I mean, could monotheism be any sillier? Outside time, space and physics, lurks a singular God(or any type of eternal force) in a spiritual utopia? He or she or transgender or it, has super powers? From eternal nothingness? I mean, you get from religious people this opinion that something had to exist forever, so therefore, God. I don't get any of it. Is it really just childhood religious indoctrination and death that causes this mess? That's what I see. I assume by going over the hands people post here, that we're just a stupid species that can simply not grasp a universe from nothing. Emotions and intelligence play a big role in monotheism. lol

Toothey the Christian Fundamentalist will be along shortly to straighten you out.

Think the reason for religion besides death is wanting answers to the unknowns of why are we here and how did we and everything get here.

Dont think wanting or searching for answers to all that is silly. Its also not silly to think its a possibility something created this universe. A good hologram god might of. Maybe someone from another universe got so smart they can create new universe. Maybe there is an extra dimensional eternal being who did. Maybe nothing did and it just is or always was. Who knows...

Point being there is nothing silly in thinking it might of been created by a creator. Things can get hard to believe when people start giving definitive answers and commands from the a creator but the idea of a creator to me is not completely absurd.

start twitch streaming plo content

I came across this video a few weeks ago and I think it gives a good viewpoint on the Christian view of God and what was there in the beginning.



So in the beginning there was love and that love was the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It makes sense to me.

Yes, it could be far sillier. Look at the pagan or animist religions or pretty much any polytheist religion. They are ****ing nuts, and bind men to twisted earthly rituals and superstitions. Whatever you think of monotheism, Christianity was an enormous improvement over that, which civilized society and gave you the freethinking world you live in now, where even the average Joe is enlightened enough (but not enlightened enlightened enough) to post "could monotheism be any sillier"?

Monotheism frees the mind away from earthly pursuits and superstitions, into an intellectual, principled, philosophical place, from which high thought and high culture can develop.

Your favorite Internet memes arose out of the Jesuit order.
Why not? Is it any more ****ing crazy that we live in a finely tuned, perfectly complex world where thinking, feeling, spiritual beings like us could just magically appear out of the goo? Really? Without multiple levels of deep philosophical sophistication and multiple lines of hard-won evidence, the explanation you're mocking seems the most plausible.
That and Occam's Razorm applied through the filter of human cognitive biases, yes.
And yet Christians are no less intelligent than atheists. The Enlightenment, which was put together by religious men and women far brighter than any atheist Internet theorizing, was done by Christians. So they can't all be dummies.

Let good ole Mark Twain solve this for you:

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven..."

A non intervening deist god is more plausible then an interacting theistic one.

Yes, to me anyway

Only now, given the evidence. Without that evidence it is a bit less plausible.

The evidence for a designer is everywhere.

Take for example DNA: As Bill Gates has said, it's like an operating system more complicated than any software ever written.

To think that is just magically "evolved" from nothing, is the epitome of stupidity.

I see no evidence whatsoever for a designer past the particle level. At the particle level and below it gets harder; we don't know the range of the substrate because we only have one to compare, and even this one we imperfectly understand.
Well it's not magical, it seems to be an inherent property of complex chemical ecosystems. In fact, you would expect a blind system with sufficient complexity and fluidity and interaction and variety of building blocks, plus a powerful varying long term energy input, to tend toward localized instances of order and complexity.

Did you use one of those online "random atheist objection generators" to formulate your op?

Wow there's some bad science in here...
1St: fundamentaly physics doesn't require or even have scope for something that has existed forever in order to create this universe.
The big bang was the creation of everything, including time, before the big bang there was no time so to talk of something before it is completely meaningless. It is of fundamental importance to physics that time not only had a beginning but that it is also quantifiable, and can be split in to quanta of time...'planck time'.
This means time comes in little indivisible chunks, between the chunks there is no time, hence no need for a 'before the big bang as it is just the same as the 'gaps' between the quanta of time. Of course no time passes between the gaps so they are no percieved by anything that exists within time....
I'm sure this doesn't clarify anything, but it simply means that time can exist or not exist in the same way any other dimension could, and as such we do not need to worry about a before because time had no such existence for a before to exist within.
Secondly the evolution of dna is such a fundamental part of the evolutionary process it easy to look for any number of good publications on the subject. Surfice to say the chemical makeup of dna is easy to extrapolate from primitive single celled organisms. The difficulty of evolution is explaining where those first cells came from, and where the first electrical impulses originated from.... I don't have the answers to this. Other than that it's almost inevitable given the size of the universe and the number of potential life environments.
Going back to the op though, just because someone believes in the existence of a God does not mean they are stupid or that they have renounced science. God can be used to fill in the blanks, how did the first cell evolve, why is the charge on a proton exactly what it needs to be, where is all the antimatter, what is between the quanta of time....
Belief in God and religion has to be fluid to move with our understanding, you can sit back and say God created the world in 7 days anymore and not get laughed at, but any thinking religion person has evolved there understanding and has allowed God to fill the gaps in our knowledge rather than trying to swim against what we kbow to be true.

I think religion was created for group control. Islam, at least partly, was created to reform some social norms which improved the lot of many, including women. In terms of Islam, I'm talking about Muhammed reforming the social ills that he thought were social ills of the time. He couldn't have foreseen how Islam was going to go down throughout the centuries, lol.

Mohommad reformed social ills? Um, you mean like marrying a 6 year old
and raping her (Aisha) ?

Or, do you refer to Mohammad saying that grown men should be breastfed by women in order to minimize their lust of them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgnlb4m40

Or, do you refer to Mohammad lusting after his daughter-in-law Zainab, so that he caused his son to divorce her so her could have her to himself?




Yeah man, what an amazing social reformer that Mohammad was.

I question the faith of people who want or need God in government because such a want or need contradicts the experience that faith alone is enough.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Says you.

Says me, too.

But you all haven't said anything meaningful or that relates to any context of what was written. So why even waste the little time it took to post?

Well, I (perhaps incorrectly) inferred from your post that you thought that a person of faith wanting or needing government was inconsistent with that persons presumed belief that their faith in God is enough. While it's true from a Christian perspective that faith is "enough" for salvation, it is not "enough" for sanctification. Part of the sanctification process is being obedient to God. According to the Bible, God has ordained the institution of civil government.

So, what didn't "make sense" to me was the idea that somehow "faith" precludes civil institutions.

Okay. That's one take on faith I am familiar with.

Religious emotions are real, but that's about it. God is beyond space and time? So? Looks reasonable to me.

You are positing a very narrow definition of "God", which makes your thought experiment very uninteresting and not very useful for anything outside your own intellectual masturbation.

Also, a theist isn't necessarily religious and a religious person isn't necessarily a theist, but you conflate the two. It seems obvious you are speaking about specific religion and specific theism, but you're either to lazy to specify or you refuse to acknowledge the religious people and theists that don't think like this - both of which are bad.

And if we're "a stupid species that can simply not grasp a universe from nothing", then neither can you. So that seems like a self-defeating argument.

That emotions and intelligence play a big role in mono-theism is so self-evident that it shouldn't even be necessary to say. Emotions and intelligence obviously play a big part in any human belief.