Existense of gods

@cade: True.

Again, quite interesting. I would give them my respect, but I don't think I'd worship them, even then. I do have my pride, after all.

Then we're in agreement.

edited 7th Oct '11 7:45:41 PM by tropetown

Hey, if there's humans who are into beastiality...

-shrug-

Also, I'm honestly not trying to be disrespectful, Aon. It's a really cool perspective and I really like the idea. And...I'm also not discounting it's true.

edited 7th Oct '11 7:46:28 PM by Katrika

Dare I ask what you're comparing that to?

Feo read from that post on to see the context.

Basically asura are violent prideful assholes who will fuck your shit up perhaps literally.

edited 8th Oct '11 12:45:40 AM by Aondeug

This thread: HIGHT OCTANE STUPIDITY FUEL.

Not to mention hypocrital, considering a greater deal of it involves being pissed off at people decrying the abrahamic God while everyone is fine with insulting the pagan ones.

Since I've been quoted in the OP, I feel that I'd ought to offer clarity about just what it was at which I was getting.

I do not believe any religion to present a literal conception of a god or gods which satisfy both of two conditions:

The first is that the traits attributed to the gods fall in line with logical scrutiny (which includes scrutiny based on logically-derived systems such as the laws of physics).

The second is that the gods are also presented in such a way that they are somehow relevant to humans and deserving of our worship or attention.

That is to say, I believe that if a religion has the concept of a god as something logically feasible, that god will not be a thing to be worshipped. Inversely, a god presentable as worth worshipping will not be defined in such a way that it conforms with logical scrutiny or known physical laws.

edited 8th Oct '11 6:22:24 AM by ekuseruekuseru

I’ve seen it used as a sort of “blanket” argument against God and probably the metaphysical in general. It wasn’t pretty…basically trying to assert that “We don’t know where things came from, and that’s my axiom” is somehow a better than “A Wizard Did It.” There are ways to suggest an actual answer, but they tend to turtle all the way down so it’s harder to say they’re “simpler”.

I’m not sure I follow the logic here…wouldn’t they exist by virtue of existing regardless of what they called themselves? And if they where REALLY say…the Zeus and Odin of legends…wouldn’t they still be gods even if their origins where extra terrestrial?

While the beginning really needs more elaboration and is probably covered in topics debated by scholars for centuries, the later seems more like assuming a position and declaring yourself correct.

Atheist make up roughly 2.5% of the world population. The combined population of the Abrahamic religions is about half the population. Also the former is dwindling while the later is flourishing, likely in part to the later often existing in counties with higher birth rates.

So flooding the shit out of everything seems a bit of an overreaction.

Also, topic people, topic. We HAVE one about capital G God I thought this one was about running naked through acid rain lower case g gods.

edited 16th Oct '11 5:33:48 AM by Justice4243

Atheist make up roughly 2.5% of the world population. The combined population of the Abrahamic religions is about half the population. Also the former is dwindling while the later is flourishing, likely in part to the later often existing in counties with higher birth rates.

That study was in 2006, and only seems to apply to Islam; all studies in regards to Christianity show alienation of the youths, and since Islam is isolating itself from sympathy, all increase is related to birth alone.

What I meant was, if they existed, they would simply be a form of extraterrestrial life. Interesting, but not worth worshipping. If, for example, Zeus came down here and told humanity to bow down before him, the proper answer in that situation would be to tell him to kindly eat a bag of dicks.

edited 16th Oct '11 6:34:30 AM by tropetown

After which he would hit you with a lighting bolt.

I find ancient mythology more liekly to exist, mainly Thor, Loky, Zeus, Hades etc. Because these gods are not omnipotent or all-knowing. They have powers that defy laws of the universe, but they don't introduce (infinete amount of) paradoxes. They also have their reasons to act and generally you can somewhat understand them.

Enter Abrahamic God, totally alien deity that we can't hope to comprehend, is not boudn by logic and is omnipotent and all-knowing. It intriduces infinete amount of paradoxes and if not bound by logic, how can anyone worships or follow it?

I think you missed the point of the post if this is your response.

Wait…you’re not pulling that “all studies” from that Public Religion Research Institute are you? Because that information only applies to American Churches. Also, while American Protestant groups numbers seem to be in decline, Catholic numbers still seem to be rising at around the pace of the world population. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are growing about twice as fast than the average world population.

Even without trends, we’re still looking at around 2.5% of the population versus around 50%. So even if there was any merit to the idea that God punishes unbelievers with natural disasters if they’re a threat to his flock, it’s important to note the numbers don’t reflect a significant threat at the moment.

We’ve had the paradox conversation very recently elsewhere, but it’s worth noting that these paradoxes are hundreds of years old and all manner of solutions have been proposed including pointing out the “omnipotent” and “omniscience” aren’t actually out of the Bible.

Yet it shows that, with sufficient unsympathetic tendencies, even large religions can fall. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have broad missionary programs, so them rising is unsurprising. I'm curious, though, where specifically they are rising the most.

In any case, I don't validate the idea that Yahweh will act directly. In Revelation, he uses his servants to spread misery, so it is the angels and the horsemen one has to be wary of. It is aklso suggestive of his "aging" across the Bible, meaning that the idea that he is omnipotent and omnipresent is every bit as nonsensical as the fact that they post-date the Bible would suggest.

It also means that a large number of people on this thread are hypocrital for considering the greek gods aliens when Yahweh is no different in his own holy book.

edited 16th Oct '11 3:00:08 PM by Gannetwhale

I would say that conclusion would require WAY more data than what the study has reportedly found. It simply shows a large gulf in terms of what younger and older members of these groups believe in presently, and a perhaps a change in belief in general in the population of these groups. However, it doesn’t show that these are decline if only because that’s outside the scope of the research.

The demographic sources come from elsewhere and one would have to study that to figure out why these Churches are on the decline. The Protestant studies are suggesting it’s mostly due to Birthrates amongst Mainlines tending to be lower than their conservative counter parts. Sothern Baptists DO mention a lack of interest from younger generations, but also mention that they have trouble attracting minorities.

That being said, pretty much all the major religions today that have been around for a while have seen numerous changes since there creation. So there’s certainly something to the belief that a religion or sect that refuses to reexamine doctrine in the face of a changing society is at increase risk for going extinct.

I think there where using it to basically call out the idea if the being is worthy of worship. Though, I felt the “alien” part as a bit odd as well. I’m not really sure by what standards people are drawing the line between “deity” and “sufficiently advanced alien”. The comparison becomes little more than a semantics debate at a point.

Still, bumping God down to a "almighty" and "ability to see all that occurs in his domain" still puts him as an entity a bit above the other gods in terms of scope, power, and implications about the workings of the universe. It doesn't really make him equivalent to a Greek or Norse god.

edited 16th Oct '11 3:25:43 PM by Justice4243

but also mention that they have trouble attracting minorities.

Most of my point is focused on this exactly. The fact that xenophobia and bigotry are a no-no today is why younger generations don't care much about protestantism.

Still, bumping God down to a "almighty" and "ability to see all that occurs in his domain" still puts him as an entity a bit above the other gods in terms of scope, power, and implications about the workings of the universe. It doesn't really make him equivalent to a Greek or Norse god.

The mere depiction of his as omnipresent, as I stated, goes against his own book, specially considering how he is often described as physical. Then again, many pagan gods are also described as omnipresent, so either way the point is that, physical or not, Yahweh is still part of the class of beings other gods belong too.

edited 16th Oct '11 3:51:21 PM by Gannetwhale

That could very well be the reasoning for the conservative or Fundamental groups, though the Mainlines seem to be having a different problem entirely, especially considering they don’t have the same hang-ups, or at least, not to the degree their conservative brothers do.

The xenophobia is largely going away. The larger Evangelical Churches have gone so far as to denounce there old racist roots. However, there is the possibility that it’s too late to simply fix things or that it will be some time before they can repair the damage decades of racism have done to the Church’s image.

I think I’d disagree here. There are several verses that call out God’s “perfect knowledge”, ability to see “everything under the heavens”, etc… Omniscience probably enjoys more scriptural support than Omnipotence. It’s potentially limited to just his creation. Though there’s probably crazy debate regarding that.

I’m also disagreeing here. I’ve yet to see a religion that proposes an entity as all-powerful as the Abrahamic God. Some gods occasional have traits and abilities that are similar to the Abrahamic God, but don’t seem to attempt the grand scale in power and that the Abrahamic God is attributed.

I’m not really sure how that’s here or there regarding the proof of any of these beings however.

Over the two threads this has been discussed it mostly seems to break down to just how skeptical one is. Many, it seems, have made their decisions already about the workings of the world and claim they wouldn’t trust ANY being that came down and declared it was any deity.

So it’s seems less a question of any of these beings being able to prove who they say they are and more just how skeptical is one that they wouldn’t take “magic”, 100% prediction accuracy, and lightning bolts hurled as evidence.

The other side of the Sufficiently Advanced Alien coin would likely be the Magic from Technology side where it seems these beings are being more denied because we can semantically reclassify them.

If a giant stood on some clouds and decided to make a second Japan it seems sort of silly to deny that said giant may not be Izanagi simply because that spear may just be some advanced terraforming rod and not magic.

Now, whether said being or any other being that suddenly pops up, starts doing some crazy things that we couldn’t possibly do with our science at the moment is actually worthy of worship seems like a different conversation entirely to me.

That study was in 2006, and only seems to apply to Islam; all studies in regards to Christianity show alienation of the youths, and since Islam is isolating itself from sympathy, all increase is related to birth alone.

Actually by number of conversions Islam is still the fastest growing. Christianity is also growing with respect to its numbers in the world population. There are a lot of people who end up leaving religion, though a lack of religion is correlated with being much less socially well adjusted in general.

Some of the Islam growth statistics are bit incorrect it’s worth noting.

However, greatest by number of conversions appears to be true, or at least supported by Guinness Book of World Records.

Christians seem to be doing slightly better than just population growth as a whole still.

Same with Islam and Hinduism.

There are several verses that call out God’s “perfect knowledge”, ability to see “everything under the heavens”, etc… Omniscience probably enjoys more scriptural support than Omnipotence. It’s potentially limited to just his creation. Though there’s probably crazy debate regarding that.

I meant omnipresence, not omniscience. Omniscience is obvious; even Helios had it. Omnipresence, however, is not as well supported, although even if present, not unique as several deities had it. The worshipping associated with Gaia, for example, and other nature goddesses like Cybele, held omnipresence for them.

I’m also disagreeing here. I’ve yet to see a religion that proposes an entity as all-powerful as the Abrahamic God. Some gods occasional have traits and abilities that are similar to the Abrahamic God, but don’t seem to attempt the grand scale in power and that the Abrahamic God is attributed.

While omnipotence is debatable, a great number of pagan deities did had omniscience and implied omnipresence, feats that, in themselves, would be very at least make them very similar to Yahweh, being probably incorporeal beings or something.

edited 17th Oct '11 4:00:29 AM by Gannetwhale

Omnipresence is probably less supported than omniscience, but still supported.

So, God has many aspects that other deities share, but I’ve still yet to see a religion that really attempts to create a figure that attempts as many “omni” disciplines (even implied ones).

Still, I’m not sure what that or declaring any of these figures Sufficiently Advanced Alien has to do with their existence.

What if both the Abrahamic God and other gods existed? The Bible supports this; God says not to put any other gods before him. The Egyptians worshipped such gods, who gave their magicians the power to do their own miracles (they do several of the same miracles Moses does). However, gods like that didn't care much for their followers, advocating such practices as human sacrifice. I think these "gods" were probably fallen angels who, like Lucifer, wanted to be like God.

edited 29th Oct '11 3:00:44 PM by OrKuunArQenByundis

One of the Romans' beefs with Judaism and Christianity was that they wouldn't acknowledge any other gods as real, as the Romans—a surprisingly inclusive bunch, religiously—did. Basically, the Romans treated religions almost like memes. Find a new one, stick it's mythology into your own, problems solved. Just don't put anybody above the Emperor, etc., and you're good.

Jews and Christians wouldn't play ball, though...

There's evidence both ways, and is thus subject to interpretation. Yes, the Pharoah's priests were able to turn staves into snakes, but Baal's followers were unable to light their altar. And besides, literal interpretation of the Old Testament doesn't have much support these days. For example, there's no evidence that two million enslaved Jews ever left Egypt at any time, and we would certainly know if they had. Besides, the OT was merely oral tradition for centuries. It's very unlikely that such a work could remain unchanged for that long.

edited 29th Oct '11 3:17:09 PM by TheEarthSheep