Why no athiests? Why are their views any less valuable than anyone else?

Fortunately though, for the purpose of this thread, I am a believer... in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has no creator and is eternal. He comes from a time without time and a space without space.

Comment deleted

A friend of mine asked me, 20 years ago, the question of "Where did God come from?" As a agnostic Unitarian, he thought he'd poke some holes in my faith, for fun, but I took it as a legitimate question, also for fun.

I took over a full year to consider, contemplate, and analyze that question and matters as a whole before I came to a plausible theory, which I will now share with you.

Under this theory, in the beginning, there was nothing. There was no matter, no energy, no thought, no time, nothing. A complete and utter absence of everything.

Then came a thought, from nothing.

It was a simple thought. Even simpler than a baby we are all familiar with. Having no form, it couldn't 'do' anything, but it existed. This 'thought' was the earliest 'god' as we consider it.

This 'baby god' learned its environment of nothing, and then made something. There were no 'rules' at this time; no physics, no chemistry, so creation and destruction were simple: the thought imagined, and the nothing produced. This went on for as long as one can imagine, as not even time had yet to be created. It created whatever you might imagine a baby with unlimited power over its environment created, which sounds really trippy when you think about it. Probably pretty wild.

Eventually, this 'baby god' created something independent of itself. Something that could think independently. Perhaps it was lonely, or bored, or it was an accident, but that thought created new, independent thoughts. Some of these thoughts were cooperative with the 'baby god', some were not, and some were even antagonistic. The 'baby god' treated them in a manner which we should all recognize: it punished the antagonists, it ignored those who were not cooperative, and it encouraged those that were cooperative. In Christianity, I expect these would be the Heavenly Host (angels, including Lucifer). Other religions have equivalencies: gods and demigods, or many gods, but their origins are all the same.

At this point, this 'baby god' has matured a bit. It is a 'toddler god' now, and it wants to make something. It is tired of creating and destroying toys and decides that it wants to make something a bit more permanent, so it creates a universe (or at least something we might consider a universe). More than likely, the universes it creates are still temporary, but more permanent than its original attempts because it has gotten better at making universes. It learns from each failure and, being timeless and unlimited in power, just keeps trying new things. The number of universes it might have created, or destroyed, cannot be fathomed, and might be innumerable. Eventually, of import to us, it creates our universe.

At the point of the creation of our universe, maturity-wise, I would call it an 'adolescent god', as it is pretty sure it knows what it is doing and cannot admit to itself when it is wrong. The stories of vengeful gods, smiting and flooding, temperamental and capricious, yeah, those were this 'adolescent god' interacting with we mortals, and learning from its mistakes, and we being both the benefactors and victims of those mistakes.

At this precise moment in time, I believe the 'adolescent god' has either moved its attention to a new universe, or has matured to the point where it is now an 'adult god', and recognizes that we (life in general, not humanity specifically), as its children, need to be left to struggle and survive and learn on our own, perhaps with advice every now and then given as subtly as possible. Regardless of cause, it no longer takes as active a role in our lives, preferring to let us try things on our own, and succeed and fail on our own skills.

That was my final conclusion on where God came from, and how we got to where we are right now. Feel free to elaborate, discuss, and criticize. I spent a year thinking about it and would welcome other ideas. My friend had no way to refute this idea so I guess I had my fun after all. :)

God job, @Phicksur.

That has to be the most ironic statement possible in this thread. :D

Thank you LeoBrazil for proving that open discussions about religion cannot be held without hyprocracy, repression and discriminatory exclusion.

First you say you excluded athiests from this discussion, because "you know their views". Do you? The path to athiesim is as individual as the path to belief. For example, a good school friend of mine became an athiest because he couldn't reconcile his beliefs with the fact he was repeatedly sexually abused by his school priest.

Then right after explaining why you excluded a group of people from your thread, you start talking about respect. At no point was I disrespectful in making my legitimate enquiry as to why you saw fit to exclude athiests (or anyone else that doesn't believe in "god" for that matter). Yes we are all humans, and all humans should respect each other, but respect and open mindedness go hand in hand. I consider myself to be very open-minded. Can you say the same?

And then I couldn't help notice the healthy dose of skepticism in your comments about my beliefs. Saying "I'm not here to judge anyone", is like saying "but" after an apology or "believe me" after a questionable statement. In my other posts on the topic of religion, I've presented my views respectfully. It is your narrow mindedness that interprets my beliefs as making fun, being sarcastic or making trouble. When did I criticise your beliefs in a similar way?

Your views and actions in this thread serve as an example as why Asgardia MUST be a secular state with religion being a private pursuit only.

Thank you LeoBrazil for proving that open discussions about religion cannot be held without hyprocracy, repression and discriminatory exclusion.

One example of a poorly worded statement is not proof.

I would ask that you do not 'make mountains out of molehills'.

Can you provide proof of any religious discussion that is open-minded and without prejudice? I've spent the best part of 2 decades in a catholic school system and another 2 decades in multicultural workplaces and I am yet to observe one let alone participate in one.

Is 40 years of personal observation making mountains out of molehills?

BTW - i quite enjoyed your take on where god came from. It was very well thought out and articulated. It actually parralels the current thinking of theoretical physicists on how the universe came into existance and developed.

Can you provide proof of any religious discussion that is open-minded and without prejudice? I've spent the best part of 2 decades in a catholic school system and another 2 decades in multicultural workplaces and I am yet to observe one let alone participate in one.

Is 40 years of personal observation making mountains out of molehills?

What you are describing is called anecdotal evidence, not proof. I am sorry that you have had the experiences you have had, but I can assure you there are rational, reasonable, and open-minded people out there in the world if you go looking hard enough.

I have religious discussions with open-minded people as often as I can. One of my good friends is an ordained minister (and. incidentally, the one who originally posted the question about where God came from in the first place) who regularly enjoyed social banter before he had to go into full seminary mode. I don't see him much any more as he's too busy with taking care of kids and poor people and whatnot.

I think the trick to having real conversations with people about religion is keeping two facts firmly in mind during your entire discussion:

1. You will not change how they see things, or their religion, or faith. You cannot change them at all, and efforts to do so will be seen as horribly offensive. I don't know a word to describe how offensive or rude it is to try to change a person's faith, and I enjoy reading dictionaries and encyclopedias.
2. They can't change your faith, and if they try they aren't listening, they are proselytizing. Break conversations with these people and don't speak to them on such matters again.

Follow these two rules and you will find more open-minded people out there. I wish you luck.

BTW - i quite enjoyed your take on where god came from. It was very well thought out and articulated. It actually parralels the current thinking of theoretical physicists on how the universe came into existance and developed.

Thanks. Rather proud of the idea, myself. :)

.... and things go downhill quickly.

Guys... please edit your posts after you read how angry they are.

Remember, intolerance is contagious, try not to get infected with it.

Sorry, man, but I didn't start it. Someone needs to put this guy in his own place. Especially out of here.

See, here is where I take issue.

When someone is absolutely assured in their faith, nothing that anyone else can rile them when it is about their faith.

So what if Scarbs insulted your religion? Is your religion, is your FAITH, so weak that one person's insults can weaken it? I would like to think not, so then you have to ask why it is that his comments offend you so?

Is it because you think he is wrong? If so, then you are trying to change his faith just as he is trying to change yours.
Is it because you think your religion needs defending? If so, then I ask why? Is it weak? Is it unreliable? Is it based on lies? If none of these are true, then your religion does not need you to defend it and your actions make you seem weak, not your religion?
Perhaps there are other reasons? Whatever they are, I recommend you consider something someone once told me, that I took to heart.

Never argue with an idiot. Observers might not be able to tell the difference.

Do we have proof yet Phicksur? I simply responded to a post questioning the exclusion of a group of people and presented my own beliefs and views.

LeoBrazil doesn't know me from Moses, but on the basis of reading some of my views on religion (which has only been one of several topics I have posted on), I've been called a disrespectful, rat, idiot, illiterate, trouble maker, substance abuser, mentally ill and retarded. Then like judge, jury and executioner, he has decreed that I have no place is Asgardia and be banned. If this is his version of respect - I'd hate to get on his bad side.

I believe my point in this case has been demonstrated and I won't say anything more: except one thing to LeoBrazil - What Would Jesus Do?

He was correct that you were being disrespectful, just as he was disrespectful in omitting your religious group from the conversation originally. Both of you handled things badly, but still refuse to recognize your own part in matters.

So we are now at the point that two wrongs make a right, it seems. Too bad.

With a question as big as you are asking, I think it is fair to let atheists comment their own beliefs. Asgardia doesn't side with one religion over another. I'm glad you two sorted your differences out though! Now if I may,

I believe that the universe was created in a big bang (like so many others). Maybe the gods of the world came with that bang? It's fun to think of the theories of gods and black holes and the start of the universe, ect.

I don't know if "sorted our differences" is accurate - more like agreed to disagree. I may have got a bit hot-headed, but I absolutely hate the exclusion of individuals or groups from anything in life on the basis of arbitrary differences (like religious beliefs).