is pointless by reversing it.

 

This is sarcasm, no atheist will actually say this, it's just made to show how illogical the point of view of believers is.

True, they won't say it. They just skip the whole part of requiring evidence and then state with absolute certainty that there is no God. And when you call them out on the fact that they don't have any evidence for their views, they start complaining about the burden of proof and tea pots floating around in space. 

 

The point is, logically the position of (and I will be fair here) a portion of atheists is exactly the same as that of some theists. They both make a claim and they both have no evidence whatsoever to support said claim. Their points are equally invalid and equally baseless. 

 

Depends on how you look at it. I as an atheist do not vehemently assert that there is no god - what I assert is that I see no evidence or logic to suggest that there is one, and that therefore the idea has no credibility.

 

True, there are two kinds of atheists. The ones that see no reason to believe in God and the ones that believe there is no God. The first group has  a perfectly valid point. Why believe in something if there is no evidence to indicate its existence. The second group however states that even the possibility of God existing somewhere and we just haven't found him yet is wrong. However, such wide sweeping generalizing claims that actively states that something does not and cannot exist anywhere in the universe needs a little more than 'no evidence whatsoever' before that claim becomes credible. 

 

Similarly you can divide the group of people who believe in God in two groups. One group sees no reason not to believe in God due to the lack of evidence. The other group states with absolute certainty that there is a god and that he did all the things you read in the bible, and they too would need actual evidence before that claim becomes credible. 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

 

No I think you got it completely wrong.

 

This shows that the only argument that believers have is pointless by reversing it.

 

This is sarcasm, no atheist will actually say this, it's just made to show how illogical the point of view of believers is.

True, they won't say it. They just skip the whole part of requiring evidence and then state with absolute certainty that there is no God. And when you call them out on the fact that they don't have any evidence for their views, they start complaining about the burden of proof and tea pots floating around in space. 

 

The point is, logically the position of (and I will be fair here) a portion of atheists is exactly the same as that of some theists. They both make a claim and they both have no evidence whatsoever to support said claim. Their points are equally invalid and equally baseless. 

 

 

Hmmm... In my book the person who want to prove me something exists has to prove it. Atheists do not say "there is no god and I can prove it", they say "if there's a god you must have proof, since you have none I must conclude there is no god.

 

That's the whole point of the burden of proof and of Russel's teapot.

 

If you claim you have 100$ in your pocket I'm not supposed to believe what you say. If you show me the money I'll believe in you but as long as you won't show it there is no proof for me so if I chose not to believe what you say I am completely right.

 

That's funny how people reverse the need to prove things are real when it comes to religion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is all a matter of faith.  Some people are more comfortable in religious belief than others.  However, it is personal and not a subject for organization.  Even currently, religion is killing people for no reason other than that they are thought to be irreligious by some fanatics.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Hmmm... In my book the person who want to prove me something exists has to prove it. Atheists do not say "there is no god and I can prove it", they say "if there's a god you must have proof, since you have none I must conclude there is no god.

 

That's the whole point of the burden of proof and of Russel's teapot.

That is a false dichotomy. By doing so Atheists make it appear there are only two valid conclusions, either you have evidence and you can prove something, or you don't have evidence and therefor you must conclude it does not exist. By doing so Atheists completely ignore the third option, namely that there is not enough data to support either conclusion. Which given the nature of God and our very limited understanding of the universe is actually a far more logical position. That is why Russel's teapot is actually a very dumb example. Sure, if you have extensively studied all objects orbiting our sun and you didn't find a teapot its reasonable to state that there are no teapots orbiting our sun. But it would be incredibly premature to use that limited dataset and use it to make a generalizing claim about the rest of the universe. You can't state that there are no teapots orbiting any suns for as long as you have not studied the objects of every star in the universe (or at least a statistically significant number of them). 

 

Oh and yes, there is a group of Atheists that actively believe that God does not and cannot exist. That is a claim just as much as it is a claim to say God does actually exist. For such a claim to be valid, Atheist must come up with evidence to support said claim. Otherwise they simply make use of the appeal to ignorance fallacy (yes that one works both ways). Just because A cannot prove their claim doesn't mean that B is therefor automatically correct. 

 

 

If you claim you have 100$ in your pocket I'm not supposed to believe what you say. If you show me the money I'll believe in you but as long as you won't show it there is no proof for me so if I chose not to believe what you say I am completely right.

 

That's funny how people reverse the need to prove things are real when it comes to religion.

 

I find it more funny that a group of people that claims to be all about logic and reason can't even recognize their own extensive use of logical fallacies. The burden of proof lies with everyone who makes a claim, and just because people with a different claim cannot prove it doesn't mean you are therefor automatically correct. Lets take this pocket money example as a demonstration. Indeed, say I have a 100 dollars in my pocket but I refuse to show it to you. That means you don't see any evidence and you are therefor quite right when you refuse to believe me. But, this is where we are going to make a little distinction. There is not believing me and there is believing that I have no money in my pocket. The first is not a claim, the second is. The first does not impose a burden of proof on you, the second does. If you want to say that because I don't show you the money that I claim to have in my pocket I therefor must have no money in my pocket, you need to prove it (in this case by searching my pockets). Only after you have searched my pockets does that claim become valid (if you found no money in my pockets). 

 

Now see, there are essentially two kinds of atheists. One group does not believe theists when they say there is a god because those theists show no proof. But the second group takes it a step further by stating that God does not exist, they take not believing and turn it into actively believing the opposite. Thats fine, but when they do that, they make a claim and the burden of proof lies with them. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"What have I got in my pocket?"

-- Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit"