Why hasn't humour been ascribed to God/Yahweh/Allah when other human

[Hoping4Change]

traits have? Despite the fact God/Yahweh/Allah is described loving and merciful, he is also vengeful, wrathful, jealous. Why can't Mr Omniscient get over being jealous and angry? Why is he so into dominance and submission? Shouldn't we expect better behaviour from him? Why hasn't an easy-going friendliness and a convivial sense of humour been ascribed to him? Why hasn't he sought our forgiveness? Why is it so important to him that he be acknowledged as top banana?

[DanCa]

1. I think Jesus has to have a great sense of humour

Hey show me a carpenter who wears robes and sandals and I'll show you a guy whose not afraid to laugh at himself.

[mr_hat]

3. You're thinking is power-tool influenced. Jesus >

took 40 days and 40 nights to whittle a door stop.

(That was it, wasn't it?)

edit: Jeez...

[Strong Atheist]

2. .

:popcorn:

[tocqueville]

4. God has humour : he made the fundies....

it's a bad joke

[DanCa]

6. How can you look at Tucker Carlson and not let out a belly laugh?

See everyone in life has a purpose the fundies are to serve as a bad example.

[Hoping4Change]

10. That is a groaner. But I ask this seriously. I find it interesting

that fundies of all stripes fashion themselves after this conception of god.

[okasha]

22. You've got it backwards.

Fundies of all stripes fashion this image of God after themselves.

[Hoping4Change]

23. You're right and I stand corrected. I suppose it becomes a feedback loop-

fundies create this image of God and then commend themselves for their adhering to his ways.

[Neil Lisst]

5. Because GOD was created by men who saw him as a ruthless leader

Like the rulers of their day. Autocratic.

But I think God has a sense of humor. He must get a good laugh at the representations of him by religions.

[SPKrazy]

7. I Believe It Has

De Peche Mode

"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I believe that God has a sick sense of humor"


seriously,

I don't know that humor isn't ascribed to God as well

[IsItJustMe]

8. God has humor. He told Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then told him

to forget it. It may be a dark sense of humor, but humor non-the-less.

[Hoping4Change]

15. I think that was more indicative of sadism. I don't see any humour

in putting Abraham in that position.

[left is right]

21. You only see this from a 21st century perspective

This story tells us as much about Abraham as it does about God. Abraham was surrounded by people who practiced child sacrifice. He came from a culture that condoned it before he met Yahweh. He fully expected God to command it; he was eager to demonstrate that his devotion to God was as great as the devotion displayed by others toward their gods. So God indulged him up to a point. God had no intention of having Isaac sacrificed--Issac was the key to the fulfillment of His promise that Abraham's heirs would be so numerous that they couldn't be counted. And by providing the ram that was the true sacrifice, God demonstrated that He was completely different from the gods of that region. Then, to establish that His ways or completely different from our ways, He would do what Abraham was spared from doing--God would offer up His son for atonement.

[Hoping4Change]

25. But why is there the need to view God as something that needs

to be appeased? Why did Jesus' death appease him. Don't you find it unsettling that a sacrifical death whether human or animal is necessary to put god in a benevolent frame of mind?

[left is right]

27. Not really

Almost every society--cavemen, Druids, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Hebrews, I can't think of a single premoderan society that didn't have some form of sacrificial atonement. Perhaps, the need to offer sacrifice is hardwired into us.

[Hoping4Change]

67. But it is god who wants sacrifice. And god we are told accepted

the the death of his son as atonement. The need to offer sacrifice might be hardwired into us in so far as it seems to be a way of placating an angry fickle god. But even if its hardwired into us why would it be hardwired into god? Why wouldn't god decline the gesture?

[believerinchrist]

110. I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

Did you know the Bible has a number of passages like the following?

"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
Psalm 51:16-17.

As we've been talking about sacrifices off and on over the last several weeks, I've been thinking. Let me suggest a different scenario about the sacrifices in the OT. We know that many early cultures practiced human sacrifice in order to appease their gods. Maybe, God was working to lead people away from those sacrifices. In the account of Abraham and Issac, I don't believe Abraham had a problem with sacrificing his son because it was a common practice. By providing an animal substitute for Issac, God set the standard against human sacrifice. Then, with the death of Jesus, the need for animal sacrifice also ended.

Now, concerning the death of Christ on the cross, on the surface, it looks like God was demanding the death of Christ. But underneath, there was much more happening. Jesus had an enemy working against him--Satan was determined to kill Jesus as soon as possible because he thought he could stop the love of God from succeeding. Remember Jesus was a human being in the eyes of Satan and was defeatable. Now, suppose God, knowing this, told Jesus that if he would go ahead and die, God would raise him from the dead and that resurrection would destroy Satan's ability to ultimately destroy the human race. What sets what happened to Christ apart is not his death--for human beings die every day--but his resurrection.

Now while he was dying on the cross, Jesus took care of business. He forgave everyone, gave up his connection as God's son, and spoke the cry of the human race, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" By allowing Satan to "win," Jesus was able to set the stage for the ultimate victory of the human race over evil.

God is not fickle or angry with human beings (His wrath is focused on the forces of evil, not on the victims). God is slowly and surely (He gave us all free will) leading the human race away from the "better them than us" motivation--which is the hidden motive behind sacrifices and hatred--to the "God loves us all" truth.

[DanCa]

9. Sponges grow in the ocean, that's damn funny if you ask me.

I mean just think about how much more water we'd have if sponges didn't grow in the ocean.

[Hoping4Change]

11. LOL. Thats good.

[charlie]

106. Dan wins the thread

:) :hi:

[eallen]

12. Humor undermines hierarchy. Religion was invented to buttress hierarchy.

All of the attributes of the Abrahamic god serve to reinforce hierarchy. That is true even of the Love attributed to the Christian god, which is always described as between a parent-child, or creator-created, or savior-saved, but never ever as the kind of love that two adults can have for each other as equals. Even when the love of the Christian god for man is compared to marital love, it is used in a context that serves to create inequality between husband and wife.

[Hoping4Change]

17. Very interesting observation that we are not supposed to love god as

an equal. I have to think about this.

[Zebedeo]

18. Well, is He

your equal? Let's not kid ourselves here.

[beam me up scottie]

19. "Let's not kid ourselves here" ???

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

26. Well, if nobody else did,

I caught it and had a good laugh from it.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Do you want to take the

"And as we all know" comment?

I don't want to be selfish.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Thank you

I think you would have been funnier, but I enjoyed it.

[Zebedeo]

30. Right

Let's not pretend that we are equal to God, when we surely are not.

[Goblinmonger]

32. ...

[Zebedeo]

36. You dispute my statement that we are not equal to God?

Can you create the heavens and the Earth? Can you bring light unto darkness by sheer will alone? Can you part the Red Sea? Can you turn water into wine? Can you raise the dead?

I would have thought it would be self-evident that we are not God's equal.

[beam me up scottie]

39. You really must learn how to look up definitions, Zeb.

Google "begging the question" .

[Zebedeo]

43. I know what it means

I guess the poster will have to be clear about how I am supposedly begging the question, because I thought it was because I was assuming that we are not equal to God. If it was something else, I didn't understand it.

[beam me up scottie]

45. I doubt clarity will help you.

Anyone who believes they have

proved in other threads that God created the universe supernaturally

is beyond help.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Holy crap

Are you really that dense or are you being obtuse on purpose.

You asked if we are equal to god. That pretty much begs the question as to whether god actually exists. Though given your "I proved the existance of god" post, you are most likely beyond help.

[Zebedeo]

59. The context of my post, to which you responded

was that I was replying to this post:

All of the attributes of the Abrahamic god serve to reinforce hierarchy. That is true even of the Love attributed to the Christian god, which is always described as between a parent-child, or creator-created, or savior-saved, but never ever as the kind of love that two adults can have for each other as equals.

So, you see, I was replying to a post about the "Abrahamic God" and why He is not regarded as an equal to humans. In that context, I assumed that God exists.

Now, if you want to argue with the whole idea that there is a God, then I don't see how you are going to be able to address the substance of eallen's post, or my reply to it.

[Goblinmonger]

128. I don't think

eallen and I have any problems. I agree that Abrahamic religion was invented to reinforce heirarchy and that is why that god is portrayed as various versions of "father."

You and I do have problems with the god thing. Not because we disagree, but because every post you make just assumes that god is a reality and they you are shocked when people don't agree with the substance of a post that is based on a "universal truth" that is in no way provable (with the exception of your twisted logic in which you think you have--still can't figure that one out. Oh yeah, several of us did, appeal to ignorance).

[Goblinmonger]

41. No

I didn't even get to your question.

I made a reference to a logical fallacy. You are begging the question. First you need to prove that there is a god. Then we can have that discussion.

And with this post, you now need to prove that god (once you prove the existence of that being) created the heavens and earth, created light, parted the red sea, turned water into wine, and raised the dead. Then, and only then, will we have a discussion of comparing me to your "god."

Can god type a message onto DU? Apparently not.

[Zebedeo]

44. I have proved in other threads that God created the universe

supernaturally. Can you do that?

[varkam]

46. You have proved that?!

Beyond a shadow of a doubt?! You've proved it to be the truth equally as well as we know 2+2=4 to be the truth? Wow! You must share these arguments with me.

I can't believe I've been living a life of sin away from God!


give me a break....

[Zebedeo]

49. I guess I should have known that that subject line would

bring out a lot of derisive replies.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Well let's see

You claim to have proven the existance of god. And you are suprised, shocked, and offended when people call bullshit on you?

[beam me up scottie]

56. He's still complaining about how I expected him to prove his claim that

"many reknowned(sic) physicists and other scientists have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God".


Of course, he COULDN'T prove that, so he just cut and pasted something from a christian apologetics website.

[varkam]

57. What you should of known is...

claiming that you did something that you obviously did not do makes you look silly and intellectually dishonest. Those two things tend to bring out the derisive replies.

[Zebedeo]

63. I never said I proved it to your satisfaction.

I just said I proved it.

You are free to disagree with the proof all you want.

Which, I have no doubt, you will do.

[varkam]

66. Proof is an epistemic condition.

And you have done no such thing, and you know as much. If you can show me irrefutable proof - then I will agree that you have proved the existence of God. Otherwise, your are simply dealing in persuasion - and you have not convinced me in the slightest.

[Zebedeo]

74. Do you agree

that nothing can cause itself to come into existence?

To me, that is not only an observed truth, but a logical certainty, because until the thing exists, it is not able to cause anything.

[varkam]

81. I agree.

It's a rhetorical question, but I agree. But you seem to be arguing from a creationist perspective. If I agree to the premise, than that implies that the matter in the universe did at some point "come into existence" - which I've argued before might not be the case.

[Zebedeo]

84. Thanks.

So from that, we know that the universe did not cause itself to come into existence. So if the universe came into existence, it had to have been caused to do so by some cause independent of the universe.

So we are then left with only two choices:

1) The universe has always existed;

or

2) The universe came into existence by being caused to come into existence by some cause independent of the universe.

Agreed?

[varkam]

87. So basically what you're saying is...

If the universe was created, then God created it. Stunning proof. Oh but wait, that's only a proof of a prime mover or a first cause. Not even of a J-C God. And it's only a proof if someone accepts the second choice. Being an atheist, it's kind of hard to say that I think the universe was created.

And if nothing can come into existence without something else bringing it there, then what about Go.....oh wait, he exists eternally. See? You do have the mental capacity to wrap your mind around your first point, just replace God with matter, and we're all set!

[Zebedeo]

88. Which choice do you accept?

The first or the second?

[Random_Australian]

92. *ahem* see post #268, 'amazing physics discovery' thread

I think It's this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55752&mesg_id=59007

Quantum Physics, peoples!

[varkam]

94. I want you to do something for me Zeb.

I want you to admit that there is a possibility you might be wrong in your thinking. It's okay if you can't type it, you can just copy and paste it. The difference between you and me, at least as far as this discussion is concerned, is that I am prepared to admit I might be wrong in my thinking.

I think that if accepting the second option means that I have to accept the bulk of J-C theology, then option 1 seems much more logically consistent and appealing. But I don't accept it with all of my being. I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be wrong and we live in a universe where I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior. You, on the other hand, seem to completely dismiss the possibility that there is no God. Which would make you...an ideologue. If you can't admit you might be wrong, then there is really no point in having discussions with people who have different beliefs - in which case I would recommend the groups section of DU where you can have discussions with like-minded individuals.

[Zebedeo]

96. If you accept the second one, it does not

for purposes of this discussion, compel you to accept the bulk of J-C theology.

The first option, it seems to me, is far more fanciful and takes a far greater leap of faith than the second option. This is because we know that this universe has not always existed. It came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. So to maintain that the matter and energy of which this universe is composed "always existed," one must hypothesize that the matter and energy came from "another universe." But then, you have not gotten anywhere in explaining the origin of the matter and energy, because you now are faced with the question of what caused that prior universe to come into existence. This is where some people suggest that there may be an infinite number of universes, big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, ad infinitum, and that the matter and energy has existed eternally. Thus, in order to deny the existence of a Creator, these people have been forced to postulate an infinity of universes, exploding and imploding forever, and there still is no explanation for what caused this process to be set into motion in the first place. There is also no explanation for the complexity of the matter, or how it continually, on an infinite basis, regenerates from an undifferentiated point into the complex universe that we observe.

So I really think that we are left with the second option. I sense that you are inclined to believe that the second option is more likely (although you are keeping an open mind). You just resist the J-C theology and dogma. Am I right?

Now, to answer your question: Yes, it is possible I could be wrong in my thinking. But I believe very strongly that I am right.

[Random_Australian]

97. *ahem* again, same point as original *ahem*

Like I said, please consider #268 from physics discovery thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55752&mesg_id=59007
When arguing.

[varkam]

102. To some of us...

Saying that our universe was created in seven "days" by a supernatural being for...whatever reason is just as likely as saying the matter in our universe never needed a cause to be set in motion. I'm not "forced" to postulate anything. My purpose here is not to convince you that there is no God, Zeb (as it's obvious I will not). I'm just simply saying that there are alternative explanations that you all too hastily pass over in your quest to "prove" the existence of God.

And you if sense that I am inclined to believe the second option is much more likely...you really need a refresher course in "reading between the lines". I was trying to get at the following: I believe neither option is more likely, as I have no basis on which to found that conclusion!. That, my friend, is keeping an open mind.

And I resist the J-C theology and dogma? Why? Because I'm stubborn? Well it's true, I am, but I also demand reasons to think something. J-C theology doesn't provide me with convincing reasons for thinking a God exists. In fact, taken at face value, it provides me with convincing reasons for thinking God doesn't exist. It's not that I'm just being stubborn.

[beam me up scottie]

68. I see the money you spent on classes at the Discovery Institute paid off.

You prove your claims like Little Lord Pissypants proves his.

[Zebedeo]

72. I have spent no money

and I don't know who Little Lord Pissypants is. Can you elaborate?

[beam me up scottie]

76. If you ever ventured outside of this forum, you'd know.

Apparently, using this forum to proselytize is much more important than supporting liberal causes.

[Crunchy Frog]

113. I can't believe you've been on DU for almost half a year

and you don't know what the term "Little Lord Pissypants" refers to. You really must try getting out more. There's lots of fascinating information and discussion on DU outside of attempting to proseletyze to us heathens here on Religion/Theology.

Just to satisfy your curiosity, the term refers to the current occupant of the Whitehouse. It's a good title for him, don't you think?:)

[beam me up scottie]

83. "You are free to disagree with the proof all you want."

Fundie Logic 101.

[beam me up scottie]

47. "proved in other threads that God created the universe supernaturally"

Show me.

[Zebedeo]

53. OK

There have been a number of threads. Here's one.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Pardon my French

but that doesn't prove dick about the existance of god. Um, the energy could have come from the sub-marble-sized universe. How about that?

[Zebedeo]

62. That gets you nowhere

Where did the sub-marble-sized universe containing all that energy come from?

Until you get to an uncreated Creator, you always have to explain the origin of whatever "singularity" or "sub-marble-sized universe" or "previous universe" you propose.

[varkam]

65. Who is to say the Universe was created in the first place?

Perhaps the matter has always simply existed - for eternity. We, of course, have a hard time swallowing that concept because we just can't get our brains around it. But I don't imagine that I could "prove" the universe was never created, just as you would have a tough time "proving" it was. Just to say that claim is implausible is pretty poor proof that the other claim is true.

So then take the claim that God did, in fact, create the Universe. If God is eternal, than what spurred the sudden creation? Was God bored? What did God do in the eternity before he created the Universe? Did God knit? Was he a bridge enthusiast? Solitaire? I mean, eternity is a long time....

[beam me up scottie]

69. Not all of us can't get our brains around it.

The people with soft and pliable brains can wrap theirs around just about anything.:evilgrin:

[Zebedeo]

70. Good questions

Perhaps the matter has always simply existed - for eternity.

That might be a theoretical possibility, if we did not know that it has not always simply existed.

But, fortunately, we do not have to wonder. We can observe the universe and determine that it came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

If God is eternal, than what spurred the sudden creation? Was God bored? What did God do in the eternity before he created the Universe? Did God knit? Was he a bridge enthusiast? Solitaire? I mean, eternity is a long time....

What spurred the sudden creation? God's will.

God is eternal, which is a concept difficult for us to understand. He is, was, and always will be. What did He do in the eternity before He created the universe? God is such a different being than we are that it hardly even makes sense to ask that question. He is not time-bound. He is capable of perceiving all time at once. So God would have had plenty to "do."

[varkam]

73. Actually, we do not know the matter hasn't always existed.

As far as I am aware, we are only able to see "back" to the Big Bang. While that might of happened 13.7 billion years ago, perhaps the matter existed before that as well (and as I believe we discussed before, perhaps there was a big bang before that, and so on and so forth). So yes, this "universe" hasn't always existed, but the matter may have - we have no way of knowing one way or the other. The matter, if you go back and re-read my post, is what I was referring to - NOT the big bang.


Please try to read my words and formulate your responses a bit more carefully.

[beam me up scottie]

79. He's going to answer every question with god did it.

Fundie Logic 101.

[Hoping4Change]

99. As an aside, I heard a lecture today on TV by Rocky Kolb,

a Cosmology professor and director of the Fermilab among other things. And did I mention, a physicist with an incredible sense of humour. Anyway I thought you might find it interesting that Kolb said that atoms were created 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Up until that point all that existed was a primordial soup. The link is the graphics about the primordial soup from the lecture .


http://www.lp01.infn.it/talks/kolb.pdf

[Goblinmonger]

116. I feel like I am in Philosophy 101

in asking this question, but you haven't gotten this far yet, I guess. Plus, I know your twisted answer, but you so lead to this question.

Who/what created god?

Now, before you go on your usual rant of uncreated creator (please don't do that, I have had that "discussion" with you several times before and don't want a repeat), please realize the point of my question.

You have NO PROOF of god being the uncreated creator. It is just your belief. And if you can somehow wrap your inflexible mind around an uncreated creator, why can't you wrap that same mind around an uncreated universe. Oh, I know, the 13.5 billion years thing, but that is just matter. Why couldn't matter have been created from the brewing of the primordial soup, and the soup created from the energy of the big bang, and the big bang from what ever was before it. Why do you have to throw god into the mix to make sense of it? Answer: you don't.

[Zebedeo]

122. We are going around in circles because

you ignore my posts. It appears that you don't read them.

I have proved that there had to be an uncreated Creator. It is not "just my belief." It's not a question of an inability to "wrap my mind around" an uncreated universe. It is that we can measure the age of the universe and see that the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago or so. You suggest that primordial soup was created from the energy of the big bang. Well, the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, give or take. So this primordial soup has only been around for that long, even under your primordial soup theory. It hasn't always existed. Your suggestion that the big bang came from "what ever was before it" fails to make any progress in answering the question under discussion, because it just shifts the question to: What was the origin of "whatever was before it"?

The only logical conclusion is that there was an uncreated Creator of the universe. If you don't want to call that Creator "God," you don't have to. You don't even have to capitalize the word "Creator." But to deny that the universe had an origin is sticking your head in the sand, IMHO.

[Goblinmonger]

123. Again

an appeal to ignorance does not prove jack. Just because we don't know what happened 13.7 billion years ago because we can't measure before that time DOES NOT MEAN there was a Creator, or a creator, or jack shit.

[Random_Australian]

134. Also, dear Zeb, I refer you to #268, physics discovery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55752&mesg_id=59007

[Goblinmonger]

138. Thanks, Aussie man

I am but an English teacher and leave the physics to people who know better. Though I do know enough science from my stint as an engineering student to know the default answer is not to throw up my hands and say "god must have done it because I'm stumped."

[Random_Australian]

140. Take just this point: Our fundamental view of reality doesn't work

on those scales. Cause/Effect is a load of bull, just like the Newtonian and Einsteinian physics on that scale, or Quantum and Newtonian on large scales.

[Zebedeo]

141. If we are going to throw out reality, logic and cause & effect

What is the point of even having a discussion?

[Random_Australian]

143. AAAAAAAAAAAAAGHGH!! YOU!! YOU!!

Did you not understand a word I said! Just because our little minds don't intuitively understand a different reality, with it's own rules, doesn't mean it's NOT THERE! Logic still works. Assumptions don't.
GAAAAAAAAAgh!

[Goblinmonger]

145. I feel for you

I have been at that point in discussion with this individual several times (right now, as a matter of fact). Too bad I'm not in Australia so we could put down a Fosters (though I have heard that is considered crappy beer in Australia).

[beam me up scottie]

146. Now you know why they invented

this smilie:

:banghead:

[Zebedeo]

147. Sorry to cause you to blow a gasket

Oh no wait, cause & effect may not apply. Who can say? Maybe you blew a gasket without any cause.

[Goblinmonger]

148. Oh, no

you were the cause. You can't even admit that Aussie's discussion of string theory was above your head?

[beam me up scottie]

149. Give him a chance to find something to cut and paste.

Quit rushing the guy!

[Zebedeo]

150. Everything is inherently unknowable

and rules of logic and causation do not apply. Therefore I cannot be blamed for causing Aussie to blow a gasket.

[Random_Australian]

153. Hah! We're in Newtons world! Cause and effect apply here.

Like I keep telling you. But nooooooooooo..... we all know that when someine says cause and effect apply here and not there, they mean here and not there.
Whaddya say to that? You cannot deny that that is the only reasonable interpretation of your post!

[beam me up scottie]

58. You're linking to ANOTHER thread where you argued from ignorance?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[varkam]

60. Offering up God as even a likely explanation...

or even the most likely explanation (I'm feeling generous) for the creation of the universe is far, my friend, from offering proof of the existence of God.

[Goblinmonger]

48. ...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Stop it or I'm going to piss my pants
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You have "proved" it. Who would have thunk that the proof of something unproveable would have occurred here on little old DU. You should take that proof to one of the major science universities in the country and get that shit published. You'll make millions. I can't wait to see you on Good Morning America.

[NMMNG]

55. And I thought there was going to be no humor in this thread

:rofl:

[trotsky]

111. What you "proved" in those threads, dear Zeb...

is that the lone remaining device in the theist's toolbox is the good old Argument from Ignorance.

Now before you launch into your self-pitying "goatherder" misunderstanding, let me once again state what the Argument from Ignorance is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained (or insufficiently explained), so it was not, or could not, be true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

Your intellectual and theological predecessors used the same Argument from Ignorance to confidently state:

1) "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god."
2) "We do not know why the sun and moon move through the sky, therefore gods do it."
3) "We do not know what causes disease, therefore it must be demons and/or sin."

And so today you continue in their noble tradition (which carries with it a track record of UNIVERSAL failure) by stating:

"We do not know what caused/created/etc. the universe, therefore it must be my god."

Do you understand yet why this doesn't constitute "proof" of anything?

[Zebedeo]

112. It's obvious that you know a lot about logical fallacies

because you employ them so often.

Like right now, in your post to which I am replying.

You can't refute my actual arguments, so you instead set up a strawman and refute it.

In this instance, your strawman, which I have never, ever stated, is "We do not know what caused/created/etc. the universe, therefore it must be my god."

As you well know, that is not my argument. My argument is not based on our lack of knowledge (ignorance) as to the origin of the universe. My argument is a logical deduction based on the self-evident premise that nothing can cause itself to come into existence, because until it exists, it is not there to do any causing.

Another premise is that events do not transpire without a cause.

These premises, if accepted, lead to the irrefutable conclusion that if the universe came into existence, it was caused to come into existence by a force outside of and independent of the universe.

Now, you can argue with the two premises, or you can suggest that the universe never came into existence. Except that we know that the universe did come into existence, about 13.7 billion years ago. We can objectively observe and measure the age of the universe. So if you want to suggest that the universe never came into existence, your argument is counterfactual. You can then resort to the speculation that perhaps our universe originated from another universe which may have existed previously. But that gets you nowhere, because then you have to account for the origin of the prior universe. It is here that many unbelievers resort to the suggestion that there have been an infinite number of universes, expanding and contracting for all eternity, with all of the matter and energy periodically collapsing to a point of infinite density, mass, temperature and curvature, and then springing out again into a universe of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc. This fanciful hypothesis (aside from being unsupported by any evidence) offers no solution to the nonbeliever, because it still does not explain the origin of all the matter and energy, or what caused this hypothetical infinite Big Bang, Big Crunch sequence to be set in motion, or what causes the matter to spring forth from an undifferentiated point to such highly organized complex forms as we observe.

So as a matter of logical deduction, there was either a Creator of the universe, or this preposterous hypothetical speculation of an infinity of universes, which still offers no explanation for the question under discussion - where did all this stuff we see in the universe come from?

Now, this Creator not only had to exist independent of the universe, but He had to have the awesome power to create the universe. Also, He had to be uncreated and therefore eternally existent. You could hypothesize that a created creator created the universe, but then whoever created the creator would be the original, uncreated Creator. You could follow this back as far as you like, but at the end, you would have no choice but to conclude that at some point there was an uncreated Creator who started the sequence.

All of the above is a matter of logical deduction and observation of the known facts about the universe. None of it is an argument from ignorance.

[trotsky]

114. Oh my.

Zeb, I refuted your argument by pointing out that IT'S A FALLACY.

The Argument from Ignorance.

You can't even recognize that you're making leaps all over your "argument," assuming this and that, telling everyone else what the science really means, what it can't explain, etc.

And then you postulate your god as the solution. Oh, and you make sure to wall it off from questioning.

Argument from Ignorance

Accept it.

[Zebedeo]

115. Oh that's brilliant

You are now reduced to a 4th-grade level response?

I took the time to show you that you were mischaracterizing my argument as an "argument from ignorance."

Your response is to say "Argument from Ignorance, Accept it"?

Why don't you throw in "Nah, nah, na-nah, nah"?

[trotsky]

117. This'll be fun.

You're already worked up.

Now let me demolish your overall argument piece by piece.

Basically you have restated what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (which itself suffers from the Argument from Ignorance in parts), but let's examine the details:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

First off, your "self-evident premise that nothing can cause itself to come into existence" is a restatement of #1. It's wrong demonstrably because quantum pairs come into existence by themselves all the time throughout the vacuum of space. But it's also wrong logically because it is far from self-evident. Virtually all the leading physicists don't find it self-evident. Nor do a considerable number of philosophers. You've taken a principle that's "self-evident" to you and applied it to everyone, unproven. Point #1 gone.

Secondly, we can't even be sure the universe "began" to exist. "Begin" only has meaning within a time flow. There was a time before an event, and a time after the event. The event began at the junction of those time periods. But space AND time are inherent properties of the universe. To speak of a time "before" the universe is, as Stephen Hawking points out, directly analogous to trying to walk north from the North Pole. It has no meaning. It can't be done. Point #2 gone.

So your conclusion, #3, is completely unwarranted and illogical. Your "proof" is in shambles.

Oh and also, not every theory on the origins of the universe includes the "infinte number of universes" that you seem to insist are necessary. Sorry, but you're wrong again. More arguing from ignorance.

That WAS fun. :)

[Zebedeo]

119. Unbelievable!

After previously hectoring me for allegedly employing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, you resort to reliance on the views of "virtually all the leading physicists," "Stephen Hawking" and "a considerable number of philosophers"!

Your purported refutation of my argument amounts to nothing but your rejection of my premises. Why don't you just say "I reject your premises"?

Your comment about quantum pairs is laughable because you ASSUME without foundation that they are things that "cause themselves to come into existence." How is that even theoretically possible, given the fact that before they exist, they are not there to do any causing?

You are mistaking perception for existence.

If you want to reject the premise that nothing can cause itself to come into existence, be my guest, but you have been reduced to an absurd position.

The same applies to your rejection of the premise that no event transpires without a cause.

[trotsky]

124. I did more than reject your premises, I showed them to be unsound.

And I'm not assuming anything regarding quantum pairs - it's proven physics.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)

You didn't really think you had come up with that "argument" for your god's existence all by yourself, and no one else had ever thought of it, did you?

You do realize as well that if someone DID come up with an airtight proof of the existence of a god, there would be no need for faith, right?

Your argument (stolen from someone else) has been completely debunked. Back to the drawing board, Zeb.

[Zebedeo]

125. LOL

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space

So if they are "really there" all along, then they are not something that comes into existence all on their own without a cause. They already exist.

How is this an example of something that "causes itself to come into existence"?

Using the word "debunk" doesn't make it so, trotsky. You have to actually address the argument.

[trotsky]

126. It's all there, Zeb.

We know these pairs happen because of the effects they leave behind. They no longer exist, but we know they did for an instant. The evidence is far stronger than anything we've ever seen for "god."

I can't explain it any simpler. Either you understand it or you don't.

Debunked.

[Zebedeo]

127. I understand it all too well

I have deduced that the universe was created by an uncreated Creator.

You have disputed my proof by rejecting my two premises:

1. Nothing can cause itself to come into existence; and
2. Events do not transpire without a cause.

By rejecting these premises, you have been reduced to an absurd position.

Reductio ad absurdum

[Goblinmonger]

130. Do you even google shit before you use it

and if you do, you should reread what you google.

That is the classic misuse of "reductio ad absurdum." If one of my students in my comm class gave me that as an example of that fallacy, I would give them zero points.

You don't claim reductio ad absurdum when you claim you have "reduced to an absurd position" someone else's argument. Oh, never mind, you aren't going to get it and I am ruining a good laugh.

Just let me say that you look pretty stupid with that use of a fallacy.

Oh, and stop using the word deduced like that. "I do not think it means what you think it means." (that is a reference to The Princess Bride in case you really never come out into the real world.) Deduction means that you start with a universal truth and apply that to a specific instance. You have no universal truth in this argument.

[Zebedeo]

136. If you were my kid's teacher

I would ask the principal to wash your mouth out with soap. Vulgarity is unnecessary in this discussion.

And, you are wrong to boot. Maybe you are the one who should google before jumping to criticize others.

reductio ad absurdum

The term reductio ad absurdum is also often used for arguments where a conclusion is derived which it is thought that everyone will agree to be false or absurd, or which at least certain persons being argued against will agree is false or absurd.

While this is described as a "weak form" of reductio ad absurdum, it is one of the recognized uses of the term. Better revise that grade, teach.

[Goblinmonger]

142. Well, I have three things to say

1. Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. I'm not teaching high school right now. I don't swear as a high school teacher, but this ain't my classroom. And I think the first amendment is still in the document and obscenity would still be covered in a public forum like this.

2. If I were your kids teacher, they would be challenged to see literature in ways they never imagined and would gain a new understanding of the human condition. Of course....

3. That is NOT how you used the term. You took Trotsky's argument and said that the next step in the argument would be some wacky shit (that wasn't true, btw) and therefore HE was committing reductio ad absurdum. RAA (that is so I don't need to type reductio ad absurdum so many times), as you are using the "weak" form, is when the PERSON MAKING THE ARGUMENT reaches a conclusion ON THEIR OWN that those being argued against agree is absurd. I'm sure you won't see the difference, but I'm still giving a big fat goose egg (that is a reference to a zero for a grade). YOU could be accused of committing the fallacy of RAA, which would be ironic, but not Trotsky.

[trotsky]

131. For the last time, I didn't just reject your premises,

I showed them to be unsound.

My "absurd position" is that I don't know where the universe came from. I don't hold up an answer and say, "This is it!" That's you. And since your position has been shown unsound, you lose.

But thanks for playing. I do enjoy your little attempts at reason.

[charlie]

133. Write it up

Send it to the newspapers and the National Academy of Sciences. You've closed the book on cosmology and will forever be enshrined in the halls of science. And to think I was here to see it.

[beam me up scottie]

137. !

:evilgrin:

[Hoping4Change]

35. Loving each other as equals does not depend on both parties being

equal.

The notion you are putting forth is that god being superior condesends to "love" or to have any interaction with inferior beings. Shouldn't god be above this sort of thing?

[Zebedeo]

64. God's love for us is much greater

than ours for Him. That should be obvious from this thread alone.

If the love of God for man and the love of man for God were equalized, we would have to ramp up our love a great deal, or God would have to tone His down quite a lot, wouldn't you agree?

[Hoping4Change]

71. God has the home field advantage because he KNOWS we exist, he

KNOWS our motivations, he KNOWS the larger picture and he isn't human so he shouldn't have to contend with human emotions - emotions that get us humans into the pickles were in. So god loving us is water off a ducks back. I think it is a whole lot harder for humans to love god than he us because we don't know he exists (faith is belief not knowledge), we don't know his motivations the way he knows ours, and we are stricken with all sorts of human fraility he does not have to contend with.

[Zebedeo]

75. My point is that

we have no cause to complain that the love is not like the love between two equals. We benefit greatly from the inequality of the love. We receive alot more than we give.

[Hoping4Change]

78. Why is maintaining the notion that there is an enormous inequality

between us and god so important to you. If you regard someone as your equal do you respect them less?

[Zebedeo]

80. In this context, yes.

If God were my equal, I would respect Him less, because then He would be nothing more than a human, and humans are not worthy of worship.

[Hoping4Change]

90. I am shocked you would say "to be nothing more than human" .

I am shocked and appalled with that sentiment. I am crushed to hear that said by a democrat:(

[Zebedeo]

91. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but

Humanity is not the ultimate, highest form of being. God is. Humans are above the animals, but are not equal to God. To me, that is self-evident and should not be a controversial proposition.

[Hoping4Change]

95. Its that very notion that has created and perpetuated untold suffering.

How different this world would be if people believed that everything in the universe is simply the physical manifestation of god. You and everyone else who believes likewise would then have to treat every person and every thing with the reverence you reserve for a god who is separate from this world.

[Zebedeo]

98. But that makes no sense to me

I am supposed to revere a gum wrapper the same as I revere my wife? I am supposed to revere a used toothpick with the same reverence I reserve for God? I appreciate your point of view, but to me it doesn't resonate at all.

[Random_Australian]

100. That's cos' were God's special chosen ones.

That's why you ought to treat your wife better than a toothpick.

Rephrased, I believe the point was: "We are all part of God. Treat everything with respect, as it is part of God. Treat other people well too. Many Christians (alright self-proclaimed Christians if you prefer) do not. Things would be better if they did."
Equal respect for all objects, animate and inanimate, not necessary. Baseline level of respect is necessary.

<<Caution: Bad spelling!>>

[Hoping4Change]

101. People aren't gum wrappers so you can't even draw that comparison.

The only way we even surmise god exists is through human intellect and imagination. So to pooh pooh humanity as being so far less significant than god is to pooh pooh the very vehicle that god (that is to say your conception of god)has used to make himself and his laws known to humanity.

[beam me up scottie]

103. EXCELLENT point!

So to pooh pooh humanity as being so far less significant than god is to pooh pooh the very vehicle that god (that is to say your conception of god)has used to make himself and his laws known to humanity.

:applause:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

109. A-fucking-men.

Why do people pooh-pooh THEMSELVES?

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

107. Not to be a grammar nazi,

but you certainly have relished that role in the past, but A LOT is two words.

[Zebedeo]

129. Good catch

I will try in the future to conform better to your high standards.

[Goblinmonger]

132. I could give a shit

and I'm an English teacher. Most often grammar is used as a tool of power (as in "I'm better than you because I know more obscure rules than you."). I don't proof most of my posts because it seems like a waste for a forum like this. I just like catching grammar nazis in mistakes because it brings them down a little from their power trip.

[Zebedeo]

139. As I recall, the only time I have ever corrected someone

was my good-natured correction of your typo "athiest." Are you confusing me with someone else?

[Goblinmonger]

144. Maybe

I'm in the middle of a curriculum rewrite so my brain is turning to oatmeal.

[Random_Australian]

93. A question: Did any of the above posters threaten

to throw God into a lake of fire? Because there is no better way to say 'I love you'..... that or roses.

[trotsky]

104. You don't have any evidence for that.

In fact, I'd say there's a pretty good amount of evidence that your god doesn't like us very much.

Death, disease, pain, eternal punishment for the "crime" of not being convinced, and so on.

So continue on with your speculation, but realize that it's just that.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Sorry, prostrating yourself is your thing, not mine.

I don't bow to anyone, especially deities.

http://atheistempire.com/mm_dl/animation/stand.html

[Zebedeo]

40. See, that's the beauty

of free will. You don't have to.

[beam me up scottie]

42. No, that's the beauty of atheism and godless governments.

Something you're afraid of.

[More Than A Feeling]

154. Brief question here

Has this poster ever stated that they are afraid of atheism and godless governments? Or is that your assumption based on their religious statements?

[beam me up scottie]

156. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, I'll compose myself so I can answer.

:rofl:

Okay okay, I'm done...snicker...no, really, this time I'm done.


Has the poster ever stated that they are afraid of atheism and godless governments?

You tell me:


Here is the poster trying to define atheism as a religion so that he can say an atheistic government would be unconstitutional (this is AFTER we repeatedly explained to him that atheism means without religion)

Banning all references to religious figures, characters or personalities from the public square would be the establishment of atheism as the official government religion - which would be unconstitutional, IMHO.

Here is where you tell me that atheism is not a religion. I know, I know. Call it whatever you want - a set of beliefs or principles or a world-view or whatever. Whatever you call it, it is YOUR POSITION ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES. You seem to want your position on religious issues to be enshrined into law as the official position of the government. That shouldn't be allowed.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55460


And here we see the poster agreeing that atheism means "without religion" but he still calls it a "set of principles" and claims that an atheistic government (without religion) would be " imposing atheism on other people"

By your own definition of "atheist"

you contend that the government should be atheist. Remember all those posts where you pointed out that the prefix "a-" means "without"? You contend that government should be without religion, hence, according to your own definition, the government should be atheist.

Well, unfortunately for you, most people in this republic (including an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party) disagree with you, and don't want your atheism to be established as the official position of the government. Atheism is YOUR set of principles by which to live. Can't you see that imposing atheism on other people in this democracy by making it the official policy of the government is just plain wrong?

and the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55679


Oh, here's a good one, the poster again admits that atheism means "without religion" but still throws a hissy fit at the thought of a government "without religion:

You are the one trying to get your viewpoint on religion enshrined as the official viewpoint of the government - not me. Your own definition of atheist is "without religion" and you have expressed your desire to have government be "without religion." You are advocating the establishment of atheism as the official government position, and that, my friend, is not OK. Government should not have an official position on matters of religious belief.

and the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55714



And lastly, another impassioned plea that our government not be established without religion:

Look, I don't want the government to be expressly promoting Christianity as the official religion of this country. Nor do I want atheism established as such. The government SHOULD be neutral as to matters of religious faith.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55958





Is he afraid of a godless government?


He's positively paranoid-delusional about it.

[Zebedeo]

155. I'm not afraid of either

I think atheism is erroneous doctrine, much as you think Christianity is erroneous doctrine. But I'm not afraid of atheism. Some people very close to me are atheist.

As for godless governments, I am also not afraid. As I have said before, I think that the U.S. government should be neutral in matters of religion or non-religion. It should not be in the business of either promoting or stamping out religion.

[beam me up scottie]

157. Boy, Zeb, you never learn, do you?

Remember when Green J told you we can do searches if we donate to DU?

He wasn't making it up.

Which is more than I can say about you.

Your words (remember, you agreed that atheism means "without religion"):

Banning all references to religious figures, characters or personalities from the public square would be the establishment of atheism as the official government religion - which would be unconstitutional, IMHO.

Here is where you tell me that atheism is not a religion. I know, I know. Call it whatever you want - a set of beliefs or principles or a world-view or whatever. Whatever you call it, it is YOUR POSITION ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES. You seem to want your position on religious issues to be enshrined into law as the official position of the government. That shouldn't be allowed.

By your own definition of "atheist"

you contend that the government should be atheist. Remember all those posts where you pointed out that the prefix "a-" means "without"? You contend that government should be without religion, hence, according to your own definition, the government should be atheist.

Well, unfortunately for you, most people in this republic (including an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party) disagree with you, and don't want your atheism to be established as the official position of the government. Atheism is YOUR set of principles by which to live. Can't you see that imposing atheism on other people in this democracy by making it the official policy of the government is just plain wrong?

You are the one trying to get your viewpoint on religion enshrined as the official viewpoint of the government - not me. Your own definition of atheist is "without religion" and you have expressed your desire to have government be "without religion." You are advocating the establishment of atheism as the official government position, and that, my friend, is not OK. Government should not have an official position on matters of religious belief.

Look, I don't want the government to be expressly promoting Christianity as the official religion of this country. Nor do I want atheism established as such. The government SHOULD be neutral as to matters of religious faith.

[Zebedeo]

158. Yeah, so?

I stand by all of those posts. That is what I am saying now, also. The government should neither be promoting religion nor stamping it out.

[Random_Australian]

162. Which is what an Atheistic government does.

Note: When said government was formed on anti-religious rather than areligious (which is what we atheists were arguing for) then anti-religious sentiment occurs.

When a government endorses a religion in some way, it's constitution, perhaps, that would be promoting religion.

Therefore only an Atheistic Government can have the ideal which you propose for good government.
Atheism is not a religion. In religion, you have an pre-organised set of common, arbitrary values, and in Atheism, we all have our own values, which are neither pre-organised nor arbitrary. Where these values overlap, we have common values.

Once more for the hard of hearing/understanding: Atheism is not a religion.
Athesim simply does't force it's beliefs on others, because in Atheism we all arrive at our values independently (yes, interdependantly, but in comparison to religion the effect is much the same).

Therefore it is suitable for "The government should neither be promoting religion nor stamping it out".

So there.

[beam me up scottie]

163. Zeb: "As for godless governments, I am also not afraid."

Your own definition of atheist is "without religion" and you have expressed your desire to have government be "without religion." You are advocating the establishment of atheism as the official government position, and that, my friend, is not OK

To recap:

Atheism = without religion

Constitution = government without religion

Zeb = government without religion not ok

[WhollyHeretic]

159. Did I get a new nickname?

:shrug: :P

[beam me up scottie]

160. Sorry,

:blush:
I plead insanity, I mean, confusion!

Yeah, that's it!

So sorry, I fixed it.

[hunter]

164. Would it be wrong to buy a star for Zebedeo?

I mean DU would get the money, right?

:dilemma:

[beam me up scottie]

165. You'd have to teach him how to leave this forum first.

He seems to be lost.

[hunter]

166. Here's a place to jump out of R/T into the fire...

"Jesus Could Have Walked on Ice, Scientist Says"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=19315&mesg_id=19315

But watch out for the wolves in Science, they can be meaner than the wolves here.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

167. I thought they banned crap like that in the Science forum?

I guess not.

What?

Is there no end to how much they have to dumb everything down just to get Americans to fucking read something beside the Swimsuit Edition and Harlequin Romance novels?

:banghead:

I think I'll start posting articles from The Weekly World News in LBN and see how that goes.

[Zebedeo]

82. Well that was interesting

Your animation depicts the murder of a minister, with a musical score consisting of death-metal instrumentals and a raspy voice screaming "I'm not a slave to a God who doesn't exist."

Someone must have really been obsessing about how much they hate this "God who doesn't exist" in order to produce that animation, and to make it so heinous and violent. If He "doesn't exist," why bother?

Hmm?

[beam me up scottie]

86. The "god" you worship is much more heinous and violent than that graphic.

The animation depicts a fundie minister getting knocked over backwards by a light coming from someone who stands up.

Real violent, there, Zebby. :eyes:

Nice try to falsely depict free thinkers as obsessed and violent, though, but fundie tactics won't work on me.

Oh, and since you don't get out much, the music is Fight Song by Marilyn Manson.

Just in case you ever decide to broaden your exposure to non-biblical culture.;)

[Hoping4Change]

20. If one doesn't see god as having an enormous ego that needs to be

constantly massaged and placated, I don't see why we couldn't expect to love each other as equals. Why is it that God is seen as being so heavily invested in having humans regard themselves as unworthy?

edit <spelling>

[Zebedeo]

24. I submit that you have it backwards

God does not have an enormous ego that needs to be constantly massaged and placated. God will get along fine without any one of us.

Worship is important for US because it is the time that we recognize and honor something greater than we are. Humans are the egotistical ones, and worshipping helps us to get off our high horse, put aside our pride and self-importance, and become meek. And as we all know, the meek shall inherit the Earth.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Do I or don't I?

OK, I will. "As we all know"? Oh, yes, if it is in the bible, everyone is aware of it and it is true. When exactly will this inheritance happen. How many millennium has it been so far? And it appears that it is actually the arrogant assholes that are inheriting the earth. Even Nostradamus is closer on his time frames than this prediction.

[Zebedeo]

34. All things in due course

You are correct to note that the wicked seem to prosper in this world. However, a day will come when things are set right. Read all about it in the Book of Revelation.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I will actually respond as an English teacher

and not an atheist this time.

Revelation is so clearly a symbolic allegory that it isn't even funny. It reads like a poor imitation of James Joyce. I find it hard to believe that anyone would take that literally. It also has similarities to William S. Burroughs (a la Naked Lunch which was written when he was completely wacked out on junk) and I would not doubt that the author was trippin' when it was written.

Now as an atheist.

"a day will come when things are set right." It is thinking like that which lead Marx to the "opiate of the masses" comment. Oh, shitty people run the world right now, but don't worry about it, it will be better soon. God will fix it. Oh, soon. Have you read Animal Farm. That attitude is the crow and the talk of the happy mountain. In case you missed it, the crow was allowed to stick around because he stopped the masses from revolting against the oppression of the pigs. And in case you really missed it, the crow was religion.

[Zebedeo]

120. You can believe that the Book of Revelation

is an imitation of literary works that were written thousands of years later if you want. That's your beli- Uh, I mean that's your view, not mine.

[beam me up scottie]

121. Is English your first language?

Seriously.

Why would you think that this sentence:

It reads like a poor imitation of James Joyce

means

that the Book of Revelation
is an imitation of literary works that were written thousands of years later

?

[Goblinmonger]

135. You know what Zeb

I am now convinced that your main goal is just to contradict atheists. It has to be.

I am well aware of the time line in which Revelations, Joyce, and Burroughs were written (I put them in order in case you want to know if I REALLY know the order).

My point was this: the book of revelation is a lot like a semi-modern writer that wrote a lot of stuff where he deliberatly fucked around with the language to throw people off and make them think about things that could have multiple meanings, and like another modern writer who wrote a lot of his groundbreaking stuff while completely fucked up on drugs. I was not saying Revelations imitated those authors. I was saying the writer of Revelations was probably either 1. writing symbolic allegory like Joyce and/or 2. taking some REALLY good drugs while writing like Burroughs.

Sorry to go way over your head with stuff like that. I will be sure to dumb shit down for you a little bit more.

[nuxvomica]

13. It's said that if you want to make God laugh, make a plan

I suspect that if there is a God, he has a very refined sense of humor. Christian teaching says that God made us in his own likeness except that he didn't give humans omnipotence or omniscience, instead giving us free will, which was one of his better jokes. That along with our lack of omniscience gets us into trouble, especially when we take the whole concept of faith too seriously and think that it's the same as certitude.

[Hoping4Change]

52. I have not replied sooner to your post because I have been thinking about

the remark about how the concept of faith is taken too seriously. I think humour allows people (and dare we say god)to escape from taking anything to seriously,lending to every situation a sense of perspective. If god has a sense of humour, it would mean he could't be pinned down.

[nuxvomica]

77. As an omniscient being, God would have absolute perspective

And theoritically he would take nothing seriously. He would be able to "get" every joke, including the cartoon of the cat sitting at a desk greeting a coworker by saying "I was just enjoying your e-mail." How intelligent a designer would He be if after all these millenia of His creation he is just getting more and more pissed off at its results? I think if there is a God he is laughing all the time. I think nowadays especially he is doing this: :popcorn:

[Hoping4Change]

85. Great post. What strikes me is that many people might regard

your statement that god wouldn't take anything seriously as tantamount to saying that god doesn't care. I think people who have a well developed sense of humour would know that not taking anything seriously is not the same as not caring.

What has always struck me deeply is that 99% of people with a well developed sense of humour are deeply compassionate and accepting of human foibles which is why I am perplexed that god has never been described as having this characteristic.

[nuxvomica]

89. It's like when a child is frightened by something harmless

Such as a clown or an overly friendly puppy. One can be both deeply touched with compassion at the sight of the child crying and amused to the point of laughter at the same time. Humor only disappears when there is real danger because our own fear takes over. Since God has nothing to fear, He probably finds our most serious fears rather amusing but if He is, as they say, a loving God His compassion is endless at the same time.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Because the people that ascribe traits to God have no sense of humor

[Hoping4Change]

16. Why have these people been drawn to religion and why have these

people been so influential?

[EstimatedProphet]

29. Power

No sense of humor, get to define God and who is good/evil. It's all about power.

[Hoping4Change]

61. On one hand I wonder why people who had a sense

of humour didn't have some say in how god was protrayed. On the other hand I suppose when people were conceiving god in very difficult conditions, it must have seemed to them that god wasn't the friendly giant.

[Evoman]

105. The joke is on God

I feel bad for God. How could he ever laugh? What would be funny to him? Laughing at the universe he created would be like laughing at According to Jim.....the only people who laugh at that show are the two morons in the world who haven't seen Tool Time or any other stupid sitcom. When your god, everything is a cliche. You know the punchlne to every joke ever made. When you've seen people getting a ball or coconut to the testicles since time immemorial, its probably not funny anymore.

In fact, I feel pity for god. He may just be the most pathetic being in existant. I love animals and I love children. But I wouldn't want to live in a world were nothing is equal to me and everybody was subservient. I love my girlfriend because she is my equal. I love my friends because they are my equal. I love life BECAUSE there is so much to learn.

We may not be gods equals, as good ol' Zeb reminds us, but at least we have a purpose. God does not.

[Goblinmonger]

108. I'm sad

I was expecting another scene when I saw your message on the list :cry: Though I liked the According to Jim analogy.

[Evoman]

151. Just for you...here you go

This is the part of the play when Evoman finally meets god....


Scene

*Evoman and God are walking on a beach and the sun is setting*

Evoman: Wow, you really do leave footprints

God: Yeah, so?

Evoman: Well ya know..that poem and everything...

God: Yeah, that shit. Man. I don't know why my followers keep writing that crap. Brimstone, lake of fire...do I look like the kinda being who carries people across a beach? Me damn!

Evoman: Dude, calm down. Here let me tell you a joke....

God: Yeah, that is a funny joke.

Evoman: No wait...I haven't told it yet. Can you please shut off your omniscience for a second.

God: Oh..right. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

Evoman: Why did the chicken cross the roa...

God: BECAUSE I WHO AM I AM COMMANDED IT!

Evoman: No wait...thats not...*sigh*

God: Fine, fine...tell me another one.

Evoman: Fuck it. You have no sense of humour.

God: I beg to differ. Have you seen the latest episode of According to Jim...I laughed for days.

Evoman: I rest my case

*End Scene*

[believerinchrist]

118. First, did you know that God gave dominion over the earth

to the human race (Genesis 1:28)--He created the human race to rule which sounds a lot like humans being somewhat equal to God. Because of the deception that the force of evil (symbolized by the serpent) used to con Adam and Eve, human beings have been caught in the middle of the battle between good and evil and have not realized their authority. So many people--both Christian and non-Christian--don't understand that it's not just about God and humans; there is a third player in the mix and the force of that player brings tremendous destruction to this earth.

You know, when my children were young, I warned and disciplined (as in teaching, not punishing) them whenever I sensed they were in danger. And, you better believe I could be vengeful, wrathful, and jealous when the safety of my children was at stake. God's wrath and vengeance is directed toward the force of evil--the only time humans experienced any of them was when they followed the forces of evil to places they should not have been.

While the human race was young (before we even began to understand much about our physical world), God's "rules" were to keep the human race from being obliterated. Just as a two year old doesn't understand the ramifications of running out into the street, early on humans had no concept of the source of evil. Today, we know so much more about our physical world; do we know that much more about the sources of good and evil? If we want to be equal with God, we need to get on the stick and find the good and learn how to use that good to benefit the human race. God's not holding us back--we're holding ourselves back!

I've been "walking" with God for many years and laughter has played a big part in our relationship. Of course, tears have, too. I can't prove God to anyone because faith is individual and comes from the heart. I've found God to be faithful to me--that's my "proof."

[Zebedeo]

152. Good post

:)

[greyl]

171. In your opinion, when was the human race "young" ? nt

[believerinchrist]

175. When people began to write things down...

before that who knows what people knew or understood.

[greyl]

176. Could you clarify that for me?

Would you include art as evidence of human existence? If so, using your standard, that would place humans at least 40,000 years into the past.
Also, do you discount paleontological evidence that the human species(Homo) is 3 million years old?

[hunter]

161. Jonah is a funny story...

Read it as if Mark Twain wrote it.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

168. Because humor makes it easier to relate to something.

You aren't supposed to be able to "relate" to the Creator.

Plus, who wants a friendly God when you can have a vengeful one who will throw you into hell at one slip? :eyes:

:D

[Hoping4Change]

179. Yes humour does make easier to relate. However as I read your post

I realize that in some ways its easier to deal with an a humourless divinity. Dealing with an angry god is like being in an abusive relationship. In an abusive relationship one soon learns to wak on eggshells and avoid behavious that trigger outbursts. By severly monitoring oneself the victim of the abuse has a sense of control.

[hedgehog]

169. What about when Sarah laughs?

Not to mention the platypus?


Besides, you're ignoring the fact that Jesus indulges repeatedly in the lowest form of humor : puns.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

170. Of course he had a sense of humor

He made you. And me.

[greyl]

172. You're looking for it in the wrong place. Zen & the Comic Spirit.

Zen Buddhism has definite aspects of appreciation for humor. Otherwise, like the religions you refer to, there are widespread taboos about associating comedy too closely with the sacred. It's sad, really. :)

I've got a book called "Zen and the Comic Spirit" by M. Conrad Hyers that you may want to try to find if you're interested in working out that taboo. It was first published in 1974, so good luck.

"Zen is the only religion or teaching that finds room for laughter" - D.T. Suzuki.

On how to sing
The frog school and the skylark school
Are arguing

-Shiki

[charlie]

173. Zen doesn't ascribe humor to God, though

If you're just looking for comedy in religion, there's also Nasrudin, who's a one-man Muslim Marx Bros.

[greyl]

174. Zen is funny like that. It doesn't recognize "God" in the OP sense.

Iow, it's more concerned with the 'problem' of existence than behaving in accord with the revealed rules of some "God".

I don't remember hearing about Nasrudin. I'll check into him. :)

[Hoping4Change]

180. Thanks for the book recommendation, my library has it so I

will definitely check it out.

The cartoon controversary really made me aware that for me humour has a deep spiritual significance, for instance it often subverts commonly held notions. I then realized that subversiveness is not valued by these three religions.

God is deadly earnest and drop dead earnestness is expected from believers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

177. The short answer is that it has.

I'm not a great expert on Jewish religious folk tails, but my understanding is that there are quite a lot of short, broadly comic anecdotes associated with God in Jewish tradition, many of them associated with the prophet Elijah, I think. Certainly, I *think* that most modern Jews would certainly envisage their God as having a sense of humour.

My impression of Christian tradition is that they've always tended to take their religion very seriously, and hence not to visualise God as telling jokes - it's a small step from a God who laughs to laughing at God. "The Jester" and "The Legend of Mirth" at http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/indexalphaverse.html might be worth a look, though.

I know very little about Islamic attitudes to God, but I *think* that they're similarly serious to Christian ones.

Most polytheistic religions, of course, contain all sorts of Gods with senses of humour.

I think the question of sense of humour isn't really appropriate to Buddhism - Buddha is regarded as being too abstracted from human thought to tell jokes, I think. I know even less about Buddhism than Islam, though.

[Hoping4Change]

178. Religious folk tales are still folk tales that exist outside the official

text. Dollars to donuts there is no description in the Torah of Yahweh having a sense of humour. The human attributes he is given is wrath, anger, mercy, love. That people create folk tales about God having a sense of humour is completely understandable because a god without humour cannot imo be a just god, at best he'd be just a nitpicking spiritually pinched cosmic egomaniac.