Christoper Hitchens put it very well when he said god made you flawed/sick and then commanded you to heal yourself and if you don't you will be punished for eternity. — universeness

Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right?

I then turn to the vile gods who are described in the religious books. — universeness

Right, and even though those religious books show all the evil that come out of trusting the snake you choose to follow the same mistakes of Adam and Eve.

My point is that I don't see why would God have to be blamed.
But consider if God gave us no free will, wouldn't that makes us hopeless slaves of God, wouldn't such God be unjust God?

We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator. I find that offensive. — universeness

This would be true if God gave us no free will, which is not the case.

For example games which are aggressive and about killing all around yourself are more likely to make you stupid in real life.
Consider mass shootings is the US, you can otherwise see these things only in games and movies.

For doing such a thing one must be kind of stupid because to get out of it there are only 2 choices:
1.) kill yourself
2.) or go to prison.

Therefore stupid.

Have you done even a tiny bit of research … I don’t think so. — I like sushi

Your instincts are correct. All you have to do is look for the studied already made. Like I said, I have no idea what has come about in the last few years but know that studies before then didn’t show a great deal in terms of IQ (if there was any it was slightly positive). — I like sushi

You're right I didn't do much research, I did some googling but non of these researches indicate thorough enough tests to draw any conclusions about IQ improvements.

But I don't think it's much important, I'm more interested in specific areas, such as problem solving skills psyho-motoric developments and possible negative consequences if playing game for too much time time over longer period and the kind of games which could be useful for this.

I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors — universeness

What is the most disturbing thing about God which makes you think this way?

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

This would be true if humanity faced an extinction, but this is far from being the case.

There have been multiple studies about the effects of video games since video games began. — I like sushi

Don't you think to study the effect of games on IQ requires observing an individual over a period of time, ex. from childhood to grown up man, that is, at least 10 years.
And then the result should be based on not a single person but at least 100 of them.

:up:

NATO doctrine: Russia is wrong even if right, enemy even if not.

Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. But partially we can understand by looking at the universe and life in it. Plato! — Hillary

Here is another one:

We can't look directly into the Sun (God) but we can look at places which the sun (God) illuminates, giving us the real picture of reality.

The future is going into the past.

In the past we had serf-like flavors of systems, and the future is headed into similar systems with the only difference being freedom.

Freedom is useless when you're pushed into the corner existentially.

I know theoretically it is possible to "travel" into the future, but not into the past.

Therefore:

Traveling to the future, he meets an older man who repeats the promises, but whom he ends up distrusting. After some confusion, back in the present, he obtains some supplies and returns to the future to a period significantly earlier than when he would met the older man, intending to contest the future with him. — javi2541997

Is not possible because going into the same point in the future is impossible because it requires first going into the past for a new journey into the (previous) future.

The post it was quoted from contained a link to God does not Exist, by Bishop Pierre Whalon, so the phrase ought not to be taken literally. — Wayfarer

No surprise, he is an Anglican so called "bishop", hah.

consider it a joke :wink:

What religion follows an ordinary man? — whollyrolling

An ordinary man belong to majority.
majority is ordinal.
Therefore an ordinal man follows religion that is in majority.

How so? Don't they believe in a god? What makes them unfit to partake in the debate? Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood? — ArmChairPhilosopher

I didn't say they don't believe in God and I don't know if they are unfit to discussion.

Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Just because somebody says "I'm Christian" doesn't mean they are automatically fit to answer your questions.
Ask some theologian for answer, they will surely know it better than you or me or some random believer.

Modern way of interpreting simulation is computer simulation, for which I think it's possible to tell the difference.

However argument against computer simulation is that it would take unimaginable amounts of computing power to simulate entire universe to such great details.

yes, this definition is horrible obviously, I posted it in hurry and didn't read all.
I'm sure with additional research a better definition could be found.

I'm baffled, but I got around this by doing some additional research to make sure I got things right...

I did gave link to definition, but I suppose o-o-o and necessary existence are not valid properties for you,
I assume the kind of properties that you seek are physical properties or those which could be empirically measured or observed?

Sometimes the term "Attributes of God" is used to refer to God's essence.

https://www.gracenotes.info/documents/topics_doc/essence.pdf

God is the same as his essence

But you must be aiming at:

The "attributes", or the "essence", of God are His primary characteristics, so they cannot be completely communicated to man.
They can be described to a degree, but they cannot be fully defined.

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/definitions-of-god.html

There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone. — ArmChairPhilosopher

I don't know how many denominations are there but these are all denominations of protestant church AFAIK, which is irrelevant for this discussion.

My goodness. — whollyrolling

Maybe I should have included a definition to avoid confusion?

religion is the branch of knowledge that deals with the methodology of worship and the praise of God.
On the other hand ideology deals with the system of ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-religion-and-vs-ideology

Insofar as "God" is undefined — 180 Proof

I'm having extreme difficulty to understand why do you consider is undefined?
What is you argument for God being undefined?

hm, ok :meh:

Which "God" does "God" refer to? What are "God's" attributes, predicates, properties, etc? — 180 Proof

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/definitions-of-god.html

See previous post — 180 Proof

Your point A and B are same as my previous points about valid and invalid atheism, just described differently:

...
Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief. — SpaceDweller

(C) antitheist-atheist

Disagree because deity is not same thing as God.
There are countless kinds of deities with unique properties, almost all of which not o-o-o God, and most of which depicted with statuette.

I don't know why it's even relevant to discuss or identify God or specific deity since we are talking about atheists who reject any kind of a deity or God.

Lastly, your "definition of atheism" is colloquial, from a dictionary, and not philosophically probative – trivial — 180 Proof

I took my definition of atheism from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

What is your (or philosophical) definition of atheism?

Consider how philosophical ("old") atheists define themselves discursively: — 180 Proof

how?, I don't know.

And "God" being undefined — 180 Proof

What do you mean it's undefined?
It's well defined in both philosophy and theology.

I don't think it would be meaningful to describe them as religions, but you can if you want. — Tom Storm

Sure, with the aim to decry something or somebody you can abuse the language in the most absurd ways, such as you attempt to equalize politics and arts with religion.

I don't understand the connection. Sounds like you have a real problem with atheism if it doesn't correspond to your idea of what atheism is. — Tom Storm

It's not my idea, the definition of atheism is clear:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities God.

Therefore it's not a belief there is not God, it's disbelief.

Feminism seeks to change minds and educate the world too - I guess you would see that as a religion then?
Do you see any group which seeks to influence people's thinking as religious because of this advocacy work? — Tom Storm

I'm sorry but It's not me who equalize these terms, it's you, don't push your burden of language abuse on me :smile:

Tell me more about why you think this way, I'm interested in how you arrived at this - are there any other thinkers who hold this position that you can cite? — Tom Storm

I already told you:
1. Valid atheism (by definition above) is lack of belief in God, such atheists just live their life.
2. Invalid atheism (aka. new-atheism and contradictory to definition of atheism) belief there is no God accompanied by spread of word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

It could be interpreted as an ideology since the moment when it is based on "faithful" who follow a leader/prophet just for religious ideas or beliefs — javi2541997

controversial abuse of terms and language.
Many things could be "interpreted as" with the aim to decry.

You could say that Communism, Socialism, Fascism, even some modern social movements are "religion-like" too. — Gus Lamarch

These are ideologies, religion isn't ideology.

This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society. — Tom Storm

What you said is that the arts, politics or law reform groups could be classified as "religions"?

I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. — Tom Storm

Sure they do, but we are talking about atheism taking the role of theism here, which makes atheism invalid.

What would a valid form of atheism look like? — whollyrolling

"I don't believe God exists (full stop)" is valid atheism.
OR
The following quote from Hillary also answers you question:

The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief.

would "believe", how do you go about believing in nothing?

It doesn't answer anything, it opines. — whollyrolling

the form of atheism which believes there is no God is aka. "new-atheism", this are paranoid individuals who strive to preach about how there is no God in a paranoid militant baptism-style preaching, trying to convert theists into atheists.
This kind of atheism is an invalid atheism because it rest on strong belief rather than simply disbelief (or lack of belief) in God.

There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This answers this thread.

I think the point is that crusades were justified.

I think problem is that reforming the UN such that certain countries can be cast out, would mean "not a UN" any more but rather a group of countries governed by influence of those who are able to change rules as they wish.

if the speed limit for the universe was the speed of light, the size of the universe would be at most 27.6 light-years across. the observable universe is however 93 billion light-years across. — Magnus

One issue here is that universe expands faster than speed of light.
How is FTL possible?
It's not possible but universe expands in two directions which means maximum 2 x speed of light from reference point.

My attempt is to categorize entities.
You think analysing dark matter and physical laws individually would produce different result?

And I give answers you are afraid of. — ArmChairPhilosopher

You said I'm sore looser, how is that an answer to the answer I proposed?

If your sole goal is to insult then go ahead and insult as much as you wish, I'm fine with that, but please don't confuse insults for answers, maybe I'm indeed looser but I'm not that stupid.

I'm not sure I follow you either.

Do you consider physical laws and dark matter to be invalid territory and thus no point to create grammar-logic maps around such things?

Perhaps. But who guides their life by what is not impossible? — Jackson

Not all that is not impossible projects moral guide.

So you are just a sore loser? — ArmChairPhilosopher

looser eh :meh:
I'm not looser, I seek answers you're afraid of.

What kind of resolution you look for? You look for the nature of existence? — Hillary

I seek a definition of existence of anything, ex. how do we know something exists.

You dont. One applies rules grammar and logic to one's descriptions / explanations of e.g. "dark matter and physical laws". — 180 Proof

Therefore according to you grammar and logic is not the tool for the problem because we know upfront physical laws and dark matter exist, I find this contradictory to your previous suggestion:

Grammar (semantics). Logic (LNC). — 180 Proof

You seem to suggest that there must be 2 or more ready "formulas" to the problem, and then applying formula based on the problem present?

Why is it so hard to give up on the arbitrarily invented traits of an imagined entity, even, or especially, when they have been shown to be impossible? It's not even in your book. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Giving up is not satisfactory solution.
AFAIK, there is no argument showing God impossible.

If you want to know where does evil come from, I suggest following book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35168559-the-mystery-of-evil

reason is subjective in this context.

And for resolution of existence or non-existence welcome but not necessary.