Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-9801519-20130614044126/@comment-9801519-20130614161517

Sloshedtrain: It would appear you are an agnostic atheist in how you do not claim to know how the Universe came to be, but think arguing from ignorance (god did it) will only lead to fallacious conclusions. Atheism has been appealing to me at times, but I find observation of nature and the order in which the Universe operates to be sufficient to determine there is some sort of creative force.

Chao: Knowing everything about the Umiverse is an impossible feat that will never be accomplished. It is in our very nature to gather as much information as possible and piece it together. I mean no offense, but the term that best defines your feelings towards the subject is "willful ignorance." Then again, willful ignorance is better than arguing from ignorance.

Kill1mes: That sounds like Vacation Bible School. My parents used to sign me up for that each summer, and it was an generally enjoyable experience. The theological lessons they taught made little sense to me, but after retrojection, I assumed it was because I was too young to understand some of the complex things they were teaching me. Later on, I began to question some things in Christianity.

For example, why did our sins have to be paid for through the death of another? It is a barbaric concept that, not to use the No True Scotsman fallacy here, any reasonable person would be repulsed by.

Moreover, why is it that we are made to suffer eternal damnation because two people ate a piece of fruit conveniently placed in the middle of a garden by an omniscient god who knew it would occur? If god is all-knowing, then our actions are predetermined, which means free will is nothing more than an illusion. Our fates have already been decided, so making any effort to seek the truth in that particular religion is futile.

Of course, Christianity has some good teachings, too. Although philosophies like the Golden Rule have been around for millenniums, Jesus expounded on these; while the original golden rule says "don't do to others what you wouldn't have them do to you," Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is a subtle, yet important difference.

Rylee: Ah, but which god? It could be Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Odin, Questzalcoatl, Ra, Vishnu, Thor, Shiva, or any of the thousands of other gods that people have worshiped. By definition, anything that is supernatural is anything "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." This doesn't necessarily refer to a god. Furthermore, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Creator of the Universe would spend his time playing hide-and-seek and making his followers play jigsaw puzzles all day just to find him. Once again, I am not trying to be insulting. These are my genuine thoughts on the matter.

Flame: I don't see why a being who possesses power great enough to create an entire Universe and bind it together requires worship from people on a tiny speck. This is why I think deism is the more sensible alternative to theism. It posits that there is a Creator who is absent from this world, because it either chooses not to interfere in human affairs or it no longer exists as a conscious entity. Although it is impossible to distinguish between a deity that is absent and a deity that does nothing, I think that second option resolves a lot of the implications of a god. Therefore, I am a Pandeist.