Is there a God?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:10 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:In the broader sense of "why can't he just be a massive dick?", well, he could. It's just most people don't like worshiping Cthulhu with a beard.
The average Muslim/Christian* is already worshiping someone worse than Cthulhu. I don't mean in a figurative or hyperbolic sense, either.

Well, yes, but they don't believe that. That was in response to the notion of people believing in omnibenevolence and not wanting their god to be a massive dick. Hence centuries of apologetics.

Taishan · Post by **Taishan** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:23 pm

sabs wrote:If you start looking at Ancient myths around the world, you start to get multiple completely unrelated cultures who talk about a Great Flood that put everything under water.
There are several different Pacific Island, Native American myths that deal with a great flood. I admit that my memory is failing me, but there's also something along those lines in Chinese Mythology.

An easy explanation would be that pre-history civilizations all started on waterways or in flood plains. If you've ever been near a flooded river, it does seem like the whole goddamn world just got filled up with 10 feet of water, as far as the eye can see. And since every community on said river will experience pretty much the same thing, you've got a common event. Now someone from your tribe/village goes traveling and finds some other community on another river and lo and behold, they've experienced village-destroying floods too. Suddenly, its global!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:33 pm

Taishan wrote:
sabs wrote:If you start looking at Ancient myths around the world, you start to get multiple completely unrelated cultures who talk about a Great Flood that put everything under water.
There are several different Pacific Island, Native American myths that deal with a great flood. I admit that my memory is failing me, but there's also something along those lines in Chinese Mythology.
An easy explanation would be that pre-history civilizations all started on waterways or in flood plains. If you've ever been near a flooded river, it does seem like the whole goddamn world just got filled up with 10 feet of water, as far as the eye can see. And since every community on said river will experience pretty much the same thing, you've got a common event. Now someone from your tribe/village goes traveling and finds some other community on another river and lo and behold, they've experienced village-destroying floods too. Suddenly, its global!

Want an even easier explanation? You're living in the time before nuclear physics: you only know four states of matter. So your explanation for the world as it is pretty much has to be one of:

There was nothing but rocks, then it got wind and water poured on it.
There was nothing but fire, and it cooled down into our world.
There was nothing but air and the world sort of popped into being in it.
There was nothing but water and then the rocks and shit got added later.

Now as it happens, the Hebrews managed to pick two of those: going with the "all was void (that you could breathe in, so I guess that's air)" and the "all was water" beginning, and then sort of mushed them together the Aztec way by claiming that the two origin stories happened one after another with a world destruction in between. And you know what? Even with two choices out of the list, they still got it wrong. The correct answer is "All was Fire", which is a pretty rare guess in the ancient world.

But any religion that failed to guess the "all was fire" prequel to the Earth is pretty obviously not divinely inspired.

-Username17

Taishan · Post by **Taishan** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:40 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The average Muslim/Christian* is already worshiping someone worse than Cthulhu. I don't mean in a figurative or hyperbolic sense, either. As in, if those two deities turned out to be real and you had the choice of going to a universe where Cthulhu was the supreme being or Yahweh, the rational choice would be with Cthulhu. Seriously. We're talking about an entity beyond human understanding who had scary-ass heralds tortured people outside of their cult (including small children, mentally disabled, and people who never even interacted with them) for all eternity. Even if you're in the cult, your reward is that you get mind controlled and forced to worship the being for all eternity.

You'd think that being a scary badass father figure would be a dealbreaker but there was a poll of the Russian people about who were the most popular Russian leaders in history*. Stalin and Lenin were #3, while Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the least popular. When I asked a Russian friend of mine what she thought it meant, she just said that Russians view their lives as a shitty existence to begin with and appreciate political strong men who at least try to make it different, even if they fail horribly. Even the failures shrugged off the Russian ennui long enough to level a few cities.

So why angry sky/mountain gods who punish you for random human behaviors so popular? I think that part of the answer may be that those theologies can only take root in a culture that views life as pretty shitty to begin with and any offer of an even slightly better afterlife for the paltry price of killing some people you don't like anyways is going to be popular.

*http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 328208913/
yes its a state-run poll. I'm surprised Putin didn't win 98% approval.

Post by **fbmf** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:04 pm

DSMatticus wrote: The adoption of god as a omnibenevolent benefactor sort of happens in the new testament, but it's mostly an after-the-fact extension

Do you mean 1 John 4:8 "God is love"? That seems pretty straightforward.

(Not necessarily that God is omnibenevolent, but that the Bible asserts in a straightforward way that he is.)

Game On,
fbmf

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:31 pm

That's one place where the benevolent god message is delivered, but it's not quite explicit omnibenevolence.

Post by **fbmf** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:38 pm

DSMatticus wrote:That's one place where the benevolent god message is delivered, but it's not quite explicit omnibenevolence.

Really? Short of using the word "omnibenevolence", how much more explicit were you wanting?

Game On,
fbmf

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:50 pm

fbmf wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:That's one place where the benevolent god message is delivered, but it's not quite explicit omnibenevolence.
Really? Short of using the word "omnibenevolence", how much more explicit were you wanting?

Game On,
fbmf

Well, the full quote is:

1 John 4 wrote:Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

That doesn't sound omnibenevolent at all. That's just "Jehova is Cupid". With a little bit of "Lonely people can go fuck themselves" thrown in on top.

The people who shorten it to "God is Love" as if it meant that God was literally made out of love or some shit are beyond cherry picking - that's not even the full sentence. Just a qualifier within a sentence about how loveless people are damned.

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:57 pm

It's very hard to take that as a statement of fact as opposed to a catchy slogan. I don't think any Christian has ever answered the question 'what is love?' (edit: I had to listen to Haddaway after typing this) with 'the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe,' or even the 'stuff which the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe is made out of.' God is very much not love at any point in Christian theology.

'God is all-loving,' or 'god is the source of all love,' or 'god loves all,' or 'god puts love in our hearts,' or some shit like that would have made more sense in that passage, depending on what that sentence is supposed to actually mean. And only some of those lead to omnibenevolence (all-loving, loves all).

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:19 pm

Well, and we're reading hand copied translations of vulgar latin (maybe) into High Latin. Who knows what Love really ment in that context. Maybe what Paul said was really, "God is Sex"

Which would really make Christianity way cooler

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:37 pm

sabs wrote:Which would really make Christianity way cooler

Which is why we can be certain he wasn't saying that. Christianity is never okay with anything cool.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:44 pm

DSMatticus wrote:I don't think any Christian has ever answered the question 'what is love?'

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more. *headbobs*

Also, "God is Sex" sounds like a great new name for a rock band.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:55 am

sabs wrote:Maybe what Paul said was really, "God is Sex"

If it were any other apostle, then there could be at least a slim chance that their original words were "god is sex". But not Paul. He (or the later writers who wrote under his name) hated the fuck out of sex.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:39 am

Fuchs wrote:How many christians here do believe that unless you accept Jesus as your saviour you'll end in hell?

I don't, and my church doesn't, either. Others just go to a slightly less awesome heaven.

Guyr Adamantine · Post by **Guyr Adamantine** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:28 am

Maj wrote:
Fuchs wrote:How many christians here do believe that unless you accept Jesus as your saviour you'll end in hell?
I don't, and my church doesn't, either. Others just go to a slightly less awesome heaven.

Like regular heaven, but without your favorite flavor of ice cream? Why worship at all?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:39 am

Guyr Adamantine wrote:
Maj wrote:
Fuchs wrote:How many christians here do believe that unless you accept Jesus as your saviour you'll end in hell?
I don't, and my church doesn't, either. Others just go to a slightly less awesome heaven.
Like regular heaven, but without your favorite flavor of ice cream? Why worship at all?

As an optimization problem. Duration of human life = ~80 years. Duration of eternal life = infinity years. No matter how incredibly boring church is and how much better your life is by not listening to people talk about inane shit every Sunday, and no matter how incredibly minor the difference in awesomeness is between heaven-major and heaven-minor, the difference in quantity of enjoyment has to be paid off eventually.

Of course, this is all predicated on the fact that there's any chance that this is right at all. It's just as likely (and nay, more historically precedented as far as our organized religions go) that god hates you and you're going to go hell regardless. Once you adjust for certainties, you'll find that any amount of time spent worshipping is just a loss, relative to time you could be spending eating your favorite ice cream now. Well, that's probably not good for an optimal solution either. Ice cream isn't super healthy. But you get the point.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:23 am

Guyr Adamantine wrote:
Maj wrote:I don't, and my church doesn't, either. Others just go to a slightly less awesome heaven.
Like regular heaven, but without your favorite flavor of ice cream? Why worship at all?

Oh, the Mormons are full of way more crazy than ice cream. The true greats go to a heaven where they get to be gods and go off and make their own worlds and crap. The rest of us are sorted between the heavenly equivalent of mansions, villas, and chalets... Or maybe cottages and cabins. That's not really very clear.

Guyr Adamantine · Post by **Guyr Adamantine** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:09 pm

Maj wrote:Oh, the Mormons are full of way more crazy than ice cream. The true greats go to a heaven where they get to be gods and go off and make their own worlds and crap. The rest of us are sorted between the heavenly equivalent of mansions, villas, and chalets... Or maybe cottages and cabins. That's not really very clear.

I really don't miss religion.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:21 pm

I have yet to hear about an afterlife that didn't sound horrible on some level. I am actually looking forward to not existing one day. Not that I particurlarly want to not exist today, but one day.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:27 pm

Ted the Flayer wrote:I have yet to hear about an afterlife that didn't sound horrible on some level. I am actually looking forward to not existing one day. Not that I particurlarly want to not exist today, but one day.

I'm up for immortality. Existing forever sounds nice. At least, until the heat death of the universe kicks in and everything gets super boring.

But not existing's fine too. Not like I'll be around to complain about it.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:37 pm

Mormonism is interesting. They managed to avoid the whole thing with "mainstream" Christianity where omnipotence is logically impossible before any of the numerous other bullshit, and we can dismiss the entire concept as incoherent before we even start designing empirical tests. However... while Mormonism doesn't fall into the logical incoherence problems of infinite power (their gods are not infinitely powerful, but merely very powerful), it has a whole separate problem where it's fucking stupid and insulting on every possible level! So it's still not the kind of thing you'd make an empirical test for - but in this case because the propositions are merely obviously false rather than because they are logically incoherent.

Now as it happens, the specific propositions of Mormonism were given empirical tests, and they were found wanting. Native Americans are not lost tribes of Israelites. North America did not have steel and horses before the coming of Columbus. Joseph Smith was not able to replicate his made-up story while pretending to be reading from his fake golden tablets. The whole thing is bogus and retarded.

But it's not logically impossible. It's merely false and stupid. And obviously so.

-Username17

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Taishan wrote:You'd think that being a scary badass father figure would be a dealbreaker but there was a poll of the Russian people about who were the most popular Russian leaders in history*. Stalin and Lenin were #3, while Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the least popular. When I asked a Russian friend of mine what she thought it meant, she just said that Russians view their lives as a shitty existence to begin with and appreciate political strong men who at least try to make it different, even if they fail horribly. Even the failures shrugged off the Russian ennui long enough to level a few cities.
...
*http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 328208913/
yes its a state-run poll. I'm surprised Putin didn't win 98% approval.

Haha, that poll is apparently more rigged than the elections! Zing!

Czar Nicholas II is extremely unpopular, and Kremlin's promotion of him is... puzzling, to say at least. Last time there was an internet poll (which was of course spammed and rigged to hell - pix are available), they also rolled out ol' Nick as a consolidated anti-Soviet candidate, while e.g. Peter I the Great and Catherine II the Great and Ivan IV the Awesome are popular with moderates and would have looked much more plausible as #1. Of course, the poll you linked concerns 20th century only, so VTsIOM's options here were fairly limited.

As for Stalin's popularity - you should get acquainted with classic works, because it's right there:

Dungeonomicon wrote:It is historical fact that you can take a ridiculous and crumbling imperium with serfs and horse-drawn carts managed by a tyrannical and squabbling aristocracy and boot strap it into being a technologically sophisticated global power that can win the space race and such in a single generation even while being invaded by an evil and genocidal empire.

Stalin has observably improved life in Russia <insert magnitude>-fold. Sure, he made some pointlessly stupid decisions (Christian revival, gender-segregated education, Pax Sovetica lolrandom borders) and a number of blatantly anti-communist policies were in effect (death penalty, censorship, isolationism), but the net effect of Stalin's rule was overwhelmingly positive.

(Note that while neo-nazis argue that anti-communist policies were necessary back then and they are necessary now, and moderate Stalinists insist that they "might have been necessary then and would have been relaxed over time", my argument is neither.)

Bonus story:

It's WW2 and Soviet forces have reached the Baltic shore. General Bagramian sends his aide-de-camp to report to Stalin in person. While the aide-de-camp was in flight and offline, the Nazis counterattacked and the Soviets were forced to retreat.
The aide-de-camp, unaware of it, walks into Stalin's study and produces a bottle of water.
"Comrade Stalin, General Bagramian sends you the water of the Baltic Sea!"
Stalin takes the bottle, pauses, then hands it to the aide-de-camp,
"Return it to Bagramian and tell him to pour it out back into the Baltic."

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:10 pm

So what exactly are we supposed to do with the descendants of the Amaleks? Are we supposed to wipe them out too? After all, God commands it in Deuteronomy 25:19.

Although isn't the whole thing with heaven that you get to sit around and sing about how awesome God is? Seems kinda lame.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:46 pm

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Although isn't the whole thing with heaven that you get to sit around and sing about how awesome God is? Seems kinda lame.

That was a great part in Letters From Earth. The Devil said that he and his followers should retire, because they could not possibly come up with a worse Hell than the Heaven that humankind had conceived: everyone singing, whether they have any talent or not, the same monotonous song, forever.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:52 am

I personally like the hell in Shaw's 'Don Juan in Hell'. Basically you spend the rest of eternity as a beatnik and if it gets too boring you can go leave and try again if you badger the Devil enough.