The thread where you post your mildly unpopular opinions

[terraform45]

Chicken as a dinner is overrated and has a bland taste to it

 

[Nameless One]

Chicken as a dinner is overrated and has a bland taste to it

You're a betrayal to the Irish community.

 

[MIU]

the average kiwi foid is a fuck-up.

Yeah but

 

[Sneaky lurker]

But actual conscious intelligent gods dont exist

How do you know that? How could you possibly know that?

Labubu looks cool. The design is good

 

[funwithshemales69]

How do you know that? How could you possibly know that?

Because if that's the case then we have to accept simulation theory and the fact that we have not found cracks in the universe which could prove it means it's probably not true. Besides, the invention of God and religion in the first place was to explain the unexplainable, quite literally. Later on it became a method to combine morality and culture, both of which are downstream from biology and geography to a large degree. That is why there are glaring differences between european asian and african/south american religions and culture despite superficial similarities. Even today if you go to Africa latam or some other relatively insular third world place, people still associate weather and natural phenomena with religion. And there's the even more complex aspect of religion being molded by the people who adopted it (Christianity became much more than "Judaism for gentiles" when the Europeans got ahold of it, also the general idea that God looks or is "human" when "he" could easily be a highly conscious shoggoth creature) but this is not the thread for that.

 

[Sneaky lurker]

Because if that's the case then we have to accept simulation theory and the fact that we have not found cracks in the universe which could prove it means it's probably not true.

????
What are you talking about blud.

Besides, the invention of God and religion in the first place was to explain the unexplainable, quite literally.

That's like how tribal people and pagans used religion.
How does primitive people using mythology and religion to explain nature disprove the existence of a god?
This is a very reddit atheist way of looking at the question of wether or not God exists. It assumes there is no divine being to begin with and then you need to find a justification for why humans are religious in the first place.

 

[funwithshemales69]

What are you talking about blud.

Simulation theory is the "we live in a simulation" thought experiment. It implies that there is a person or people who created the simulation. It could just as easily refer to organic life, not necessarily synthetic or computational, like a terrarium with insects or something. To those insects, the terrarium owner is god.

How does primitive people using mythology and religion to explain nature disprove the existence of a god?

Because it implies a materialistic origin to the concept of religion. And if religion has a materialistic provable origin point which has the potential to be recreated in a lab then the metaphysical concepts involved are most likely not completely true. There is a small chance that all religions are different observations of the same thing, "God", but that is also very likely not true cause again religions, cultures, conceptions and their values vary directly based on biology and geography.

This is a very reddit atheist way of looking at the question of wether or not God exists. It assumes there is no divine being to begin with and then you need to find a justification of why humans are religious in the first place.

If you start out with the assumption that there is a divine being, then you have even less answers and proofs to validate that. If there is a god, how involved is he in things, 10%? 20? Completely hands off? 100% upto and including terrorist actions disease plague etc etc? Is the universe completely self functional and God fucked off as soon as he created it? Does this God have human interests in mind? Was the entirety of creation a conscious process? Was there any point in history when god contacted humans or animals? Was life on earth created by God or was it a product of the universes self functionality? There are endless questions like this and there can never be an objective answer to any of them. The subjective answers would vary based on culture and religion which are again, based on biology and geography, which are downstream from materialism. As to why humans are religious, it's probably due to ascribing meaning to the non material since we are the first species to even have a conception of it. And as humans progress, more of the non material becomes material, making religion grow smaller and smaller, until it only covers metaphysics and some parts of morality. (Also if you notice, all the questions from earlier are based on the human perspective of God, which itself cannot be proven cause God was made to resemble humans)

 

[Sneaky lurker]

Simulation theory is the "we live in a simulation" thought experiment. It implies that there is a person or people who created the simulation. It could just as easily refer to organic life, not necessarily synthetic or computational, like a terrarium with insects or something. To those insects, the terrarium owner is god.

Is that god divine in any way or are you suggesting something like aliens? Why do you assume there would be "cracks" in a simulation made by a divine being? It assumes the being is limited or prone to error in some way, and while a significantly more powerful/advanced being may be considered a god to some, it is not capital G God. That concept emplies a perfect being.

If you start out with the assumption that there is a divine being, then you have even less answers and proofs to validate that.

I think there is a very simple and logical argument for God: we exist. If there was no creator why would anything exist at all? Believing in a universe that randomly came to be with no cause or purpose is pointless and illogical in my opinion.

If there is a god, how involved is he in things, 10%? 20? Completely hands off? 100% upto and including terrorist actions disease plague etc etc?

If you are interested in knowing how much God "controls" reality actual theologians probably have better answers than I could produce, but I believe humans have free will, therefore God does not control people to do anything.

Is the universe completely self functional and God fucked off as soon as he created it?

Why would he create the universe and fuck off? Assuming we are talking about the christian God he is the most perfect thing there could be; the most powerful, knowing, etc. And also he lives outside of time. So why would he make the universe and then lose interest in it? If he wouldn't be interested in it anymore he probably wouldn't have created anything to begin with, That is projecting human behavior onto an infinitely superior being.

Was the entirety of creation a conscious process?

Strange question. Do you have a specific god in mind? Idk some hindu dreaming god or something?

Was there any point in history when god contacted humans or animals? Was life on earth created by God or was it a product of the universes self functionality?

If we are thinking about the christian God, we believe he created things for a purpose, and humanity is his most important creation, so it would make sense for him to contact us.

There are endless questions like this and there can never be an objective answer to any of them.

What do you consider an objective answer?

Because it implies a materialistic origin to the concept of religion. And if religion has a materialistic provable origin point which has the potential to be recreated in a lab then the metaphysical concepts involved are most likely not completely true.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. I don't see how a "materialistic" origin to religion proves or disproves the existence of a god. Even if that is the origin of religions, it still doesn't disprove the possibility of a god existing, and a real religion existing around it.

And as humans progress, more of the non material becomes material, making religion grow smaller and smaller, until it only covers metaphysics and some parts of morality. (Also if you notice, all the questions from earlier are based on the human perspective of God, which itself cannot be proven cause God was made to resemble humans)

How could there be any morality without a god? Without a superior being to say what is in fact good or bad, all discussions of morality are subjective, because they'd be mere human opinions.

 

[Wilson The Ball]

Asians aren't worthy of being called Honorary Aryans. Native Americans are

 

[gernig]

Asians aren't worthy of being called Honorary Aryans. Native Americans are

You've never seen a public bathroom on or near a Indian reservation

 

[Wilson The Ball]

You've never seen a public bathroom on or near a Indian reservation

You're right, I don't go around inspecting public bathrooms. Weirdo

 

[funwithshemales69]

Spoiler: Autistic sperging, read at your own risk

Is that god divine in any way or are you suggesting something like aliens? Why do you assume there would be "cracks" in a simulation made by a divine being? It assumes the being is limited or prone to error in some way, and while a significantly more powerful/advanced being may be considered a god to some, it is not capital G God. That concept emplies a perfect being.

What is divine anyways? Control over everything? Complete knowledge on everything? Perfection is not possible in the universe, that's a known fact. So saying God is a perfect being is another case of giving the non material impossibility a name called god, which is most certainly post hoc. Also if we go back to the terrarium example, if the insects consider you god and somehow there is a crack in it's glass wall, that's imperfection, if the insects could perceive it they would say you're not a perfect god. You can take that and apply it to everything in the known universe.

I think there is a very simple and logical argument for God: we exist. If there was no creator why would anything exist at all? Believing in a universe that randomly came to be with no cause or purpose is pointless and illogical in my opinion.

Sometimes a bottom up process is not indicative of a top down force acting for it to happen. Life on earth, at least from what we know, is a bottom up process. The existence of humanity does not indicate anything top down, which is god, especially cause we don't have evidence for it.

If you are interested in knowing how much God "controls" reality actual theologians probably have better answers than I could produce, but I believe humans have free will, therefore God does not control people to do anything.

We think we have free will cause we cannot perceive anything beyond free will. What if human behaviour is some ancestral collective hive mind behind which is something akin to God? There can be many degrees to which this can be answered which varies from religion to religion.

Why would he create the universe and fuck off? Assuming we are talking about the christian God he is the most perfect thing there could be; the most powerful, knowing, etc. And also he lives outside of time. So why would he make the universe and then lose interest in it? If he wouldn't be interested in it anymore he probably wouldn't have created anything to begin with, That is projecting human behavior onto an infinitely superior being.

Why not? A lot of religions already project human behaviour onto god, which is something I already said when I said religion is a synthetic creation of biology and geography. It applies for Christianity as well, in which god adheres to a lot of Jewish customs like ritual sacrifice and has human traits like suffering. And out of timespace could very just easily be a non material factor which could become material in the future. It's like a robot, if you created one and it started functioning on its own, you probably would recede from it and let it do its own thing. A non interventionist god let's say.

Strange question. Do you have a specific god in mind? Idk some hindu dreaming god or something?

Not necessarily but aztecs and aboriginals also believe that creation was not a conscious or intentional process, it just so happened cause their so called gods did something off hand and random which led to creation. Rainbow snake in the case of aboriginals and I think quetzocoatl in the case of aztecs. It's also very similar to Christianity cause the aboriginals couldn't perceive anything outside of Australia and their myths/gods operated soleley within it. Likewise the old and new testaments do not describe anything outside of the middle East, egypt and possibly west india as the domain of God, treating that as the known world.

If we are thinking about the christian God, we believe he created things for a purpose, and humanity is his most important creation, so it would make sense for him to contact us.

Humanity itself came out of evolution and was not created by God. You could argue that the universe was created with the intention for humans to evolve out of apes but that is flimsy and has no evidence. Also there are no instances of God contacting human beings which is verifiable. Abrahamism has many instances if we want to go there but those are just accounts which could have material explanations for them. And it's not like the case of recent history where there is a ton of evidence for it and they are more socio-political phenomena than scientific ones like the contact of God. Water to wine and miracles are scientific processes which means they need proof ie verifiability ie repeatability/logic.

What do you consider an objective answer?

I don't know. The closest I suspect would be "here's this scientific phenomena which is scientific but unpredictable and we have no evidence for. It sorta indicates the existence of a conscious force dictating reality". That was there in spades before the 19th century but with the 19th century, like I said a lot of the non material became material, verifiable and observable, which eroded this conception into basically nothing. It is interesting that a lot of scientists, especially physicists and chemists were extremely religious and saw their efforts as a way to explain gods actions. Case with lavosier priestly somewhat newton and copernicus, couple Jews as well.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. I don't see how a "materialistic" origin to religion proves or disproves the existence of a god. Even if that is the origin of religions, it still doesn't disprove the possibility of a god existing, and a real religion existing around it.

It's again a bottom up top down thing. Materialistic means bottom up meaning it probably can be recreated in a lab. Maybe not one to one but similar enough. Take Christianity for example, Christianity is a culmination of almost 2000 years of middle eastern religious evolution which eventually got passed on to Europeans. Early Christianity evolved out of messianic Judaism which came out of hellenistic Judaism (sort of) which came out of first temple Judaism which came out of mesopotamian religions which came out of bronze age element worship, specifically worship of sun and thunder (which is where the word Yahweh comes from). These are specific to the conditions of the fertile crescent and they came out of those same conditions, later on shaped by socio political forces like the Romans and hellenism. This evolution wouldn't have happened if it somehow described a unitary god figure. In fact all religions in the world can trace their roots to sun worship, including Christianity which used things like saturnalia and sun worship to spread among romans. Constantine I did not actually convert to Christianity but became more amicable to it after a supposed apollonian flash of light from the sun, revealing the christogram, which convinced him that Christianity was linked to Apollo. The sun is not a god, it is just a source of energy which aided the progress of human civilization, hence benevolent. Asian religions are different and that's due to their environment biology and cultural forces. Could sperg a lot on that as well but basics is stuff like animism, coexistence with nature and cycles of birth and death come from living in tropical jungles and grasslands instead of the desert (plus biology of the asian racial group and how they interpreted things). It is also interesting to note here that the phenomenon of religious syncretism and cross pollination exist, like with the hellenic Buddhists of Afghanistan, greeks who converted to Buddhism, or shinto buddhism or some sects of Christianity as well. Another thing to note is, Christianity itself presents itself as complete and self contained, despite having a ton of non canonical texts which alter some narratives, like the gospels of Judas and Thomas. They were decanonized in the 4th and 5th centuries (I think) and it was refined to produce one unified narrativized vision of God, not as an observation of truth which the non canonical texts might as well could be.

How could there be any morality without a god? Without a superior being to say what is in fact good or bad, all discussions of morality are subjective, because they'd be mere human opinions.

This is an appeal to authority. It's to say humans require an authority, god, to impose morality on them. It might seem true but in reality, morality arose out of common judgements, observations and conclusions by intelligent men, who then wove that into religion to ensure it is accepted by the masses. I'll take an example, "thou shall not kill", why? The evolutionary reason is since humans were not the dominant species back then, killing one another would thin the herd, reduce chances of survival as a group. The social reason is a precedent for killing would create disorder, as people would kill as much they want to left right and center. There are many more small reasons but you get the idea. But are the masses rational enough to comprehend this? Most likely no, the "wise men" of the time thought so and hence they said god said so. If that's the case why killing an enemy is okay, jesus says sell your clothes to buy a sword? That again comes down to self preservation, if you want to maintain cohesion and social stability in tribal society, you have to kill the enemy. You can do this for almost all of religious morality, there is some evolutionary social or psychological reason why it's the case. That's why abstinence is a thing, how people could comprehend the concept of oxytocin serotonin addiction and the like back 3000 years ago I don't know. There are some instances where I can't really understand why it's a thing, "there shall be no graven images" doesn't sound logical and "there shall be no gods before me" also doesn't (although it's most likely to excuse conquering and assimilating others during the bronze age). Also morality evolves and religion evolves with it. Vatican ii is a very good example, even if controversial, it basically decreed all christians to stop antisemitism racism and other things. Why were those things part of Christianity? Cause Christianity was a minority at its founding and they had reason to fear Jews and others, given how the pharisees and other sects were towards them.

All that said, I'm not saying religion is a complete sham or lie or whatever. It is still useful in the 21st century and beyond, for many reasons. But people should be conscious of what they're getting into. And I subscribe to things like carlyles great man theory and Nietzsche, which sorta explains why religion is the way it is. Certainly a great and intelligent institution but one which is built on shaky foundations. I'm sorry if this is too reddit atheist for you.

 

[Sneaky lurker]

For some reason I cannot directly quote your posts, so I'll just have to copypaste

Perfection is not possible in the universe, that's a known fact.

???
Why do you think that God would be IN the universe?

Sometimes a bottom up process is not indicative of a top down force acting for it to happen. Life on earth, at least from what we know, is a bottom up process. The existence of humanity does not indicate anything top down, which is god, especially cause we don't have evidence for it.

I was talking about existence in general, the universe, not humanity. How do you build from nothing?

Humanity itself came out of evolution and was not created by God.

How do you know that? That is kind of a theme here. Do you assume just because something can be explained naturally/scientifically it cannot have a supernatural cause behind it?

hellenic Buddhists of Afghanistan

This is an appeal to authority. It's to say humans require an authority, god, to impose morality on them.

Not really. The point I'm making is that moral claims are empty and subjective if there is not something greater than human opinions grounding them. If the universe didn't have a god, why would there be any morality? If things arose from nothing for no reason at all, how could there be such a thing as good and evil? It would all just be random and devoid of meaning. If the universe has a god, who else would be fit to define what is good (theologically)?

And I subscribe to things like carlyles great man theory and Nietzsche

Nietzsche made a good analysis of how humans behave as animals, as slave and master morality does accurately describe how human groups behave (anti-colonialism is peak slave morality), but I think he was retarded, if I recall he made a statement somewhere that said he didn't believe in objective truth.

I'm not sure if there is any middle ground to be achieved here. We appear to have completely different ways of looking at those questions, and different standards of what constitutes acceptable reasoning.

 

[ShittlerNiggler]

Cocaine is less worse than smoking

 

[Nick Gars]

Native Americans are

You mean the literal nigger savages we rightfully conquered and took the land of? That were having non-stop tribal conflicts and dragging everyone else into it? That had no technology to speak of, because they're barbaric dirt niggers no diffrent than any other barbaric dirt nigger before them?

Keep sippin' that fire-water, homie. The whole "noble savages" thing is a meme, my dude, not something you should take seriously. A bunch of chimps overtaken by the progress of humanity that they chose not to take part in and actively fight against, not exactly something to cry about.

 

[Wilson The Ball]

You mean the literal nigger savages we rightfully conquered and took the land of? That were having non-stop tribal conflicts and dragging everyone else into it? That had no technology to speak of, because they're barbaric dirt niggers no diffrent than any other barbaric dirt nigger before them?

Keep sippin' that fire-water, homie. The whole "noble savages" thing is a meme, my dude, not something you should take seriously. A bunch of chimps overtaken by the progress of humanity that they chose not to take part in and actively fight against, not exactly something to cry about.

I don't prescribe to the Native Utopia bullshit, but thanks for all that projection. Their history is much more interesting than any unga bunga nigger shit in Africa or the seventeenth time China or Japan has a civil war for the NEW TOTALLY REAL DIVINE EMPEROR

Like these niggas didn't have the wheel or cows and still managed to do shit like Machu Pichu or Tenochtitlan. Sacrificing niggas to dark gods, shit is straight out of an HP Lovecraft novel. Plus they fought until they couldn't no more, so I can respect that

 

[Pargon]

Fat women are hot. Yes, this is my hill. Yes, I will die on it.

 

[ChiliChumper]

Fat women are hot. Yes, this is my hill. Yes, I will die on it.

While its not my cup of tea, I'll always argue that there is a difference between a large woman and a "Fat Woman."

Fat is a state of mind. Its a personality. A conscious choice of how you conduct and take care of yourself.

You can be a large person and not be a foul-smelling gluttonous slob.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Writers, even for adults, should consciously and deliberately weave morality into their writing.

Amoral/morally neutral fiction is corrosive.

 

[Sean_Igger]

I don't understand manicures and pedicures. People spend a hundred dollars or more on these things and I'm appalled every time. How does clipping nails and maybe getting a hand and foot message cost that much?