Strong Atheism, or Weak Atheism?

[Solaris]

Exactly.

Wadsy is using Pascal's Wager, which is loaded with blatant logical errors, which you blokes have astutely picked up on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Problems with Wadsy's belief include:

-ignoring the possibility of non-christian gods.
-assuming that a god must offer rewards and punishments.
-ignoring the costs inherent to worship.
-mistaking coersion for belief.

That's why Wadsy must be incorrect. Instead of being a 50 - 50 chance, the chance is actually more like 99.9999...-0.0000...1


(In terms of probablility 99.99999...% is more accurate than 100% because it identifies the chance that at some point down the infinite line, the string of nines could theorhetically end in an eight.

Solaris is correct, however, that in the real world that such a probability is functionally identical to 100% against.)

Good posting Mecha, I'm enjoying this thread,but actually 99.999... means the nines will continue for ever, there cannot be an eight on the end or anywhere in it.

 

[Stigmata]

Oh god, don't bring math into this, even if you ARE right

 

[W4d5Y]

Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

It's not my being inaccurate, it's the bible's inaccuracy. And well, as far as the bible remains credible, polytheism isn't a good thing either, as worshipping the wrong god will result in worshipping the devil. That's why god finnaly doesn't represent a physical force, rather a sense of....simple higher being, and I also don't think god is some sort of wand-weilding old man w/ beard, because you could say "Hey, the last time I saw a painting that represtented god his beard was longer!", so there will be juggernauts, resulting in failing to believe into the "one and only".

 

[Jintor]

If you follow the Bible's inaccuracy you are still being inaccurate.

 

[Absinthe]

and I also don't think god is some sort of wand-weilding old man w/ beard, because you could say "Hey, the last time I saw a painting that represtented god his beard was longer!",

Oh, how rich. It's peculiar how religious apologists like to say "Ha ha, oh you silly atheists! We don't believe in that god any more" as if it made their beliefs any less absurd.

 

[W4d5Y]

Ja, great. First you question the rationality of god's existence, and now you start questioning his ethics as well, assuming there was one, what already would contradict w/ your first assumption.

-ignoring the possibility of non-christian gods.

Something else, The point is if there was a higher force, call it what you want, I don't presume the church's association of god was absolutely correct, rather should you assume that you could always be wrong, no matter wether you don't believe or believe in something that might be a false faith.
So rather than trying to end up in a dead end, say pinning down an exact image of what interpretation of god I want to believe in, I am open to a more general aspect of god.
I do agree, the gods, and there are many, are still a human creation. But isn't it humane to offer them some faith?
Not that I wanted to hint I was polytheist, what I already countered above. But it's just part of the human nature, just like violence or sexual desire.

But in this case I kinda realize, every time you have the slightest idea of what exactely you're praying to, the prayer might not reach the right end, know I'm saying? God isn't at all supposed to have a physical image, that would be a juggernaut.
Instead, I try to concentrate about what I want to say while I pray, and just hope that somebody will hear that.

And I must insist, that the bible won't be a human creation, a trick of his own mind, it's just a bit too accurate IMO...

 

[Absinthe]

Ja, great. First you question the rationality of god's existence, and now you start questioning his ethics as well, assuming there was one, what already would contradict w/ your first assumption.

It's not a contradiction. It's pointing out the honest and valid truth that, assuming for one second that God's existence was credible, he'd be an egotistical, sadistic, cruel, wrathful being. He would be the #1 asshole according to most prominent religious texts. The point is that there is no good reason to worship such a god, for both practical and moral purposes.

Any rational person does admit that he can be wrong. That is acceptance of fallibility. But that should not come as a wholesale substitution of rational thought. There is the infinitely small possibility that I will fly up instead of falling down when I walk off a cliff, but in the absence of any evidence supporting such an idea, it's a possibility I put zero (if any) thought into. This is why we have the burden of proof.
Asking people to be open to the concept of god just because is an easy bullshit way of pretending there's some remote morsel of validity in your belief.

And I must insist, that the bible won't be a human creation, a trick of his own mind, it's just a bit too accurate IMO...

List these so-called "accuracies".

 

[Sulkdodds]

Something else, The point is if there was a higher force, call it what you want, I don't presume the church's association of god was absolutely correct, rather should you assume that you could always be wrong, no matter wether you don't believe or believe in something that might be a false faith.
So rather than trying to end up in a dead end, say pinning down an exact image of what interpretation of god I want to believe in, I am open to a more general aspect of god.

Pascal's Wager assumes a false dichtonomy: there is either a Christian God or no God at all.
Pascal's Wager assumes the primary demand of a Christian God is for people to worship a specific Christian God and practise specific Christian beliefs. Otherwise he would just say 'be good'.
The chances are not 50/50 but actually far more diverse as there is an almost infinite nature of possible Gods.

Bad plan.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That doesn't make any sense at all (although the writing is legible).

You believe in the bible as factual.
BUT
You only believe in god as a vague concept.

You base your belief on probability.
BUT
You seem to acknowledge that the chance of being correct is zero.

I've heard this before, a lot.

We call you on your christianity belief, so you water it down into this meaningless stuff about a vague force, without actually changing your belief in any way.
It's what everyone does when their stupid ideas are successfully challenged: they try to disguise the stupidity.



Also, although 9.9999... and 100 are functionally identical, I think the former better illustrates the concept of Almost Surely.

 

[Jintor]

But in this case I kinda realize, every time you have the slightest idea of what exactely you're praying to, the prayer might not reach the right end, know I'm saying? God isn't at all supposed to have a physical image, that would be a juggernaut.
Instead, I try to concentrate about what I want to say while I pray, and just hope that somebody will hear that.

And I must insist, that the bible won't be a human creation, a trick of his own mind, it's just a bit too accurate IMO...

2 Things:

I get what you're saying with the 'hoping someone's out there'. Natural evolutionary tendancy. Part of the brain. It's built in (No, I'm not implying creationism, it's a form of speech.)

Secondly, Bible is not accurate, kthxbai.

 

[tehsolace]

Yes, I'm sorry the correct answer we were looking for was Mormons... yes yes Mormons.

 

[W4d5Y]

You base your belief on probability.
BUT
You seem to acknowledge that the chance of being correct is zero.

I acknowledge that the chance of being correct is zero, but the point is the bible persuaded me of something. It's just not about rationality to me. It's simply this way: There is this book, I read it, I have my opinion, and my opinion is that the teachings of the bible are trustworthy.

You believe in the bible as factual.
BUT
You only believe in god as a vague concept.

Yes, I watered it down to this, because there is also a chance that you believe in the wrong god, that possibility, if god exists, is very high. And in fact, if you compare bible to Koran, you realize, that they both are great pieces of human culture, but the contradict each other up to some point.
THEREFORE on of them must be partly wrong. If one says 'love thy enemies' and the other says 'kill all infidels' then you don't really know whom to follow, right?
Therefore a probability is included, that the bible is either wrong or right. Well, I have to note that I haven't read the Koran and therefore can't assure there is in fact contradictions that can't be unified in a wider morale sense.

He would be the #1 asshole according to most prominent religious texts.

He would be the initial creat0r of the world as we know it according to popular religious texts, or at least surely would be concidering there was a god. And I guess that's a lot we'd owe him then, don't you think? I mean, old testament is all about the discovery of "god", the ridiculement of juggernauts and the punishment of those who believe in them/ the wrong gods. (You guys aren't members of any other religion/confession, so you aren't really affected by the above so far, are you?)
The NEW testament was mainly about the spreading of our modern chrisitianity, say the story of christ, his preachings (which are quite cool, just read some of them, they are quite cleverly formulated!) and the proclaiming a forgiving god, and Jesus' mission to 1.) let himself be crucified to deliver man from his sins, 2.) to gain wider acceptance of god.
The latter is in fact quite interesting, because Jesus was definately dedicated to convincing the poor hopeless people of the new faith, because they were more simple to persuade.
So, first we had witnessed the wrath of god, his punishment and rewarding, but now we discover the sense of forgivingness, which is made popular by his 'son', and is in fact humane and not an asshole thing to do.
I would even go so far to say man is way more evil than god, because man is deceived by his own mind into aggression or even worse, envy. We fight wars out of need for resources. For oil. For power.
And all what god wanted was some more respect. So, I tolerate 'his decisions', if there is a force as explained in the bible, which makes those decisions. I've been told 'the paths of god are inexplicable' and I simply take that as an acceptable excuse.
Say, we can't really show physical evidence that would fit in our scientific universe, but if something as incomprehendable as god really existed, I don't think we could even then make a proper explanation, because it would be something to great for the human mind, or nature, the universe itself. IMO

 

[PvtRyan]

And I guess that's a lot we'd owe him then, don't you think?

Not really, if he had never created us, we would not have been able to care about it, now would we? We don't owe God anything. I don't love my parents because they created me, if they hadn't I wouldn't have been able to care about it, I love them because they've taken care of me. God utterly fails in that department, even if he exists I wouldn't ever consider 'worshipping' him.

It's just not about rationality to me. It's simply this way: There is this book, I read it, I have my opinion, and my opinion is that the teachings of the bible are trustworthy.

If only the world actually worked like that, would be a brilliantly simple world! Opinions are worthless, only the things they're based on have value and your opinion about the Bible being trustworthy has no basis and thus is worthless.

 

[W4d5Y]

That's sad. You pretend things go alright because they just do, but once shit happens, it's god, who fails at making the world a better place.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh my god, the amount of self-mutilation is horrific...

 

[Absinthe]

That's sad. You pretend things go alright because they just do, but once shit happens, it's god, who fails at making the world a better place.

WRONG

He doesn't blame god for bad things because he doesn't believe in god. He just pointed out that if he existed, he would have to be held accountable for all the shit in the world.

Look, we all know you fail at making sense. But don't project that fault onto others.

 

[W4d5Y]

if he existed, he would have to be held accountable for all the shit in the world.

Who's he? I thought we were talking about how you loath god, in case he existed, all the time by now, so no, I didn't say you hated him for anything only because you believed he didn't exist. So we first talked about the credibility of the existence of a higher being and THEN talking about why actually you reject religous thoughts.
Jebus, I don't think religion and science will EVER settle down, sheesh. Or, in this case, you stop persecuting my faith. (No not confession, I don't think such crap is legal)

Oh, just carry on w/ logical fallacy and such. I guess I pretty much PHAIL at everything I can think of.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, so I want to point out that you think god was the one to be blamed for everything if he existed.

Pascal's Wager assumes a false dichtonomy: there is either a Christian God or no God at all.

Erm, maybe that's how you interprete Pascal's Wager, but I can't recall the bible says 'Become a catholic, spend some money on the roman church, believe in christianity or f*ck off', so what exactely, if you can tell me, would you define as a christian god?
No, I am not a polytheist. But there is in fact several gods, all of them are made up in the human mind, and the image of god varies from mind to mind. Some believe he was a bearded figure, I believe he has no physical form whatsoever, because that's what the bible says, and this would make sense and seems pretty logic. (oops, of course religion and logic except each other. Not.)

 

[Stigmata]

Oh, just carry on w/ logical fallacy and such. I guess I pretty much PHAIL at everything I can think of.

No offense, but so far, that's the case.

yeah, while we're at it, so I want to point out that you think god was the one to be blamed for everything if he existed.

I think you're having a little trouble detecting whether or not someone is talking in the hypothetical. Because that's exactly what he was saying.

 

[KagePrototype]

I can't follow this thread at all. It's like watching a litter of dizzy kittens trying to stand up straight in a washing machine.

 

[PvtRyan]

Oh yeah, while we're at it, so I want to point out that you think god was the one to be blamed for everything if he existed.

For the same reason we hold someone who puts two cocks in a ring for a cockfight accountable for the carnage that follows. God knew we would fuck it up, he knew that before he created us. Yet he did anyway and stood by and watched as the shit unfolded.

For what reason by the way? What was God's motive for creating us? Who was he trying to impress? Can a perfect being even have a motive? Well: no, perfect beings have no desires or wishes. In fact, a perfect being would be perfectly content with the non-existance of the universe and would never have created it. There you have it, I've disproven God. Well, the omniscient and omnipotent one at least, there's still a logical possibility for a fallible God. But there's no infallible God, that is certain.

 

[W4d5Y]

Maybe they do. What are our motives, for example? Obviously god has made failures...You know, they say 'he saw it was good.' They wouldn't have written that down if they tried to explain that he had known what it was gonna look like before he even did it. Therefore, that is not, what the bible offers.
If he was perfectly perfect, he would be able to make our lives the greatest things we can get. But I don't think being perfectly happy is the only way to be happy. People in Calcuta are very poor, and live at the edge of exitence. Nevertheless, they are among the happiest people in the world. So why would they suddenly have to be blessed with millions of dollars?
And if you could chose, would have wanted not to exist?
It really startles me sometimes, how good actually our life can be. When I was little, I once saw a guy of 17 years in a wheelchair, and I thought to myself, why exactly it had to be HIM. Why not ME? Is there any logic? How big is the possibility that I would have ended up in a wheelchair, being disabled? What are the chances? There's people who don't have a proper anus, and that's quite horrible, I can tell you.
Now, does anybody of you not have an anus? Of course that sounds stupid, it's an abstract question, the chances are so small that you'd actually suffer from such kind of disfunction, but imagine, if you did. It would be awful, you will have to spend years getting used to it. But hey, actually you do have one! Now, anybody who doesn't will pretty much envy you, I guess. He'd think 'You lucky bastard.' and you'd reply 'a proper anus is the most common thing in the world, there's nothing special to it.' he says 'That's what you think.'
Well, I guess you can really be happy about stuff that doesn't affect you. Although you never had to endure what-have-you misery
to be happy about once it was over, you can still be happy you never actually did suffer from any physical misery, right?
And I think this is what makes our lives at least to some point worth living, and I wouldn't wanna give my life up, only because I've got god-complexes and else.

 

[Jintor]

So you're happy. What's god got to do with it?

 

[Stigmata]

Grammar.

 

[Jintor]

He's German.

 

[Stigmata]

Ahh. Never mind about that link then.

Logical fallacies.

 

[Jintor]

He's crazy.

 

[W4d5Y]

Huh? What's crazy about being happy?? And thankful? (for something that has absolutely no evidence of existing in your opinion)
Another point: I wish to be able to seek[/i] spiritual enlightment, maybe I haven't found it yet. Maybe I won't find it because there is none. Or at least nothing in the direction into which I have invested my research for my whole life. But you can't deny my right to find the truth.

For example, I sometimes believe in aliens, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think Area 51 was disguised as a air-force research facility to hide the fact that they've got ufos there, sometimes I think they hint there was ufos, so people won't be concerned by the real projects going on there (U2, F-117, B2 and all those formerly top-secret projects) and therefore more secrecy is granted to those who do the development of those planes.
The point is, I don't have a properly fixed opinion, it varies, as much as evidence varies. I keep digging into the given information, not to build my opinion but to find the truth. And that's the same I do with god. But you guys wouldn't spend a minute about cutting the prejudices against religious people and religion itself.
The chain of accusing never seems to end, first you claim "You believe in something without scientific evidence, therefore you are blindly following popular opinions and therefore are stupid. Still, if god actually existed, what we already have prooven to be wrong, you'd be a coward because you fear him and therefore assume his teachings."
I can't really detect any general thread of thinking or any links betweem these two points you have posed.
It's simply about letting religion look bad/uninteligent/ethically questionable/what so ever.
If you can actually proove there is no god, I will have to abandon my faith or devotion, call it what you will, and start all over. IF YOU DO NOT, DON'T EXPECT ME TO WASTE A MINUTE ACTUALLY LISTENING TO YOUR ADVICES OF ABANDONING MY FAITH. >:O

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Strong reaction to things that don't exist is a pretty good definition of crazy.

You cannot find truth by being willfully ignorant of falsehood.
How do you tell true from false if you're constantly confusing the two?

In a reasonable debate, or in any logical discussion, the burden of proof rests on you. Do you understand?
If you refuse to participate in reasonable debate, then I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to stop posting spam.
This is a discussion forum, not a monologue for indecisiveness.

You had better begin wasting a minute actually listening to others' advices.

 

[W4d5Y]

I've been trying to justify myself, why I do all this stuff. I'm not in the postition of veryfying god as a credible subject, I orginally started here because I intended to confess I actually find the kind of stuff you try to destroy in order to bring more reasonable thoughts to the human society credible.
Or at least you won't tolerate my way of thinking, because I endanger intelligence within the human mind by bringing in lower perceptions.
Well, if you actually think like that, you'd have to abandon sex as well, because it is a lower brain function. But you won't abandon it because you don't want to withdraw pure joy, or buttsecks, from your life, right?
Secondly, I wouldn't clear out religion because it's part of human society since ages. Okay, there's a little tribe in southern America who don't have ever had any sort of religion, but they lack other cultural elements like proper speach, music or art as well.
Anyway, I have pointed out, that you don't have actually brought evidence of nonexistence of god. You only quoted from wikipedia why christianity was impossible. And we were only talking about the sense of religion in a fictional sense, imagining god prooved to exist.
But we were talking about wether god is to be believed as a real thing, and not about wether believing in god is ethically acceptable.

 

[Jintor]

I've been trying to justify myself, why I do all this stuff. I'm not in the postition of veryfying god as a credible subject, I orginally started here because I intended to confess I actually find the kind of stuff you try to destroy in order to bring more reasonable thoughts to the human society credible.
Or at least you won't tolerate my way of thinking, because I endanger intelligence within the human mind by bringing in lower perceptions.
Well, if you actually think like that, you'd have to abandon sex as well, because it is a lower brain function. But you won't abandon it because you don't want to withdraw pure joy, or buttsecks, from your life, right?

Not because it's a lower brain function. Because it gives no evolutionary advantage to humanity as a whole and is fact more or less an evolutionary time-bomb.

Secondly, I wouldn't clear out religion because it's part of human society since ages. Okay, there's a little tribe in southern America who don't have ever had any sort of religion, but they lack other cultural elements like proper speach, music or art as well.

...and?

Anyway, I have pointed out, that you don't have actually brought evidence of nonexistence of god. You only quoted from wikipedia why christianity was impossible. And we were only talking about the sense of religion in a fictional sense, imagining god prooved to exist.
But we were talking about wether god is to be believed as a real thing, and not about wether believing in god is ethically acceptable.

Believe in wtf you want. And you don't provide evidence of nonexistance - you provide evidence of existence. IT'S CALLED BURDEN OF PROOF. IT'S ON YOU. And what do you mean, we were only talking about the sense of religion in a fictional sense, imagining god proved to exist? What? Religion is fictional? God's existance is fictional? Proof of god's existance is fictional?

I don't understand what you're saying. You'll have more luck arguing with German Aethiests than with us - we simply cannot understand you.

 

[99.vikram]

I think what Wadsy is trying to say is that he is an agnostic, ie, he has not personally experienced God yet, but for the time being he does not see any logical fallacy in believing in God.

NOTE: I do not share this opinion at all.

 

[Jintor]

Oh. I was of the impression that he was catholic/christian arguing against us insane aethiests. :O

 

[DaMaN]

This may be a little off topic, but it applies to religion, and is an excellent way to see why people become atheists. It's a letter to Dr. Laura, who is a conservative, bible-toting radio show host in the U.S., and the person writing it is Jim. (I think he's trying to be sarcastic )

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

 

[CptStern]

jim is pseudonym for "Mechagodzilla"




you heard it here first

 

[W4d5Y]

No, you're far away from insane, I just reject the idea of abandoning religion once and for all, it's just too risky in my sense.
If religion makes people dumb, then it's rather the people themselves who are dumb enough to be misled by radical sermons.
So it's not religion itself that is to be blamed.
And I'm not really a gnostic, I rather appreciate the idea of god, I just wanted to express that I'll have to bow in front of rationalism.
And why must I alone bear the burdon of proof?
You might as well bring some counterarguments against the existence of god.
You say yourself that I'm not sane enough to bare senseful arguments.
So why don't you bring some instead?

 

[PvtRyan]

And why must I alone bear the burdon of proof?

Because you make the claim? I can't fathom how people could possibly miss that. If I claim I got a million dollars, is it not up to me to prove that I really do have a million dollars?

You might as well bring some counterarguments against the existence of god.

That's just stupid.

But besides the stupidity, I've already proven a perfect God cannot logically exist. However, the non-existance of any fallible gods cannot be proven.

 

[99.vikram]

My one argument against God:

Why?? Why would an omnipotent being devote so much energy to create a universe? What is God's motivation to create this cage for us? Especially since he knows everything that will happen before it happens.

He just seems a bit psychotic to me. But then again, any omniscient creature would probably go mad over time...

 

[Jintor]

Why isn't an arguement.

The lack of a motive, for example, would be an arguement. But since God, if he exists according to the Good Book, is something that us mere mortals are incapable of comphrehending, his divine motive could be... well, uncomphrehensible. And it would be our fault.

Hilareous.

 

[Jintor]

No, you're far away from insane, I just reject the idea of abandoning religion once and for all, it's just too risky in my sense.

Well, yeah, it is risky - IF GOD SUDDENLY MANIFESTS HIMSELF AND STRIKES DOWN ALL NON-BELIEVERS.

Hell, no matter what religion you believe in they all contradict one another so in someone's mythology you're going to burn forever.

If religion makes people dumb, then it's rather the people themselves who are dumb enough to be misled by radical sermons.
So it's not religion itself that is to be blamed.

People are stupid, yes.

And why must I alone bear the burdon of proof?
You might as well bring some counterarguments against the existence of god.
You say yourself that I'm not sane enough to bare senseful arguments.
So why don't you bring some instead?

Let me show you this, one last time: PROOVE TO ME, RIGHT NOW, A SMALL INVISIBLE TEACUP IS NOT IN ORBIT AROUND MARS.

Prooving the nonexistance of an entity that is not detectable by human means is really, really, quite impossible, so logic must go the other way.

And don't take that as proof that God exists, because then all Gods exist, and everything ****s up.

/EDIT WHOLY SHIT, FIRST DOUBLEPOST EVA. Woah. I didn't even notice.

 

[W4d5Y]

That's not what I said. I was trying to differ between the jugganauts and the 'only one, true god'. Many god's exist within the mind of man. For example...If you really love money, it will be your personal god. But
unlike the original, money won't achieve anything great, such as letting life spread. In fact, money is a pretty bad thing, don't you think?

So, if you think god lacks motivations, you would agree that life is not
relevant to this universe and is compromisable.
I said, do you think our lives weren't something we should be thankful for? The *good book* says we should thank god just the way we thank our biological parents or VALVe for making games.
And I wished to point out that I'm satisfied with my life and wouldn't want to give it up. Basically, I wouldn't have wanted not to be created in the first place, you know.

Therefore, motivation is given, and therefore doesn't render god an entity that only exists because of senselessness.
Of course, an entity of senselessness would also be possible, but I simply wouldn't claim god made the universe out of no reason or sense.