Why do people argue about the existence of god on the forum?

You forgot the most likely reason. The people could actually be interested in the subject. Some people don't consider topics like God to be settled after volumes of material. I guess you have found the material that has settled the question once and for all for your extremely smart brain that knows what is right and what is wrong on this subject. For those of us you consider stupid, there might be some personal opinions we want to debate and discuss with others that don't come out of someone else's head. If only we could be as smart as you, and know what topics have already been settled. It would sure be nice to know what volumes of books are beyond doubt or question now. You have shown me that there is no need for further discusion on such an easy to prove one way or another subject like God.

Are you saying that we should just stop thinking for ourselves, and open up books written by other people to decide on what the truth about God is? Wouldn't it be better if people could freely express their beliefs about God without someone calling them stupid for doing so?

you misunderstood dark. the truth is no amount of material will settle anything. it is entirely a matter of faith either way and fundementally deluding yourself from a closed loop thinking with blinders on. nothing will ever come from these god threads except the dilution of taco rubio content.

God is not on the forum.

Taco rubio could produce voluminous argument on both sides of the God Discussion threads and thus use them as a vehicle to increase the Taco Rubio content concentration.

the hidden agenda revealed.... taco preservation!

The truth is that lots of great fun has come out of these god threads. The fact that the piss off uptight people is just gravy.

I have to disagree. We tend to look at it in the wrong timescale. People who are indoctrinated into religion from birth and then live in a bubble until adulthood aren't likely to ever be swayed. That said, the more doubt that gets expressed and discussed openly, the more difficult it is for people to maintain those bubbles. Over time religion has a harder time sticking. It's measured in generations, not single debates.

Culturally, most people still live their lives and structure their thoughts as if everyone around them was just like them. It's healthy (and vital for the future well-being of everyone) for people to be reminded that, in this day and age, that's no longer the case... and be reminded often. That's the way I look at it anyway.

I was brought over from the dark side (dark-ages side I should say) over the course of many years myself. I was always a lurker in exchanges such as those in the Off-Topic forum and they did have an effect on me, albeit it took years for those effects to manifest themselves. I love to recreate past shocking moments (typically associated with challenging religious taboos) now in the forums.

~Ulrika~

Ah ha ha ha ha ha

*momentarily thinks of what life would be like with just a lurking Ulrika*

*rubs hands together greedily then sneaks off to laboratory to think up new ways for Ulrika to "lurk"*

A dark night. A young couple sneaks off to a quiet dock house down by the pier for some privacy. Meanwhile Ulrika lurks just below the surface of the water. As their passion builds a tentacle rises out of the water... Screams fill the still night air as she strikes. There will be no survivors.

ROFLMAO

There you are, Juani. You and Jamie Bergman are batting on the same team. Doesn't that give you a warm feeling?

Actually, I don't agree. I don't think it *is* a matter of faith either way. The whole 'atheism is faith' argument is spurious.

I am sure I could find a schizophenic somewhere who believed he was Napoleon. His position would be based on faith. Mine, that he is mentally ill, would not be.

Not drawing a parallel between religious faith and mental illness here, but merely to show that disbelieving someone else's reality is not a matter of faith but observation.

Someone once likened religious faith to a room full of people, only some of whom could see the invisible ghost. To me, it is like a room full of a multitude of invisible ghosts, in which each person is claiming that *their* invisible ghost is the only real one.

PS: And the reason I still contribute to these threads is that after 9/11 I changed from an atheist into an atheist missionary.

Do you realize how stupid anyone professing belief in a big imaginary friend sounds to me? Bone-crushingly stupid. Neutron-star-dense stupid. So stupid it forms a black hole of stupidity from which no intelligence can escape.

So, when humanoid automatons being puppeted by the religion meme use "gawddidit" as their rote answer to anything, it's natural to at least point out that they're idiots. Pointing and laughing at idiots isn't mean to help the idiots, because idiots are not capable of learning and becoming sapient beings. It's meant for my own amusement and that of other sapient beings.

That's so amusing, though, that you thought the contempt being shown was "concern" or an attempt to convince the stupid. Ha!

Pecan-Tastic!

Ayup, the above post is exactly what I speak to when I get a little hot under the collar about the way some folks argue against religion.

It's not the type of answer Chip gives, or several others on the atheist side of things - it's THIS type of stuff you see above that gets my goat - and I am an atheist!

You don't need to attack people to argue religion vs. non-religion. I know some people of faith who are some of the most intelligent and therefore successful people I know.

This is the kind of accusatory bombast that starts wars you know.

i'm flattered by the comparison! jamie is SL's top economic mind!!!

it is undoubtedly faith. it is faith in empiricism and reason as the foundation for knowledge.

jauani: why do you believe in reason?
selador: empirical evidence shows it is realiable
jauani: why do you believe in empirical evidence?
selador: it's reasonable
jauani: kthxbai

Jauani, you seem to miss something with your original supposition and pole; Sharing our ideas and experiences is something that all humans do. Some may be passionate about subjects that you are not, but does that make them any less valid to discuss?

Ever come home to explain to your friends why you are so angry about the 'idiots' out on the road? Do you really think they care? Is it going to affect them in a profound way right now (or any time in the future)? Yet, we humans do just that.

Have you ever tried to explain something to someone with a photograph? It may get a main idea across, but it lacks so much. The whole idea that a 4D world could be explained with a 2D symbol is boggling.

I will go even further, I believe that the universe is 5D in its construction:

1. X
   
2. Y
   
3. Z
   
4. Time
   
5. Perspective
   

The fifth D is not made up of just a particular slice in time, but it comes with all the knowledge / baggage if our own history, and the history of others that we have heard / read. That is, the way we may perceive an individual slice, versus how someone else may view the same.

This is one of the problems with quantum mechanics. The whole problem with finding exact duplicates in physical science, and coming to the same conclusions about those results.

How can the human race share the answers of our existence with others when they do not share our fifth dimension?

I can look at the road while driving (seeing shadows, color, texture, backward, forward, up, down, etc.) that the person riding in the seat next to me cannot.

The whole point of sharing our views is to share not only the 4D's but to share that fifth as well. No one else can have the same as our own, yet we try desperately to share. We can approximate it with one another, but no one else will have the exact same.

I am rambling a bit here, but only because it is a hard concept to visualize, let alone explain. I think this accounts for the many questions that some have when they see others share their religious, scientific, or personal beliefs / experiences.

I also believe that this is why some find things offensive (to varying degrees) while others do not. Some find physical violence more offensive than moral infringements (some combine the two). Some feel it is wrong to do harm (physical or other) to others while others feel it is just part of life.

We discuss these things because we are human. We share them with others to feel like we belong. We feel that our path is the correct one, and we want others to be on the correct path.

Some will say that they do not care if they belong to any group, but they lie, all humans do. Some may get so disgusted with those around them that they find it easier to be desperate in isolation than deal with the frustration of being different from all those around them, but they still long for that connection.

If we find that someone else has a fifth D on a subject that makes more sense than the way we view our own fifth D, we will likely jump on their bandwagon. Some will not ever let go of their own fifth D, but most will. Thus, discussing religion is a fifth D building session whether we change our own, or bolster it with facts we discuss with others.

Finally, history is an unknown. We all have to make strong assumptions about initial conditions of our origin. Religion gives us a foundation of what those conditions are, and while accepting these, we get to belong to a group (as all humans desire to do). And, the fifth D has a plethora of information for each individual that guides our conclusions on the other 4D's.

Great pespective, Kurgan, and a very interesting way to express it. I think so much flavor is lost from life because of people's reluctance to express differences. I suppose due to shortcomings of human nature, conformity is an easier means to acceptance than appreciation for diversity. I'm all about the diversity. The only common ground I need with other people is a bit of empathy and niceness, and I've never felt that exercising either of those things depends on pretending to be like the other person.

It's kind of an odd thing to me that most people try so hard to keep their differences under wraps. It's like having a conversation about where you're from with someone from, say, Ohio. You have a map and instead of pointing at the actual location of your domicile, you just vaguely gesture near Ohio somewhere and say "I'm from over hear somewhere, but it's very close to Ohio!" as if it would be an affront to that person that you don't live anywhere near Ohio.

It seems most people are uncomfortable around others that are very different then they are. That's something we all need to work on. The answer isn't trying to make everyone the same, or to hide the things that make them different. It's to accept and celebrate the fact, and to proudly point at your exact location on the map and say "I'm from exactly here" and it doesn't matter to me that you're not. If it matters to you then I've learned all I need to. If by doing that I compell someone to move away from Ohio to someplace closer to me, cool. That's not the point though, at least to me.

*no disrespect meant to the fine people of Ohio!

Excellent post, Chip. I am proud to say I am from right here:

I agree, as long as diversity is not the final goal... It is fine to be diverse, but it seems some are bent on making sure that they are different at all costs. And, of course, it is always fine to agree to disagree.

Well, as we have discussed before, there are some things that will be known to offend. When both parties know of their existence, that does not mean that it needs to be brought up strictly for the strife factor (although, it seems we all love drama now and again).

Boredom

From: Jauani Wu

There are much smarter people than you who have written volumes on both sides of this topic. Do you realize how pointless it is? And how stupid you sound to me?

hint: VERY

Then don't read. No one's forcing you too.

People will talk and discuss whatever they want because they can. I'm just as annoyed at topics about First Land grabbers, Land barons, telehubs/P2P, I hate <insert random SL company> etc threads but you don't see me whinning about it or creating a thread to alienate folks who talk about it. I just don't read them. Why? Because I don't like it and I don't have to. Unless you own the forums, only then can you post a rule that bans the discussion of religion.

It's perfectly fine to discuss whatever they want as long as they keep an open-mind, are respectful to other folks opinion and will not force their opinions and beliefs to others. Also part of respect, is allowing others the freedom to speak up what's in their mind, rather than shooting it down becuase you find the topic 'stupid' or 'annoying'.

I'm Christian, and a Catholic, but I've never condemed people that they will eat babies and burn in hell for not being Christian, neither have I gone out of my way to antagonize non-Christians or aethists. It's their belief, and it's none of my business what they believe in. I was taught and brought up to respect other people's opinions and beliefs.

However, people who do go out of their way to tell me I'm wrong because of my faith, and force their ideas and beliefs on me, not to mention go out of the limb to insult my faith are the people I find offensive.