Sounds like comic superheroes for little kids

Risky risky. Watch your back

 

sure they do its the unique selling point.

would you join a religion (or stay in, i mean because you dont chose your religion your place of birth choses it for you) if it didnt offer you something (they never have to prove youll actually get, perfect marketing) you think youd lose if you leave it and become a mere mortal hooman. almost like any other living inhabitant of this planet? animal? plant? that thought is scary. but THAT thought might just save our existance if we stop treating this life, like we would have another one in the afterlife. be a good hooman, and stay. away. from. sects. religions. or anything that tickles your neurons in a bad and unhealthy way.

 

I'm absolutely sure the God ISN'T intelligent.

I could say he/she/it is partly intelligent.

Or gradually becomes intelligent (will be intelligent in the end of the world).

 

plop

 

Last edited: May 8, 2022

Do you need proof?
In this pic we can clearly see when God gives life to Adam


Checkmate atheists

 

Hey folks, God here. Even I don't believe in Me.

 

I believe whoever came up with the word God was dyslexic and was trying to write Dog.

 

Here, Adam has a belly button. And this is the result of being born. Then... was he born dead? And who was his mother? Just wondering...

...and kidding (or may be not... ).

 

My preferred view of that beautiful fresco in the Sistine Chapel

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

God exists/persists to supply egoistic consolation for the dread of inescapable individual mortality.

God is also the centerpiece arbiter of archaic tradition & elite privilege, by way of individual bribery: eternal, righteous justice for you endlessly undervalued and materially exploited - but only after you become strictly immaterial.

EDIT: A curse upon my goddam typos

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

It is called the absolute - this is not a name, it is a level of development, any entity can develop to such a level, but there is a level and higher, it is called "beyond the absolute", this is if the entity decided to go further and comprehend the absolute processes, then it goes into eternity where everything came from. And there is further development. Don't thank.
I don’t know how Google translated, so I’ll duplicate it in Russian.
Его называют абсолют - это не имя, это уровень развития, любая сущность может развиться до такого уровня, но есть уровень и выше, называется "за абсолютный", это если сущность решила идти дальше, и постичь за абсолютные процессы, тогда она уходит в вечность, откуда все пришло. И там идет развитие дальше. Не благодари.
Я не знаю, как перевел гугл, поэтому продублирую на русском.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106384/

 

In the beginning there was a big bang and all the planets took the shape of perfect sphere and started to rotate around the sun. Then only one planet which we shall call earth started forming a protective layer over all the earth which we shall call the ozone layer. And because of this ozone layer, life started to form on earth, male and female of every species. OK that's enough. You get the picture.

If you don't believe in God, then that's what you believe in, the big bang where everything just fell into place. Just take a look at our solar system, you can't help but notice that there is purposeful design behind it. Look at how our bodies are designed, look at how trees convert carbondioxide to oxygen so we could breath that air.

To believe that everything was formed from the big bang is senseless.

 

Being intelligent is one thing,
being wise another!
There are highly intelligent people, doing really bad things. Thats surely not wise.
on the other side there are very simple minded people with very wise opinions.
Maybe intelligence is not more than an evolutionary accident?!

 

You are confusing my impartiality with your partiality and taking the single part of my comments that can best illustrate your point.
You also left out the parts about atheism and nihilism which I was also impartial about.
Each of us has the right to believe in whatever we wish which is, was and always will be my stance. I do not have dislike for any choice. The only time I will tell someone what they can do with their dog, cat, goldfish, hamster and canary is if they tell me what I have to believe in.
Like anyone, my beliefs are my own and the part of those beliefs I shared is the right for everyone to believe whatever they want.

My beliefs are simple, that we get back what we give out and to treat others as we would like to be treated. It's not flawless, but it works. If people wish to put God or no God into that, for me, that is still a good way to be.

 

I quoted these two nice examples but I'm sure there are very many instances in the thread saying much the same.
They are sometimes captured by the phrase "Golden Rule".
It's only because I agree so much with this Golden Rule that I want to nit pick a little.
I think there's a subtle problem with couching it in the positive way - as BaSsDuDe did, which is a variant of the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
This unfortunately grants righteous idiots a license to maraud around proselytising. e.g., "I would like it if someone tried to save my soul. I will therefore assume you should like it too, and so I will feel justified and gracious going around shoving my 'save your soul' message down everyone's throat".
How to get around that flaw - I prefer to flip the message into its negative mode.
Roughly: DO NOT interfere with other people's autonomy - unless they are breaking that same rule and interfering with a 3rd person's autonomy. e.g., you have a right to be left alone, until you start committing crimes, etc, at which point you get locked up.
Aside: if you think about it, every crime has, at its core, an attack on someone's autonomy. Autonomy is the big deal that society has to manage very carefully.

We're still talking about the same Golden Rule, but I reckon (sometimes) a few of its imperfections are alleviated by expressing it in 'prohibitive mode' rather than 'enabling mode'.

Edit: I should have provided the most obvious example of that Golden Rule being breached.
It's when we see every day the obscene mass indoctrination of children, all over the world, into one arbitrary religion or another. Future historians will be amazed that we allowed that child abuse to persist for so long.

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

Is there a God? Extremely unlikely. Is God intelligent? He has yet to provide the slightest evidence.

 

Just because SHE designed testicles to dangle on the outside doesn't prove she's dumb;
maybe she's just got a wicked sense of humour.
Is that not the kind of evidence you're looking for?

 

This might be the most valid example logically I have seen of the opposing reason being 'why not to do unto others'.
I probably should have been more pedantic in my comments and stated "only focusing on the positive aspects"
I do however believe that trying to convert anyone is foolish and a waste of energy, and raises the serenity prayer which is often seen on the Internet... mainly the part which says accept the things you cannot change. We cannot change other people, they have to do that for themselves and want to change and more importantly; none of us are perfect so who is anyone to judge the choices of others? FFS, it is a life mission for anyone just to become the best version of themselves.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2022

This is an inadmissible gross simplification. Neither solar systems were formed shortly after the big bang, nor are planets even nearly perfect spheres.
In fact, the development in the past 1,4 * 10^10 (14 billion) years has been much more complex and also more protracted than you suggest.
Also today constantly new suns originate and in the consequence the planetogenesis takes place.

The development of this universe can be logically deduced by physicists up to a few millionths of a second after Big Bang.
Why this does not go up to the absolute zero point is simple: The Big Bang originated from a single point with the extension zero and all mass (infinite as extension = zero) and energy concentrated there. Before that nothing existed.
Space and time came into existence with the Big Bang at about 1.4 * 10^10 years ago.
Demonstrably the earth originated a little bit more than 4.5 *10^9 (4.5 billion) years ago, around 9.5 *10^10 years after the origin of space and time with the big bang.
The first life arose demonstrably after approximately 3.5 * 10^9 years in form of first single-celled living beings. First traces of man (homo sapiens) are dated to ~ 300,000 years from today.

This raises some questions for scientifically educated people concerning the spatial and temporal existence of God.

There are competent physicists who believe in God although they do not negate the above facts which have been proved many times.
They assume - simplified - that God has determined the basic conditions for the big bang and the universe arising from it - with the laws of nature existing here - before the beginning of time and space.
However, this suggests that not only one universe exists and that other universes may have quite different laws of nature.