Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Flezz God is fake. Gods are fake.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

bump

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

bump

OrsonScottCa-
rd

Avatar: 104768 2015-08-05 14:57:49 -0400
39

[Forumwarz Speakeasy]

Level 69 Hacker

Why do I keep coming back here

BirdofPrey Posted:

hint – arguments for and against god are inherently stupid.

QFT

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

generichaxor Posted:

God is a lie.

God is nothing but a political construct used by the government to drug the mbumes into submission. The central tenet behind the concealing mask of religion is that people will willingly subordinate themselves to a religious figure, but not a ruler.

Thus, the government uses a religious figure as a scapegoat to propagate their ideas. The government will select a person, or group of people. These people will take credit for having an epiphany allowing the discovery of the religion. Thus, all governmental ties on the religion seem to have been removed (even though the government and its idea are completely extricable). Since the “religion” has been given to a select group of people, those people have the responsibility to spread the religion. Supposedly, the God told the people to spread the religion after blessing the people. However, in reality, the people are only spreading the governmental policies. Since the people are spreading religions to other people, the ideas are much more believable. Thus, the religion can spread with sufficient velocity. The government does not stop with its control over its own people. For this reason, the government uses warfare and diplomacy to spread the religion to other countries. Thus, multiple governments can cooperate to control their individual subjects.

The mbumes of people are individually too foolish to think for themselves. Thus, they will perpetually listen to the government without question, and follow its every command like sheep.

Thus, the government’s hegemony over the people by means of religion is unquestionable. The people cannot stand up to the government even though the religious symbol is false. The mbumes are too torpid to see through this obviously mendacious, artificial construct of the government.

Thus, all these religious figures are unquestionable false, but the government is able to get away with lying to the people. The people are unable to stop these atrocities. Thus, religion will continue to plague the people and promote the government.

also,

If the religious figure was real, would he not stop these atrocities from occurring?

I don’t see this happening, which gives me reason to believe that the figures cannot be real, even by a large stretch of the imagination.

Your proposition might have legs if religion was founded by governments, or existed only when governments were around.

It in no way takes into account the multiple religions banned by governments throughout history, such as the Roman persecution of Christians in the first few centuries AD, or whatever.

Also, state-sponsored religions such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in Germany completely fail. They have an incredibly low participation rate, because nobody cares about a religion you’re forced into.

You propose religion is the opiate of the mbumes, as famously quoted. I propose instead that atheism is the opiate of the mbumes, people who are too uncomfortable with the idea that someone sees what you do and ultimately is in control of you.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

Shii Posted:

Your proposition might have legs if religion was founded by governments, or existed only when governments were around.

It in no way takes into account the multiple religions banned by governments throughout history, such as the Roman persecution of Christians in the first few centuries AD, or whatever.

Also, state-sponsored religions such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in Germany completely fail. They have an incredibly low participation rate, because nobody cares about a religion you’re forced into.

You propose religion is the opiate of the mbumes, as famously quoted. I propose instead that atheism is the opiate of the mbumes, people who are too uncomfortable with the idea that someone sees what you do and ultimately is in control of you.

my original idea has been changed into a more specific theory

please read further on

right now, my theory refers to organized religion, removing the governmental aspect. Right now, im only condemning organized religion, because the OP was too much of a generalization

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Guilty as charged; I only read the first post and not much else.

Condemning organized religion, however, is akin to being an anarchist. As a sentient species, we’re driven to finding like-minded people and bumociating with them. Over time, especially hundreds of years, it’s impossible to not end up with an organized religion.

So you’re basically condemning anything with any real number of followers, hierarchy, or structure, which I frankly find a bit silly.

I would more criticize some of the members of said religions for following traditions they know nothing about, and for members of religions, ESPECIALLY Christians, for making up their own doctrine as they go, and giving the lot a bad name in the process.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

Shii Posted:

Guilty as charged; I only read the first post and not much else.

Condemning organized religion, however, is akin to being an anarchist. As a sentient species, we’re driven to finding like-minded people and bumociating with them. Over time, especially hundreds of years, it’s impossible to not end up with an organized religion.

So you’re basically condemning anything with any real number of followers, hierarchy, or structure, which I frankly find a bit silly.

I would more criticize some of the members of said religions for following traditions they know nothing about, and for members of religions, ESPECIALLY Christians, for making up their own doctrine as they go, and giving the lot a bad name in the process.

as long as u dont agree with me, i forgive u

indulgence system is one example of how organized religion is about as corrupt as organized government

usually corrupt organizations need to be removed or modified greatly

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

generichaxor Posted:

as long as u dont agree with me, i forgive u

indulgence system is one example of how organized religion is about as corrupt as organized government

usually corrupt organizations need to be removed or modified greatly

The indulgence system doesn’t work the same way as it used too, somewhat infamously, in the 1500s back when you could buy forgiveness for family members.

Nowadays, indulgences sparing relatives from purgatory are only available to those who make a procession, a pilgrimage, to a holy site, such as St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

I personally think it’s silly and wrong, when the Bible clearly teaches good works don’t equal salvation, but then Catholics use a slightly different Bible, in that it contains the Apocrypha as well. I’m not Catholic, so I can’t profess to know every aspect of their doctrine, but I know enough about it to know that it’s got some holes in it.

However, I completely agree that corruptness devalues the religion and makes all participants look foolish, as does corrupt government. Unfortunately, some will always put themselves above more altruistic professions, and corruptness inevitably results. We just need to figure out ways to stamp out the corruption without destroying the structure.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

Shii Posted:

The indulgence system doesn’t work the same way as it used too, somewhat infamously, in the 1500s back when you could buy forgiveness for family members.

Nowadays, indulgences sparing relatives from purgatory are only available to those who make a procession, a pilgrimage, to a holy site, such as St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

I personally think it’s silly and wrong, when the Bible clearly teaches good works don’t equal salvation, but then Catholics use a slightly different Bible, in that it contains the Apocrypha as well. I’m not Catholic, so I can’t profess to know every aspect of their doctrine, but I know enough about it to know that it’s got some holes in it.

However, I completely agree that corruptness devalues the religion and makes all participants look foolish, as does corrupt government. Unfortunately, some will always put themselves above more altruistic professions, and corruptness inevitably results. We just need to figure out ways to stamp out the corruption without destroying the structure.

great ; u just agreed with me Log in to see images!

i was referring to the older system. If I remember correctly from AP Euro, St. Peter’s Basilica was built entirely from indulgence money.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

bump

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Shii Posted:

...when the Bible clearly teaches good works don’t equal salvation…

If God is good he should admit good people into heaven regardless of religion.

Or at least some sort of inferior version of heaven like Dante envisioned….

Even that’s a stretch.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

Andor33 Posted:

I think that we all come from a creator, but he works outside of our world, so it’s impossible to detect him.

generichaxor Posted:

can u post that in my god thread

Andor33 Posted:

i just made a great philosophical statement and u want me to post it on forumwarz? i don’t want to post

generichaxor Posted:

that’s some pretty messed up logic, but w/e. I’ll post it 4 u

so here it is

dupersude

Avatar: Code (Green)

Level 31 Hacker

“01001000 01000001 01011000”

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he Able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing, and able?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able, nor willing?

Then why call him God.” – Epicurus (Ancient Greek philosopher)

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

dupersude Posted:

”Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he Able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing, and able?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able, nor willing?

Then why call him God.” – Epicurus (Ancient Greek philosopher)

cus some guy needed an idea to screw over his friends

dupersude

Avatar: Code (Green)

Level 31 Hacker

“01001000 01000001 01011000”

Yeah, you kind of missed the point of my post…

I read a comic somewhere once which had an interesting “theory” on how we were created. It’s not really a theory, it’s just a comic. It was about a guy who woke up in the middle of nowhere one day

He had nothing but endless ground and rocks.

So he shaped the rocks in such a way that they formed a gigantic computer (not the computer tower itself or anything, but like a giant Chip, made of stones). The character goes on to say “I realised that with enough time and space I could simulate a small universe… But I have infinite time, and space” or something along those lines. In otherwords, our world exists cause some random guy in another dimension which spans on infinitely decided to make a computer simulation out of stones.

The comic can be found somewhere here.

But I’m not sure where.

dupersude edited this message on 02/05/2009 7:08AM

OrsonScottCa-
rd

Avatar: 104768 2015-08-05 14:57:49 -0400
39

[Forumwarz Speakeasy]

Level 69 Hacker

Why do I keep coming back here

dupersude Posted:

Yeah, you kind of missed the point of my post…

I read a comic somewhere once which had an interesting “theory” on how we were created. It’s not really a theory, it’s just a comic. It was about a guy who woke up in the middle of nowhere one day

He had nothing but endless ground and rocks.

So he shaped the rocks in such a way that they formed a gigantic computer (not the computer tower itself or anything, but like a giant Chip, made of stones). The character goes on to say “I realised that with enough time and space I could simulate a small universe… But I have infinite time, and space” or something along those lines. In otherwords, our world exists cause some random guy in another dimension which spans on infinitely decided to make a computer simulation out of stones.

The comic can be found somewhere here.

But I’m not sure where.

Reminds me of the movie The Thirteenth Floor, where simulated worlds are themselves creating simulated worlds. In that scenario, it becomes an infinite nesting of potential creators.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

dupersude Posted:

”Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he Able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing, and able?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able, nor willing?

Then why call him God.” – Epicurus (Ancient Greek philosopher)

The common argument against this is the “Free Will Doctrine”, but I’d much rather have a god stop rampant evil such as torture than let it continue, regardless of free will.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

OrsonScottCard Posted:

Reminds me of the movie The Thirteenth Floor, where simulated worlds are themselves creating simulated worlds. In that scenario, it becomes an infinite nesting of potential creators.

Heh that’s a pretty cool movie.

OrsonScottCa-
rd

Avatar: 104768 2015-08-05 14:57:49 -0400
39

[Forumwarz Speakeasy]

Level 69 Hacker

Why do I keep coming back here

DarkDespair5 Posted:

Heh that’s a pretty cool movie.

Agreed. It would have been something big if it hadn’t come out the week before The Matrix, I think.

ghax

Avatar: 80241 Thu Jul 02 20:10:59 -0400 2009
17

Level 35 Camwhore

I love 12 inch fine upstanding member of society male reproductive organs in my arse

OrsonScottCard Posted:

Agreed. It would have been something big if it hadn’t come out the week before The Matrix, I think.

i didn’t see the 13th floor, but i saw the Matrix. hopefully, it’s still on youtube (youtube censoring stuff is ridiculous)

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!