NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the first in a possible series of posts about the subject that we all love to hate: Religion.

I heard a segment on the radio the other day where the host stated that anyone who truly was religious had in effect given up thinking. He ridiculed, in particular, the statement "God has a plan." He further went on to say, in effect, that anyone who needed to rely on God does so because they need intellectual crutches, and while he encompassed all religions he focused on Christianity in particular. I simply wanted to post, somewhere, my argument against this idea. I understand that by posting here half of the replies at least will be from simple flamers whose post has no more substance than "God is stoopid, and so are you for believing." If this is you, please don't post, though I know you will anyhow. For everyone else who wants to disagree in a civil and intelligent manner, religious or not, let's do it!

Before I truly get started I would like to state that I am not defending, in this post, the existence or belief of God himself. That is another argument entirely. For this post I am only saying that so far as decisions and motivations go for the believer, God exists. (NOTE: I am not saying that actually DOES become real and true simply because they believe it.)

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls.

A more down to earth example of this reasoning: Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he comes to you and tells you not use a certain outlet in your house which he found to be faulty. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet? Of course not! You have no way of checking to see if what he says is true, so you just take him at his word because 'he knows better.'

Just as it is not weakness to follow the instructions of the electrician, it is not weakness to follow the instructions of God.

In closing, I acknowledge that some would say that the weakness lies in believing in God in the first place. While I do not believe this is true, that is not what I am arguing against here. I am saying only this. If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.

This is the first in a possible series of posts about the subject that we all love to hate: Religion.

I heard a segment on the radio the other day where the host stated that anyone who truly was religious had in effect given up thinking. He ridiculed, in particular, the statement "God has a plan." He further went on to say, in effect, that anyone who needed to rely on God does so because they need intellectual crutches, and while he encompassed all religions he focused on Christianity in particular. I simply wanted to post, somewhere, my argument against this idea. I understand that by posting here half of the replies at least will be from simple flamers whose post has no more substance than "God is stoopid, and so are you for believing." If this is you, please don't post, though I know you will anyhow. For everyone else who wants to disagree in a civil and intelligent manner, religious or not, let's do it!

Before I truly get started I would like to state that I am not defending, in this post, the existence or belief of God himself. That is another argument entirely. For this post I am only saying that so far as decisions and motivations go for the believer, God exists. (NOTE: I am not saying that actually DOES become real and true simply because they believe it.)

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls.

A more down to earth example of this reasoning: Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he comes to you and tells you not use a certain outlet in your house which he found to be faulty. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet? Of course not! You have no way of checking to see if what he says is true, so you just take him at his word because 'he knows better.'

Just as it is not weakness to follow the instructions of the electrician, it is not weakness to follow the instructions of God.

In closing, I acknowledge that some would say that the weakness lies in believing in God in the first place. While I do not believe this is true, that is not what I am arguing against here. I am saying only this. If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.


But the whole arguement hinges on the truth of your specific diety down to the last detail

My morals aren't truly based on religion, though its heavily influenced by Christianity. I detest fundamentalists of any kind, christian, muslim, or atheist (or any other for that matter).

Just as it is not weakness to follow the instructions of the electrician, it is not weakness to follow the instructions of God.


Uhmm..I could touch and feel the electrician (in fact, I did. How do you think I got this great discount?)

Since God himself ain't working on my wires, I'm following the instructions of WHO exactly?

Uhmm..I could touch and feel the electrician (in fact, I did. How do you think I got this great discount?)

Since God himself ain't working on my wires, I'm following the instructions of WHO exactly?

He isnt talking about the existance of a god, just the logic in following one

He isnt talking about the existance of a god, just the logic in following one
But whats the logic in devoting yourself to a possiblility?

He isnt talking about the existance of a god, just the logic in following one

Perhaps...but his example bites, in that case.

The electrician, standing in front of me, tells me to follow his instructions.
God, floating somewhere in the clouds, ain't telling me nada: his "people" are.

But whats the logic in devoting yourself to a possiblility?

If you follow through the Bible and what it says you will see its not just a possibility.

For this post I am only saying that so far as decisions and motivations go for the believer, God exists. (NOTE: I am not saying that actually DOES become real and true simply because they believe it.)

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls.

A more down to earth example of this reasoning: Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he comes to you and tells you not use a certain outlet in your house which he found to be faulty. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet? Of course not! You have no way of checking to see if what he says is true, so you just take him at his word because 'he knows better.'

Just as it is not weakness to follow the instructions of the electrician, it is not weakness to follow the instructions of God.

In closing, I acknowledge that some would say that the weakness lies in believing in God in the first place. While I do not believe this is true, that is not what I am arguing against here. I am saying only this. If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.
But God gave us the ability to question everything, even Him. Are we not then following God's plan, also, by using all the gifts He gave us?

Is your analogy not somewhat flawed? Should it not be:

Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he gets A.N. Other, who has no qualifications or anything, to tell you not to use a certain outlet. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet?

(Bold mine)

Well, that depends, doesn't it? Do you trust the person who supposedly relayed the message?

[Edit: Damn, someone just made that point. Ho-hum.]

If you follow through the Bible and what it says you will see its not just a possibility.
Deities in general I can understand but with as specific as some of the organized religions are and the way the real world fits in there are some conflicts and such … in my mind reducing the possibility in my eyes anyways

But this is not just about the Christian faith … people say the same thing about the Koran … if I followed that all the way through would it no longer be a possibility that the Koran is 100 percent correct?

If you follow through the Bible and what it says you will see its not just a possibility.

And where's the logic of following the bible? Because your parents told you to? Your parents most likely told you that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny existed, but did that make them correct?

If you follow through the Bible and what it says you will see its not just a possibility.

aahahahaha, now i take biblical criticism as a module for one of my A levels, and while this in no way qualifies me as an expert on it, i feel it at least deserves me an opinion.

You see the problem with that argument Neo cannen, is its circular.

The common dialog on this matter
"Whats the justufication for God"
"The Bible"
"Um ok whats the justification for the bible"
"God"
"Ok...."

And lets just say the bible isunt as water tight as fundlementalists would like it to be either, namely the rabid anti semitisim in a certain gospel, the piss poor geographical knowledge, the shakey time frame, the heavily odvious editing. hell and thats just the gospels

*snip* For this post I am only saying that so far as decisions and motivations go for the believer, God exists. (NOTE: I am not saying that actually DOES become real and true simply because they believe it.)

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls.

*snip*

In closing, I acknowledge that some would say that the weakness lies in believing in God in the first place. While I do not believe this is true, that is not what I am arguing against here. I am saying only this. If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.

A few problems:

1. By this standard everyone who hallucinates or hears voices in their head is equally "reasonable" in following such figments.

2. Assuming the existence of God is pretty big assumption.

3. Even assume a god exists, it does not follow that she is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. For each of those attributes you are adding another layer of unreasonableness.

4. Nothing in your argument justifies why anyone else should accept the instructions of this mythical being. To the contrary, it makes clear that the believer should know full well that only he or she has any basis for following the mythical instructions.

I could go on ....

Welcome to the Forums. Your thread is well motivated and your thoughts are welcome.

And where's the logic of following the bible? Because your parents told you to? Your parents most likely told you that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny existed, but did that make them correct?
And yet, we still participate as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny year after year after year, and logic has nothing to do with it.
Participation in god is as simple as participating in life. Where's the logic in that?

If you follow through the Bible and what it says you will see its not just a possibility.

And what is the basis for following the Bible?

And what does the turtle stand on?

And yet, we still participate as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny year after year after year, and logic has nothing to do with it.
Participation in god is as simple as participating in life. Where's the logic in that?
But that works out to be participating in the bible is circular

And you end up with their is no reason not to ... on the flip side you end up with their is no reason TO as well

And lets just say the bible isunt as water tight as fundlementalists would like it to be either, namely the rabid anti semitisim in a certain gospel, the piss poor geographical knowledge, the shakey time frame, the heavily odvious editing. hell and thats just the gospels

1) Anti-Semitism? Could you provide examples. Jesus was a Jew after all.

2) Whats wrong with the gospels geographical knowledge. You cant make these kinds of statements without backing them up

All I want to know is...when does God think he can get around to fixing my outlet?

All I want to know is...when does God think he can get around to fixing my outlet?

:D :D

I may have to add that to my signature. A classic.

1) Anti-Semitism? Could you provide examples. Jesus was a Jew after all.

2) Whats wrong with the gospels geographical knowledge. You cant make these kinds of statements without backing them up

In the book of john for example, the fact the whole passion is one giant, the rosunding statment of that is the jews killed jesus, in the other gospels its the pharisese aruging with jesus (considing the nature of that group its unlikely but what the hell) in john its just the jews. Thats pretty anti semetic to me.

As for the geography its one of the biggest arugments that basically put the idea to rest that the gospels were a histories/biography , its pretty sketchy most of the time, id have to go dig up my notes, and im hungry maybe im make a whole thread on it one day who knows but if you want me to start quoting for you that will be later, to sum up the only example i can think of top of my head it has jesus teleporting form galiee to jeruslem half the time in single lines of text. Its all to do with the idea that john mainly was written around antioch, its slighlty better in the synoptics (mark mathew and luke, but there a whole other story.)
Ill update this later

This is the first in a possible series of posts about the subject that we all love to hate: Religion.

I heard a segment on the radio the other day where the host stated that anyone who truly was religious had in effect given up thinking. He ridiculed, in particular, the statement "God has a plan." He further went on to say, in effect, that anyone who needed to rely on God does so because they need intellectual crutches, and while he encompassed all religions he focused on Christianity in particular. I simply wanted to post, somewhere, my argument against this idea. I understand that by posting here half of the replies at least will be from simple flamers whose post has no more substance than "God is stoopid, and so are you for believing." If this is you, please don't post, though I know you will anyhow. For everyone else who wants to disagree in a civil and intelligent manner, religious or not, let's do it!

Before I truly get started I would like to state that I am not defending, in this post, the existence or belief of God himself. That is another argument entirely. For this post I am only saying that so far as decisions and motivations go for the believer, God exists. (NOTE: I am not saying that actually DOES become real and true simply because they believe it.)

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls.

A more down to earth example of this reasoning: Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he comes to you and tells you not use a certain outlet in your house which he found to be faulty. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet? Of course not! You have no way of checking to see if what he says is true, so you just take him at his word because 'he knows better.'

Just as it is not weakness to follow the instructions of the electrician, it is not weakness to follow the instructions of God.

In closing, I acknowledge that some would say that the weakness lies in believing in God in the first place. While I do not believe this is true, that is not what I am arguing against here. I am saying only this. If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.
The big difference between god and the electrician in your analogy is that you know for a fact that electricians exist and one has definately examined the wiring in your house. It's rational to take his advice and not use the faulty outlet. There isn't any evidence for god, and "his" commands were actually written down by ordinary people. I don't think following such commandments just because "god says so" is very rational at all.

Believing that everything in the bible is literally true is utter crap.
There are enough books, scientists, and websites to point out all the contradictions within the bible I won't have to do that.

Mind you, I am not telling you that "believing in god", "following a religion", or "trying to be a good christian/muslim/whatever" is crap. If beliefing in god makes your life easier and following religious morals make you be more understanding and caring for other people, then I absolutely have no troubles with you at all.
However if you take everything within the bible/ quran / whatever as a fact, you're stupid. To proof / to disproof god exists is impossible and it will stay a matter of belief I won't call you stupid because of that. But to prove not everything in the bible is factional is easy.

In short, I'm ok with anyone following a religion. However I'm not ok with any extremists or people that want to force there beliefs on others, and also not people who are so blinded by their religion they can't see the facts.

Believing that everything in the bible is literally true is utter crap.
There are enough books, scientists, and websites to point out all the contradictions within the bible I won't have to do that.

Mind you, I am not telling you that "believing in god", "following a religion", or "trying to be a good christian/muslim/whatever" is crap. If beliefing in god makes your life easier and following religious morals make you be more understanding and caring for other people, then I absolutely have no troubles with you at all.
However if you take everything within the bible/ quran / whatever as a fact, you're stupid. To proof / to disproof god exists is impossible and it will stay a matter of belief I won't call you stupid because of that. But to prove not everything in the bible is factional is easy.

In short, I'm ok with anyone following a religion. However I'm not ok with any extremists or people that want to force there beliefs on others, and also not people who are so blinded by their religion they can't see the facts.

Yes i agree, i dont mind not liberial theists, its the fudelmentalists trying to push us back 600 years that gets on my tits, my problem with relgious morals is the justifcation of them is
"god said so"
Which once you even accsept god is no certain to exist, the moral justification is non existent, therefore they are in fact 'wrong' in my opinion, as they have no justification.

The big difference between god and the electrician in your analogy is that you know for a fact that electricians exist and one has definately examined the wiring in your house. It's rational to take his advice and not use the faulty outlet. There isn't any evidence for god, and "his" commands were actually written down by ordinary people. I don't think following such commandments just because "god says so" is very rational at all.
Exactly ... it more akin to geting a note in the mail that says it is from someone who knows electricity ...handwriten
And translated

it would not be logical to bais your wiring on such a note

Exactly ... it more akin to geting a note in the mail that says it is from someone who knows electricity ...handwriten
And translated

it would not be logical to bais your wiring on such a note

God theres another great point i missed out on, the fact its tranlated from greek, is a doosie. Lots of the words mean about 6 diffrent things

God theres another great point i missed out on, the fact its tranlated from greek, is a doosie. Lots of the words mean about 6 diffrent things
Not all of it is even origionaly greek (gravy your specialty)

In the book of john for example, the fact the whole passion is one giant, the rosunding statment of that is the jews killed jesus, in the other gospels its the pharisese aruging with jesus (considing the nature of that group its unlikely but what the hell) in john its just the jews. Thats pretty anti semetic to me.

To say that the gospels are anti-Semitic is ridiculous. If you look at other portions of the Gospel, it spells out that the Messiah was to be sent to redeem his people, but that they would reject him. Even disregarding that, the early Christians who wrote the New Testament considered themselves Jewish. It doesn't stand that they could be anti-Semitic. Now, over time, could people have come to construe it as anti-Semitic? Of course. But that was obviously not its intention.

But that works out to be participating in the bible is circular
Well, in my version the Bible has nothing to do with it, either.

Well, in my version the Bible has nothing to do with it, either.
I know :fluffle:

"Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back to infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infintely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it s to suppose that instruments are moved, unless by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly, there must be a first mover that is above all the rest; and this being we call God." - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back to infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infintely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it s to suppose that instruments are moved, unless by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly, there must be a first mover that is above all the rest; and this being we call God." - St. Thomas Aquinas


But by that arguement god cant exist because if everything has a mover their has to be a mover of god there is no way around that
Their cant be a first mover by your arguement therefore their cant be a god

"Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back to infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infintely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it s to suppose that instruments are moved, unless by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly, there must be a first mover that is above all the rest; and this being we call God." - St. Thomas Aquinas
There are some assumptions here that can't go unchallenged. He states that everything must have a cause, yet that the sequence of causes and effects can't be traced back infinitely. Why not? Plus, if everything needs a cause, then why does god get to be an exception to the rule? If god can be exempted from the need for a cause, why not the universe, thereby eliminating the need for god?

...for the believer, God exists.

If we allow the above statement to pass then it follows that the believer is only doing the responsible, intelligent thing to do. For the believer God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly infallible. In short, He knows better, and we ought to do as He says. This is not a statement of weakness. In fact one of the most difficult things to do is admit your own shortfalls. ...

If we allow the perceived existence of God to 'slide', then it reasonable that believers follow God's plan (or try to, more often) without question.
For those posting in this thread, please note that the topic assumes that God exists and addresses the issue of why the believer should follow without question. Is it not responsible and intelligent to follow your beliefs in the scenario where their validity is not in question?

Believing that everything in the bible is literally true is utter crap.
There are enough books, scientists, and websites to point out all the contradictions within the bible I won't have to do that.

Mind you, I am not telling you that "believing in god", "following a religion", or "trying to be a good christian/muslim/whatever" is crap. If beliefing in god makes your life easier and following religious morals make you be more understanding and caring for other people, then I absolutely have no troubles with you at all.
However if you take everything within the bible/ quran / whatever as a fact, you're stupid. To proof / to disproof god exists is impossible and it will stay a matter of belief I won't call you stupid because of that. But to prove not everything in the bible is factional is easy.

In short, I'm ok with anyone following a religion. However I'm not ok with any extremists or people that want to force there beliefs on others, and also not people who are so blinded by their religion they can't see the facts.

My thoughts exactly.

But whats up with this god's plan, what is it? and if one person tells me its not for me to know then, what if i dont agree with him? Does he have any right to move me in mysterious ways if i wouldnt want the outcome he does? I dont think this plan is even mentioned in the bible, short of getting round to the apocolypse eventually which surely would defeat all his plans thus rendering the whole thing useless.

I dont mind people believing in god but when they try to make all these weak justifications up for everything just by saying god works in mysterious ways, that really gets on my pecs.

For those posting in this thread, please note that the topic assumes that God exists and addresses the issue of why the believer should follow without question. Is it not responsible and intelligent to follow your beliefs in the scenario where their validity is not in question?
Depends on the value of freedom of choice ... something some gods thought very important ... freedom of choice usualy brings freedom of questioning along with it

Maybe choosing to not follow god sometimes is in itself following god by using the right he passed onto us

To say that the gospels are anti-Semitic is ridiculous. If you look at other portions of the Gospel, it spells out that the Messiah was to be sent to redeem his people, but that they would reject him. Even disregarding that, the early Christians who wrote the New Testament considered themselves Jewish. It doesn't stand that they could be anti-Semitic. Now, over time, could people have come to construe it as anti-Semitic? Of course. But that was obviously not its intention.

John is very anti Semitic Mathew to an extent too but I haven’t studied that in depth, its because it was written around the time the Christians where kicked out of the synagogs, of course most people will just put their figures in their ears and sing lalalala, yes the groups who wrote the gospels, especially that of marks and Mathews would have been largely Jewish this is true, and many people think the synoptic (mark, Mathew + Luke) were all written in Palestine, but the significant point is they dint consider them selves jewish in the traditional sense (i.e relgiously), it only really became a ethnic mater after the dispearsia, as people from all over the Semitic middle east were Jewish. But really like you said.
To the gospel writers the 'jew' was the person who refused to listen to the prophetic scripture and accept the messiah had arrived.

However it has been a basic to legitimise anti semitism, for most of the dark and middle ages, even upto the late enlightiment. 9th-17th cent

God this is great practice for my exam.

John is very anti Semitic Mathew to an extent too

Have you read anything by Paul? It's by far the most Anti-Semitic of the two and yet he is regarded as a "saint" :confused:

John is very anti Semitic Mathew to an extent too

Have you read anything by Paul? It's by far the most Anti-Semitic of the Apostles' works and yet he is regarded as a "saint" :confused:

ahh too many things to say....
god is war... there is no 2 ways around it.
your god, his god, her god, the dog's god...
nothing but social control of the masses for the purpose of large scale control.

1st if there really were a god there would have to be more than one.
2nd if there were only one it would have to be female (not that i'm some sandal waring, granola freak, i'm an international man with a ph.d.). who else would make a guy first. only to make a woman later and curse her, out of jealousy. and a male god would never out law prostitution...

the bible is the first ever version of meinkampf (written, of course, by the down trodden hebrews, and those who turned christian for part 2 of the book). i find it hilarious that christens and jews think they are part of different religions, and have different gods. it's like me thinking i'm a different species from my parents. oh, wait.. that would be evolution...

i am a great believer in civil liberties and the belief in gods is like any other superstition: perfectly legal. and as an apatheists, i dont really care if there are gods or not. but don't, for one second, think that religion has anything to do with morals. morals are a code of living that values life and nature. religion has done little else than brain wash masses in to war and pillaging thought fear and bribery. quite the opposite of any moral values most people claim to have. when was the last time you went out of you way to help a stranger? you dont need to give money just stop to help change a tire, give a ride, console an accident victim. i've done all of those and more. life is 'god' and i serve it well.

morals from the bible...
thou shalt not kill : unless of course the bitch works on the wrong day of the week then lets all get together and stone the heathen to death. got to clarifly 'dem 'dhar morals, chief.

thanks for reading my rant.

Have you read anything by Paul? It's by far the most Anti-Semitic of the Apostles' works and yet he is regarded as a "saint" :confused:

not part of my course, and frankly im not really driven to otherwise, meh!

religion has done little else than brain wash masses in to war and pillaging thought fear and bribery

If you examine religion, this makes sense. It's sole purpose was a survival mechanism, meant to ensure that human groups stayed unified in order to survive. However, it survived past its utility, and so degenerated in to the kind of system that encourages these kinds of actions.

ahh too many things to say....
god is war... there is no 2 ways around it.
your god, his god, her god, the dog's god...
nothing but social control of the masses for the purpose of large scale control.

1st if there really were a god there would have to be more than one.
2nd if there were only one it would have to be female (not that i'm some sandal waring, granola freak, i'm an international man with a ph.d.). who else would make a guy first. only to make a woman later and curse her, out of jealousy. and a male god would never out law prostitution...

the bible is the first ever version of meinkampf (written, of course, by the down trodden hebrews, and those who turned christian for part 2 of the book). i find it hilarious that christens and jews think they are part of different religions, and have different gods. it's like me thinking i'm a different species from my parents. oh, wait.. that would be evolution...

i am a great believer in civil liberties and the belief in gods is like any other superstition: perfectly legal. and as an apatheists, i dont really care if there are gods or not. but don't, for one second, think that religion has anything to do with morals. morals are a code of living that values life and nature. religion has done little else than brain wash masses in to war and pillaging thought fear and bribery. quite the opposite of any moral values most people claim to have. when was the last time you went out of you way to help a stranger? you dont need to give money just stop to help change a tire, give a ride, console an accident victim. i've done all of those and more. life is 'god' and i serve it well.

morals from the bible...
thou shalt not kill : unless of course the bitch works on the wrong day of the week then lets all get together and stone the heathen to death. got to clarifly 'dem 'dhar morals, chief.

thanks for reading my rant.

No worries i agree whole heartedly, basing morals on relgion in this day and age is poor practice at best, i hear they still do it in america, but i cant imagine even the craziest politician trying that over here.

I made this comment on another post but thought it might be apt here.

I believe there is a God and a Devil but not in the sense of a phyiscal concept. I believe that the God and the Devil esxist within each and everyone one of us and that is the metaphorical message that the Bible is trying to get across to us. Rather than seeking physical manifestions, we should be looking inside ourselves to see the answer. The Devil is all the evil that lies within the human soul, the capacity for corruption and temptation. God is all the goodness within us, the ability to forgive, to be strong during times of hardship and to put others before ourselves. God and the Devil aren't physically real but they are there nevertheless as emotions, as contorting clouds within each of us, battling for supremacy. The entire Bible is a metaphor and as a metaphor we must interpret it to find our own personal meanings. Thats what atheists lose out on

I made this comment on another post but thought it might be apt here.
So good and evil are innate...

hmmm dont like that much, neither would most of the science of psycology.

Atheist don't loose out on any thing, and please dont bunch us into one giant group, as a humanist / socalist all my morals are based on helping people, so therefore anything that dosent help people is evil, it far more justifiable than anything else.

As many of you have pointed out, the whole argument that I put forth hinges on the belief in God. If that belief itself is silly, then that filters down. In response, I wanted to say what I said before. This argument, here, is not meant to address that fundamental question. I intend to make a new thread later that addresses that one. For now I simply wanted to establish that IF God exists as the Bible says he does THEN it is not weakness to follow him.

(I can touch and feel the electrician.)

Obviously. No analogy is perfect. But for the purposes of this one thread I asked that the existence of God itself be passed over. Perhaps I ought to have put it this way. If you allow that God exists in just as real a way as the electrician, then it is not weakness to follow Him. Hope that clears things up!

Btw: When will God get around to fixing my outlet? Wonderful! Might have to write that one down.

not part of my course, and frankly im not really driven to otherwise, meh!

You are definitely not mssing anything, unless you like long travelogues of their journeys and convoluted discussions of the Law.

So good and evil are innate...

hmmm dont like that much, neither would most of the science of psycology

Yes but psychologists are fools who attempt to place measures are the immeasurable i.e. the human psyche. Human behaviour it msotly completely and utterly random. Thats what makes us different from machines, there is no set program that we follow and therefore any attempt at prediction will most likely end in failure.

I don't see the need to defend my religious beliefs.

Atheist don't loose out on any thing, and please dont bunch us into one giant group, as a humanist / socalist all my morals are based on helping people, so therefore anything that dosent help people is evil, it far more justifiable than anything else.

Are you saying religion doesnt help people? Because if you are, then I would advise you to take a good long hard look at religion.

I don't see the need to defend my religious beliefs.

Then, geer out!

Nahh good for you, as long as you don't try and press them on other people too you great, hell better than me, im constanlty preaching socailism

(i know im hogging this thread right now im loving it)

I don't see the need to defend my religious beliefs.

No, you don't because in the end neither side can really prove itself over the other to be more correct (with a few exceptions). you should go with what you think best describes your worldview, and go from there. At least that is what I believe.

Lot's of the greek words mean more than the Bible translated into english say. Way more powerful.

For instance this verse must be weak and only accepted by weakminded people.

2 Corinthians 12:9
And He[Jesus] said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.

In greek we find that:

Grace charis; means graciousness (as gratifying) of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especually the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life: acceptable benefit, favour, gift, grace, joy liberality, pleasure

Sufficient arkeo; apparently a primary verb airo through the idea of raising a barrier] properly to ward off; that is (by implication) to avail (figurative be satisfactory):- be content, be enough, suffice, be sufficient.

Airo; [to understand the greek definition of sufficient more] a primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figurative to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specially to sail away (that is weigh anchor)

Strength dunamis; from dunamai force (literal or figurative); special miraculous power, (usually by implication a miracle itself):-ability, abundance, meaning, might(-ily,-y,-y deed) (worker of) miracle(-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.

Dunamai; [to understand dunamis better] of uncertain affinity; to be able or possible:-be able, can (do + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power.

Perfect teleioo; to complete that is (literal) accomplish, or (figurative) consummate (incharacter):-consecrate, finish, fulfill, (make) perfect.

Weakness asthenia; feebleness (of body ir mind); by implication malady; moral fraility:-disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.

------------------------------
Deep inside the recesses of my soul, the more weaknesses I am able to admit, the more the dunamis of Jesus Christ fills in for that weakness. And in reality I am just a grain of sand in the midst of an uncomprehendable universe. What is more weak? Being able to admit weakness or being filled with pride thinking you know all there is to know when it is more than certain that you don't?

2 Corinthians 12:9b
Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

If you examine religion, this makes sense. It's sole purpose was a survival mechanism, meant to ensure that human groups stayed unified in order to survive. However, it survived past its utility, and so degenerated in to the kind of system that encourages these kinds of actions.

Only if taken by the uneducated masses a s a set of uninterpretable words literally spoken by a higher power does it degrade to this senseless belief structure that encourages violence. Too bad the belief in God doesn't require a competency exam.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that you have to think about what you believe in to truly believe it. But sadly, this is not a view held by a good cross section of religious people *coughBUSHcough*... the idea of taking religion as a wholly uninterpretable ideal is what causes such things as war, for those like me who DO think before we act, who DO open our views for discussion and debate, and are NOT so mindless as to act on such animalistic impulses, religion is a valuable tool and a great ideal to have, especially when times get rough. Don't say that it has past its prime simply because of the actions of the uneducated masses... some of us do think, and we're not at all bad.

I remember being taught to teach people my religious beliefs - in order that everyone have a chance to go to heaven.

Well, there are quite a few people I'd rather not see there, so I'm rather selective.

Only if taken by the uneducated masses a s a set of uninterpretable words literally spoken by a higher power does it degrade to this senseless belief structure that encourages violence. Too bad the belief in God doesn't require a competency exam.

Only Judaism does, in a way. They place very high value on education and study, and only the well educated can understand and follow the Law to its fullest extent. This probably explains why, during the past thousand or so years there haven't been any holy wars or pogroms conducted by the Jews.
Christianity was followed by the largely uneducated (during the Middle Ages, and until recently very few priests and laymen could read passably. Many parishes had only one or no bible even, and knowledge was confined to the monasteries, which had little contact with the outside. They also caused the Crusades, Inquisiton, thousands of burnings at the stake, torture, anti-Semitic pogroms, and so on. Seems to be a conncetion.)

if we casually define 'good' as helping others and 'evil' as selfishness then this argument works with out any need to discuss religion.

however, evil is a term used to scare minions in to doing as their told or suffering the consequences. of course the priest/dictator wouldn't be the one to punish you... some majical power will do it and even though the priest/dictator is really sorry, and wants to help... to bad, you're going to hell, unless you do as you're told.

thus, coming full circle, evil does not exist inside, it is imposed upon others through fear. we all need to be a little selfish now and again, this is not evil.

Are you saying religion doesnt help people? Because if you are, then I would advise you to take a good long hard look at religion.

Yes it dose stimulate some art forms, like music but at the same time is constricts them, look at all the crazy colourful directions that art went off in ,since it really broke off from religion around 300-400 years ago.

The real problem with conformed religion is its dogma, its effectively telling you what to think, hell just look at the bible, its TELLING you who what and where god is, and this is where religion stops helping people and starts hurting them, anything that isunt its dogma is literally heresy, and back before reason basically one out in the renaissance and the enlightenment, the church, yes both the catholic and protestants activity repressed benign scientific progress such as astronomy and physics, simply because it did not conform to the bible. Yes of course you could argue that the church has modernise and liberalised, but in reality it has only done so as it has been forced to by the growth of liberal and secular society. This then leads onto the problem of growing fundlementalism but that’s for another day.

In not so many words, religion dose not help people because of encouraging them to think it tells them what to think. That’s why its called conformed religion

And generally both the major churches have so much blood on there hands they can figure paint, the early church purges, the inquisitions the witch and heretic burning, i don’t care if it was a long time ago its still the same establishment, would you forgive the Nazis, if they still existed as a central establishment in 300 years.

Yes but psychologists are fools who attempt to place measures are the immeasurable i.e. the human psyche. Human behaviour it msotly completely and utterly random. Thats what makes us different from machines, there is no set program that we follow and therefore any attempt at prediction will most likely end in failure.
All random things in motion will eventually, inevitably form patterns. The human mind makes it so.

Only Judaism does, in a way. They place very high value on education and study, and only the well educated can understand and follow the Law to its fullest extent. This probably explains why, during the past thousand or so years there haven't been any holy wars or pogroms conducted by the Jews.
Christianity was followed by the largely uneducated (during the Middle Ages, and until recently very few priests and laymen could read passably. Many parishes had only one or no bible even, and knowledge was confined to the monasteries, which had little contact with the outside. They also caused the Crusades, Inquisiton, thousands of burnings at the stake, torture, anti-Semitic pogroms, and so on. Seems to be a conncetion.)

Indeed... but now, the church is less and less able to accomplish such things. Except when they get a official elected high enough in a country that can do some damage (indictment on Bush and America now? Naw...). It is getting to be that the general Christian population is actually READING the text, instead of skimming it and proclaiming the absolute truth in the Bible as the "Word of God"... but maybe I'm mistaken... perhaps I am wrong and the majority of the Christian popluation isn't doing as I hope. I see less evidence of such things that we saw in the early days of Christianity, but maybe I just don't wanna see it...

Really, the break in religions occured between monotheism's dominance and polytheism's. Monotheism, since it has only one god, can never accept other religions because they cannot exist within the belief structure. Polytheistic religions could, because there was more than one god, and so the new religions could be assimilated in to the existing belief system fairly easily. Generally, monotheism seems like a step backward rather than forward in religious developmen based upon its levels of tolerance.

Yes but psychologists are fools who attempt to place measures are the immeasurable i.e. the human psyche. Human behaviour it msotly completely and utterly random. Thats what makes us different from machines, there is no set program that we follow and therefore any attempt at prediction will most likely end in failure.

I disagree, the human brain, however much you may think this de-humanises us (i don’t think it dose) is basically a biological computer, of course it dose not work in binary the more and more advanced cerebral biology becomes the more we learn this, you could take out the part of the brain that held a specific memory for example and you would be unable to remember it.

I remember being taught to teach people my religious beliefs - in order that everyone have a chance to go to heaven.

Well, there are quite a few people I'd rather not see there, so I'm rather selective.

if you beileve in heaven and don't want other people to get in... you'll never even see the front gate, baby.

if you beileve in heaven and don't want other people to get in... you'll never even see the front gate, baby.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure He would understand.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure He would understand.

Spreading the word of God is a basic tenant of the Christian faith... if you don't give everyone you meet the opportunity to be saved and you proclaim yourself to be a true Christian, then I fear that you will most likely anger Him... it is not for you to judge who is and who isn't fit for the kingdom of Heaven... that is for God alone.

I disagree, the human brain, however much you may think this de-humanises us (i don’t think it dose) is basically a biological computer, of course it dose not work in binary the more and more advanced cerebral biology becomes the more we learn this, you could take out the part of the brain that held a specific memory for example and you would be unable to remember it.

masters in psych and a ph.d in neurophysiology.... and i know for a fact the brain is not anything like a computer. the largest computer in the world can't even compeate with an ant when it comes to independent thinking. sure they can add and remember a few things, but they never do anything but what there told and ants dont crash...

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure He would understand.

Regardless, it's not our place to decide who goes to heaven and who doesn't. It's God's job. I think that was his point.

masters in psych and a ph.d in neurophysiology.... and i know for a fact the brain is not anything like a computer. the largest computer in the world can even compeate with an ant when it comes to independent thinking. sure they can add and remember a few things, but they never do anything but what there told and ants dont crash...

I don't really want to argue with you if those creditials are true, but i would say thats becuase computers work in binary at the moment and the human brain works in what, analog electrical signals, chemical diffrences, i dont know but i bet its a shite load more complex than binary.

But if our brain is not a 'computer', (just one that dosent work on numbers which kinda comes into conflict with the name but, meh) then what is it.

masters in psych and a ph.d in neurophysiology.... and i know for a fact the brain is not anything like a computer. the largest computer in the world can't even compeate with an ant when it comes to independent thinking. sure they can add and remember a few things, but they never do anything but what there told and ants dont crash...
It's not like a Turing machine, certainly. But it is like a layered neural network.

I don't really want to argue with you if those creditials are true, but i would say thats becuase computers work in binary at the moment and the human brain works in what, analog electrical signals, chemical diffrences, i dont know but i bet its a shite load more complex than binary.

But if our brain is not a 'computer', (just one that dosent work on numbers which kinda comes into conflict with the name but, meh) then what is it.

A complex control organ responsible for the autonomous and voluntary actions of a living multicellular intelligent being? I just took a shot in the dark. I have half a biology degree, though... I don't think I'm too far off.

I am an atheist and I have no problem with religion that doesn't interfere with my life, and I don't look down on anyone for being religious.

My best friend is a devout Catholic, but I'm sure that he would own me in an IQ test.

A complex control organ responsible for the autonomous and voluntary actions of a living multicellular intelligent being? I just took a shot in the dark. I have half a biology degree, though... I don't think I'm too far off.

i would need to redifine computer to carry on. But let me put it this way.
If there was a computer working in binary, that had true a.i and thus the computer was its brain, what would be the diffrense in purpose of its brain and ours.

They don't call it FAITH for nothing...

i would need to redifine computer to carry on. But let me put it this way.
If there was a computer working in binary, that had true a.i and thus the computer was its brain, what would be the diffrense in purpose of its brain and ours.

No difference in purpose, but still no brain. Good example: Ameobas... single celled... no true brain, but still sentient enought to carry out the basic functions of life. Anything with a brain will always be defined as alive, and since a computer cannot carry out the function of reproduction (sexual or asexual) then it is not alive and therefore has no brain.

I don't really want to argue with you if those creditials are true, but i would say thats becuase computers work in binary at the moment and the human brain works in what, analog electrical signals, chemical diffrences, i dont know but i bet its a shite load more complex than binary.

But if our brain is not a 'computer', (just one that dosent work on numbers which kinda comes into conflict with the name but, meh) then what is it.

truth is noone really knows, and the governments spend billions trying to make huge computers that can only copy certain aspects of it. meta-knowledge, and proprioception are the easiest. just a few weeks ago i read a paper on how some dendrites 'fire' backwards(i.e. not just the passive cable properties of electrons but saltatory conduction). reminds me... i better get to work...

remember this:
apatheist n. [Cf. F. apathiste. & Cf. G. theo] one who does not care if god or gods exist. making life in the here and now pleasant is all that matters.

No difference in purpose, but still no brain. Good example: Ameobas... single celled... no true brain, but still sentient enought to carry out the basic functions of life. Anything with a brain will always be defined as alive, and since a computer cannot carry out the function of reproduction (sexual or asexual) then it is not alive and therefore has no brain.

Sentient, isunt really the word i would use for an ameobas function isunt its really just being attracted towards varing stimuli, sentient implies it actually knows what its doing,
like
"ah food, i like some of that ill sliver over there, hope i can finish before the match comes on the box."
I doubt it, but im not an expert on biology, and i see to contending with some big guns where, so lets get back to relgion,

But whats the logic in devoting yourself to a possiblility?

...but anything is a possibility

I believe the human mind and soul runs on words. You do notice that some good poetry sometimes affects your entire body. Words, language, and meaning are a gift given to man. As a Christian I believe that the Source of all words, language, and meaning now resides in my heart and is slowly taking over and transforming my mind, will, and emotions. Taking down with violence all arguments.

Looking over this I realize that to understand what I just said you have to think subjectively.

...but anything is a possibility

so its reasonable to devote yourself to anything? I think I'll go worship my plantpot. I'll let you know how i get on......

Religion is a way of coping with the oppressive void that is thrust rudely upon us as part of the Faustian bargain that is sapience, an expression of our hatred for a mortality that was meant from the beginning to be cruelly torn from us as we are left helpless to fight off the oblivion that we were born to fear with every part of our being. I forgive my people for their insanity, for I feel this weight as heavily upon my shoulders as anyone and have been as guilty as anyone else of trying in vain to fill it with sex, food, art, music self-abusive exercise, books, and religion. I've settled down lately, but believe me, sister, I know your pain. The best advice I can give you is to tough it out and hope you don't go nuts before you find equilibrium.

Religion is a way of coping with the oppressive void that is thrust rudely upon us as part of the Faustian bargain that is sapience, an expression of our hatred for a mortality that was meant from the beginning to be cruelly torn from us as we are left helpless to fight off the oblivion that we were born to fear with every part of our being. I forgive my people for their insanity, for I feel this weight as heavily upon my shoulders as anyone and have been as guilty as anyone else of trying in vain to fill it with sex, food, art, music self-abusive exercise, books, and religion. I've settled down lately, but believe me, sister, I know your pain. The best advice I can give you is to tough it out and hope you don't go nuts before you find equilibrium.
Oh my god, not books!

Was that first post an attempt at Pascal's Wager?

Oh my god, not books!When they consume your every waking insomniac moment and keep you from having a life? Yeah.

The point the original poster was making I think is this. Non religious people will sometimes look ascance at religious people who do things because they say "its what God says" in the Bible or in their own lives. Now non religious people will say "thats stupid, cant you work those things out for yourself" at which point the electrician arguement comes in.

Say that an electrician is doing work on your house. You have done your homework and found him to be well-qualified and highly recommended. When he is done he comes to you and tells you not use a certain outlet in your house which he found to be faulty. This happens to be the most convienently located outlet in the house. After he leaves, do you use the outlet? Of course not! You have no way of checking to see if what he says is true, so you just take him at his word because 'he knows better.' .

Hes not discussing the logic in believeing he exists, just the logic in allowing your life to be lead by him

The point the original poster was making I think is this. Non religious people will sometimes look ascance at religious people who do things because they say "its what God says" in the Bible or in their own lives. Now non religious people will say "thats stupid, cant you work those things out for yourself" at which point the electrician arguement comes in.



Hes not discussing the logic in believeing he exists, just the logic in allowing your life to be lead by him
Our problem is that we dont know it is HIM we are following
If there is someone more knoledgeable in certian area's yes it is good to take advice to expand your own knoledge

But I have to know who or what it is i am following before I do so... it is the blindly following someone that is the bad part ... not the taking advice

But I have to know who or what it is i am following before I do so... it is the blindly following someone that is the bad part ... not the taking advice

The great thing is we have the Bible, we are not blind. We know a massive ammount about God and who he is and what he has done.

The great thing is we have the Bible, we are not blind. We know a massive ammount about God and who he is and what he has done.
And here our axioms colide you belive the bible as truth I dont ... at least not enough truth to be relied upon

The great thing is we have the Bible, we are not blind. We know a massive ammount about God and who he is and what he has done.

Ahh yes the bible, would you say that is your only reference on god. Also Without it would there be no god to you?

I still see no reason to follow these "instructions" by this Christian god... And I'm afraid to say, the bible... is a book, written by humans, nothing else. Quite one top-seller and a nice SciFi read, but sorry... it's surely not an eyewitness report, nor is it 100% historically correct, and I'd say it is as much inspired and dictated by this god-thing as Emile Zola's Germinal. Technically you only know about god what some people in the past thought about it, since they wrote it down.

The real god, if it exists, could be the complete opposite to what is described in the bible.

Religions where first created to make answers for nature. Why does it rain? Because the god(s) wish to give us fertile lands. Why does it thunder? Because the god(s) are angry with us. religion was created to answer qeustion man simply could not yet answer themselves.I dont dislike People who are religious or find them stupid. Use those answers from your god or gods but accept what science has answered already. for religious answers cant be checked to see if they are right scientific answers can....

When I started writing this, the thread was still an active one. Sorry if it looks like I'm dredging up dead topics. ^^;

Okay, so the initial question was something along the lines of "If it was proven that God existed, would you worship him?". The thread-maker is quite right in his statement that no-one has really responded to that particular issue (see the second part of this discussion), but wrong to assume that that means he's won this particular argument.

It can be easily seen how a creator God could exist. Forget everything you hear from scripture or preaching; simply imagine a computer programmer maintaining a complex simulation whereby entities within it can learn and make decisions within the confines of their own developed reality and you have a God. Of that reality, anyway.

But why follow that God? If the programmer were, out of either interest, sadistic pleasure or simply neglect, to encourage his creations to divide into groups and have them wipe each other out (Game developers, anyone?), would you follow his request? Do you surrender your will to this creator, despite the liklihood that no good will come out of it? Or, using the freedom of choice that you have, do you step out of that trap in an attempt to teach the creator an important lesson?

Following God requires not only a reasonably strong faith in his existence, but also an incredible amount of trust that He knows what he's doing, that he is an empathetic being and that he will act accordingly. It has always seemed to me that Christianity encourages its followers to ignore the jump from Believer to Follower as non-existent, which for me as both man of science and healthy cynic is not a leap that should be taken lightly. Doubly so, when you consider the current state of affairs; how could a kind, all-knowing and all-powerful God (emphasis on the 'and') allow the world to slip into such a state of decline? Either God is an Omnipotent, Omniscient Bastard, or his sight and power do not stretch as far as those who follow him would claim; otherwise, we would have reached a perfect and harmonious state of existence already.

In conclusion, the existence of God isn't in itself reason to become his follower. Even if proof of God would be found, Faith in his character would still be a necessity for discipleship, just as we must believe in our friends and partners for our human relationships to succeed.

When I started writing this, the thread was still an active one. Sorry if it looks like I'm dredging up dead topics. ^^;

Okay, so the initial question was something along the lines of "If it was proven that God existed, would you worship him?". The thread-maker is quite right in his statement that no-one has really responded to that particular issue (see the second part of this discussion), but wrong to assume that that means he's won this particular argument.

It can be easily seen how a creator God could exist. Forget everything you hear from scripture or preaching; simply imagine a computer programmer maintaining a complex simulation whereby entities within it can learn and make decisions within the confines of their own developed reality and you have a God. Of that reality, anyway.

But why follow that God? If the programmer were, out of either interest, sadistic pleasure or simply neglect, to encourage his creations to divide into groups and have them wipe each other out (Game developers, anyone?), would you follow his request? Do you surrender your will to this creator, despite the liklihood that no good will come out of it? Or, using the freedom of choice that you have, do you step out of that trap in an attempt to teach the creator an important lesson?

Following God requires not only a reasonably strong faith in his existence, but also an incredible amount of trust that He knows what he's doing, that he is an empathetic being and that he will act accordingly. It has always seemed to me that Christianity encourages its followers to ignore the jump from Believer to Follower as non-existent, which for me as both man of science and healthy cynic is not a leap that should be taken lightly. Doubly so, when you consider the current state of affairs; how could a kind, all-knowing and all-powerful God (emphasis on the 'and') allow the world to slip into such a state of decline? Either God is an Omnipotent, Omniscient Bastard, or his sight and power do not stretch as far as those who follow him would claim; otherwise, we would have reached a perfect and harmonious state of existence already.

In conclusion, the existence of God isn't in itself reason to become his follower. Even if proof of God would be found, Faith in his character would still be a necessity for discipleship, just as we must believe in our friends and partners for our human relationships to succeed.

Nice analogy, and to answer, no I wouldn’t even if there was a god, when I die I’ve give him the middle finger and go disappear into limbo. but damn it id disappear with my integrity and honour intact,