Log in

View Full Version : Googlism claims that Google is the Closest thing to god, so who's your god?


Proud_Christian
September 10th, 2007, 04:37 AM
answer it.

Evangooglist
September 10th, 2007, 05:07 AM
only if you say please.

Rand
September 10th, 2007, 05:30 AM
Smart Ass answers would include my parent or my wife/girlfriend, but I'll just stick with the real answer.

I don't have a God. I don't need a God. Quite frankly, I don't want a God.

GeoffBoulton
September 10th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Ditto Rand: Don't have one, don't need one.

I am happy to live my life according to rules that I determine and I consider appropriate considering the norms of the modern society that I live in. I do not simply do as I'm told because I'm scared that some "guy in the sky" is going to make me spend an eternity in a mythical oven, because he LOVES me!

xxsonyboy4lfexx
September 10th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Dont have one and dont want one. Google is the clostest thing for me

AaronD
September 10th, 2007, 10:30 PM
Same as above: I'm an atheist. I don't believe that there is a god, and think that most major religions were built, among other things, to explain what couldn't be explained at the time. By now, most major religions are completely outdated.

Alice Shade
September 10th, 2007, 10:41 PM
Proud_Christian - do you believe there is perfect Oreo?

Don`t think so. But there are many Oreos close to perfect enough to find them scrumptious.

Entirely the same thing is with god. There is no perfect god, but there are things that come close enough, and Google belongs to those things.

Ergo, it`s good enough to be god for us.

xxsonyboy4lfexx
September 10th, 2007, 11:45 PM
About this Googlist thing it's hard for me to explain my stance. Like I have no religion and I don't believe in any gods. I don't worship Google and Google isn't my god. But I agree I guess Google would be the closest thing to a god, I suppose. And I enjoy talkin bout this.

Digs
September 11th, 2007, 12:45 AM
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

And so we have. I'm an agnostic, and don't believe in anything which cannot be observed. Google currently comes nearest to fulfilling the requirements of a god.

Googler
September 11th, 2007, 01:49 AM
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

And so we have. I'm an agnostic, and don't believe in anything which cannot be observed. Google currently comes nearest to fulfilling the requirements of a god.


I'm with Digs on this one. So, Proud_Christian, did we answer your question?

SAVAGE
September 11th, 2007, 03:11 AM
God is for dad wankers, I wouldnt watse my fucking life on my kness giving credit and asking favours from my ceiling like you dumb fucking Jesus fucking cum guzzlers.

You ass lickers need to stop feeling guilty about masturbating and just get on with your fucking lives.

I am a man, I stand by my convictions and if you want to waste your life in service to a fairy tail i hope yopu and the three bears are fucking happy especially when they are gang banging your ass.

Fallen Hero
September 11th, 2007, 03:39 AM
I don't concern my self with the concept of "God". It does not effect my life and thus is insignificant and pointless to consider it. I prefer to think there is no god as there is no concrete or reasonable proof for said deity. However will also say why only one? why not 10 or 20 hell a 1000 different ones? (Answer that Proud_Christian)

SAVAGE
September 11th, 2007, 03:45 AM
I don't concern my self with the concept of "God". It does not effect my life and thus is insignificant and pointless to consider it. I prefer to think there is no god as there is no concrete or reasonable proof for said deity. However will also say why only one? why not 10 or 20 hell a 1000 different ones? (Answer that Proud_Christian)

Shit you are expecting to much from this dad wanker...he wont give you a straight answer, i will bet 100 bucks that he will twist turn and dodge and get a bannana to prove the existance of god by placing it permanently up his ass before give old kirk the ATM treatment.

Fallen Hero
September 11th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Meh. I can still ask. I'll keep demanding answers until I get one that I can accept/tolerate. Which has still not happened.

Proud_Christian
September 11th, 2007, 06:51 PM
I don't concern my self with the concept of "God". It does not effect my life and thus is insignificant and pointless to consider it. I prefer to think there is no god as there is no concrete or reasonable proof for said deity. However will also say why only one? why not 10 or 20 hell a 1000 different ones? (Answer that Proud_Christian)


why not 10, 20 or 1000?


because

being God means being supreme. (highest, greatest)
...and that's being one.

init6
September 11th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Proud_Christian: Don't you believe in multiply gods. God, Holy ghost, and Jesus. or do you just rap them all up into one big god. When one says Christian doesn't really tell another what they believe because if your LDS what is Christianity then you believe in multiply gods.

and where did your god come from? thin air?
Google came from the Google trolls aka (crazy programmers locked away in a very nice office)

To answer your question: I don't have god or need one. I believe that I am responsible for my life and actions. What happens in my life is a reaction of what I do.

GeoffBoulton
September 11th, 2007, 07:49 PM
why not 10, 20 or 1000? because being God means being supreme. (highest, greatest) ...and that's being one.

One trinity?

Googler
September 12th, 2007, 12:50 AM
why not 10, 20 or 1000?


because

being God means being supreme. (highest, greatest)
...and that's being one.

Your explanations only account for your point of view. If that's how you defend things you believe strongly in I'm disappointed. You need reason, proof, or evidence to back up claims. (On a side note why couldn't there be kami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami)?)

Alice Shade
September 12th, 2007, 06:06 PM
There is no reason, why multiple entities approximating to omnipotence could not exist in the same space-time continuum.

As I`ve already pointed out, state of ideal omnipotence is paradoxal. Anyone entering this state will immediately cease any activity and become absolutely inert. Why? Because, when you can do anything without exception, you have no need to do anything at all.

Completely omnipotent god would not need to create, putting it bluntly.

Fallen Hero
September 12th, 2007, 08:03 PM
why not 10, 20 or 1000?


because

being God means being supreme. (highest, greatest)
...and that's being one.
Ok I'll bite, but that is where we get into "god of _______". Perhaps there is a god of books and a seperate god for movies (as an example).

RebornGooglist
September 12th, 2007, 11:22 PM
When christians talk to an "invisible person", it's called praying.....

When my freind talks to an invisable person they stick him in a hospital, and call it schizophrenia....

punkinside
September 13th, 2007, 06:56 AM
why not 10, 20 or 1000?


because

being God means being supreme. (highest, greatest)
...and that's being one.

Mmmm, so...

Which one is THE one? YHWH, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Krishna?

Who's in on the bet that his next post starts with: well, the bible says...

tatty000
September 16th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Proud_Christian: Don't you believe in multiply gods. God, Holy ghost, and Jesus. or do you just rap them all up into one big god. When one says Christian doesn't really tell another what they believe because if your LDS what is Christianity then you believe in multiply gods.
um, its actually just one God. its 3 different manifestations, or, kinda like a 3 way rope. its still one rope, but it has 3 ends.

me, im a christian, and looks like im the 1st on this thread...
i dont know how anyone could be an atheist. if you spend time studying it, you'll realise there has to be some type of God out there.

GeoffBoulton
September 16th, 2007, 03:10 PM
if you spend time studying it, you'll realise there has to be some type of God out there.

Actually, if you spend time studying it, you'll realise there isn't any type of God out there or at the very best he/she/it is completely irrelevant.

You are simply believing in something because that's what you've been told to believe. Just as you were once told, and believed, there was a Santa Clause.

There is no evidence, outside of the various religious texts, in support of there being any type of God and a massive amount of scientific evidence in support of there not being any type of God.

The very reason that many of us here are atheists is that we HAVE studied religion and found it seriously lacking. I personally would go even further and say it is a serious force for the very 'evil' that religious types so often claim it to be opposed to.

If you have rational, falsifiable evidence for the existence of some form of God feel free to point us towards it so we can check it out. We genuinly would like to see it.

Incidentally, rational, falsifiable evidence does not include the bible since that has already been shown to be the work of men, to be contradictory and inconsistent, to have no supporting archeological evidence, to have been mistranslated, either intentionally or unintentionally, to have had large sections of the original texts either omitted altogether or adapted to suit the theological needs of the time and to be just plain wrong about many of the scientific facts that we know today to be true.

If you do not have such evidence then don't insult the intelligence of those of us who HAVE researched the evidence by implying that we haven't.

RebornGooglist
September 16th, 2007, 10:58 PM
What? The Only christian? BAH!

init6
September 17th, 2007, 05:37 AM
um, its actually just one God. its 3 different manifestations, or, kinda like a 3 way rope. its still one rope, but it has 3 ends.

me, im a Christian, and looks like im the 1st on this thread...
i don't know how anyone could be an atheist. if you spend time studying it, you'll realize there has to be some type of God out there.

lol, Go ask a LDS Christian how many gods there is. They will say 100% of the time there is 3 gods. God the father Jesus the son, and The holy ghost.

3 gods, says one Christian group. 1 god says another.
One has to be wrong. So now you can fight your with another group of humans over your god.

If you spend some time studying evolution you will soon realize there is a expiation for how you and I exist with out falling back on this mystical god. God was invited by humans because there wasn't scientific data to say other wise. We have the scientific data now. There is no need for GOD to be in our life any more.

Please tell me how the bible proves that god exist. It says to have faith. Says with out faith you will have nothing. pretty much the whole thing says believe in me our fear me. It is using FEAR as a motive for you to do something with your life. I don't know about you. I think fear is a shit motivator.

I also think that some Christians think atheist are bad people. How are we bad? We just simply don't believe in a god. I know I am a Atheist and I still have morals and I am good person. What is so wrong with me being a atheist. How can you tell someone else "i don't know how anyone could be an atheist" you are just so loving aren't you?

tatty000
September 17th, 2007, 08:16 AM
^
people have different views and theology on God and gods and what not.
it is 1 God, from majority christian view, but like a said, in 3 parts.

GeoffBoulton, im not saying any religion is right, although i do believe mine is, i cant say that, the true God out there is displayed correctly through any religion.

one of my more main issue is the theory between the comprimisation between very large objects, eg, planets, and small objects, eg, flies.

the string theory, at the moment, does seem to explain it well, but im not quite sure about it...

GeoffBoulton
September 17th, 2007, 09:47 AM
^
people have different views and theology on God and gods and what not.
it is 1 God, from majority christian view, but like a said, in 3 parts.

GeoffBoulton, im not saying any religion is right, although i do believe mine is, i cant say that, the true God out there is displayed correctly through any religion.

one of my more main issue is the theory between the comprimisation between very large objects, eg, planets, and small objects, eg, flies.

the string theory, at the moment, does seem to explain it well, but im not quite sure about it...

If God's word is the only truth, how can people have different theologies? Does rather seem to show that God's word has more to do with the ideas of MEN rather than any real being.

No religion is right but yours is. Too silly to bother answering.

Comprimisation? Never heard of the word, can't find it in any dictionaries. Stick to short words.

Not sure about string theory? Neither are many scientists which is why they will continue to investigate and modify the theory in the light of new findings.

Thankfully, science doesn't stick rigidly with what they 'believe' is true at any particular time. The very reason that we have technology, medicine and all the comforts of modern life today. If we stuck only with religion's view of the world we would still be living in caves and quivering in fear every time there was a thunderstorm.

RebornGooglist
September 17th, 2007, 05:13 PM
pretty much the whole thing says believe in me our fear me

Thats terrorism!!

init6
September 17th, 2007, 08:35 PM
^
people have different views and theology on God and gods and what not.
it is 1 God, from majority christian view, but like a said, in 3 parts.


So God goes into a superposition :). (The ones who have read a little on quantum physics will laugh.)

tatty000
September 18th, 2007, 08:23 AM
If God's word is the only truth, how can people have different theologies? Does rather seem to show that God's word has more to do with the ideas of MEN rather than any real being.

No religion is right but yours is. Too silly to bother answering.

Comprimisation? Never heard of the word, can't find it in any dictionaries. Stick to short words.
sorry, i thought the spell check on Firefox would pit it up, but it didn't.

what i meant is that i believe my religion is right, but, i may be wrong. my real point was that there has to be a God out there, but He may of just made a blob of dust which turned out to where we are now.

different theology comes from the way certain parts of the Bible can be interpreted, which parts can be taken as ground to stand on over others etc.
there are numerous reasons really.

GeoffBoulton
September 18th, 2007, 11:09 AM
what i meant is that i believe my religion is right, but, i may be wrong.

I will happily state there is no God because there is no more evidence of God than there is of fairies. In fact, we've actually got photographs of fairies.

http://www.philipcoppens.com/cottingley_4.jpg

Yes, I know the girls who took them said they were fakes but I believe they were just lying because if they admitted they were real the proof would destroy our faith and fairies need us to have faith and just believe in them. (See how easy it is to debunk facts if you don't have to give any justification for your beliefs)

That doesn't mean I can't be wrong. If anybody does come up with reliable evidence then I will, just as happily, alter my opinion to reflect that evidence.

Understanding that you could be wrong and looking for errors in the things you believe to be true is the first step towards objective investigation of the real truth. The very pillar upon which science has always been based and why it is so good at finding the truths that have allowed us to advance to the level we are at today.

my real point was that there has to be a God out there, but He may of just made a blob of dust which turned out to where we are now.

There does NOT have to be a God out there. There are many, far more plausible explanations, why we are here and the world is the way it is.

different theology comes from the way certain parts of the Bible can be interpreted, which parts can be taken as ground to stand on over others etc. there are numerous reasons really.

Exactly the reason why the bible is so unreliable as a source of information or guidance, it can be interpreted to say just about anything the reader wants it to say. The very interpretations that have, over the years, been used to justify some of the worst episodes in human history.

Alice Shade
September 18th, 2007, 11:23 PM
From my side, I`d add, that no matter what you`ll take, facts suggest, that God would be an extra wheel in creating such thing.

A whole lot of natural objects had developed in a very backwards way, literally. Examine, how human vision works - eyes and their link to brain, Some REALLY weird solutions there, and hell of a workaround to make it all work.

If anything, creator of every particular thing must be completely batshit insane in regards to practicality/comfort/reliability/usability - and for each particular thing, have own peculiar brand of insanity, as well.

The more you examine world, the more you understand, that everything rides on the side of coin, without exclusion. No higher power to guide - just hand on madly and scream, while the ride lasts. ^_^

FaithfulResearcher
September 23rd, 2007, 10:07 PM
GOOGLE AND GANESHA.
The Greek deities are pretty good too!
:)

darkeye11547
October 1st, 2007, 12:23 AM
I believe in people. I believe in things. and I believe in (some) concepts.

God (as understood by the Abrahamic faiths) falls outside my realm of believable concepts. Google, however, does not fall into the category of mere concept, but is a real thing, something that I can place my faith in.

tatty000
October 1st, 2007, 11:12 AM
If anything, creator of every particular thing must be completely batshit insane in regards to practicality/comfort/reliability/usability - and for each particular thing, have own peculiar brand of insanity, as well.
so basically, if there was a God that created us, he's an idiot because he made us so complicated?

it makes it hard to believe that we, being so bloody complicated, just happened out of natural selection.

alright, ill take something else for an eg. computers (do bear with me). if you open it up, there are a hell of alot of things everywhere, and they all need to be there to make it work properly. wires, chips, big blocks etc etc. you cant make a computer simpler either. you can't simply just have 2 boxes of metal and have a computer. all of it is complicated, but look what we can do with computers.

everything has to run into the motherboard, and then put out from there to other sources, sort of like a brain.

Loki
October 1st, 2007, 12:14 PM
Well - SAVAGE does tend to put things bluntly but he also tends to have a point.

Live your own life! Don't listen to the bullshit people try to sell you.
If you want to believe in Santa Claus - do so! Just don't try to sell the idea to me.
Damn - brb - I need to feed the Easter Bunny :D

GeoffBoulton
October 1st, 2007, 02:15 PM
alright, ill take something else for an eg. computers (do bear with me). if you open it up, there are a hell of alot of things everywhere, and they all need to be there to make it work properly. wires, chips, big blocks etc etc. you cant make a computer simpler either. you can't simply just have 2 boxes of metal and have a computer. all of it is complicated, but look what we can do with computers.

Start with a simple switch it can only register 1 or 0. Now join two switches together and you have a device that can register 11, 10, 01 and 00. Not much of an improvement but an improvement all the same. This is exactly how men 'evolved' computers into the beasts we have today. Designs and components that worked well continued into the next generation, those that didn't got ditched. Some computers/components diverged into different forms, Intel, AMC, Kray Supercomputer, Apple Mac, etc. Also inherent in that evolutionary history, apart from the useful inherited components in 'related' machines, is the fact that built into those systems are anachronisms from the past that haven't yet been 'removed', we are still stuck with the von Neuman architecture for instance.

Natural selection works in the same way, start with a virus move up to a bacteria, etc. The evolution is steered by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to breed and pass its characteristics on to its children rather than a man deciding it doesn't work well. Some of the organisms diverged into different species. The changes in the original organism come about by the random mutation of genes rather than by design. Many of these mutations result in a weakness in the resulting children and they die before they can reproduce but a very, very few mutations are beneficial and the creatures that have them stand a better chance of living long enough to reproduce. Just like computers, you will also find identical useful genes in our relatives and anachronisms from the past that have yet to be 'removed', such as the appendix or 'junk' DNA that serves no purpose.

You see the similarity? Simple to complex. A directed evolution. Some don't work too well and 'die out'. Divergent species. The same genes in related organisms. Anachronisms from the past. Assuming you can accept the way that computers evolved, and the similarities to genetic evolution, why is it so difficult to believe that life also evolved?

Compare that with the Creationists view:

Christian: Everything that is complex must have been designed and have a creator.
Non-Christian: God is the most complex thing we know, in fact the most complex thing possible so you're saying that he must have a creator.
Christian: No, God is different, he doesn't need a creator.
Non-Christian: So just because something is complex it doesn't necessarily need a creator.
Christian: No, everything that is complex, except God, must have been designed and have a creator.
Non-Christian: Why doesn't God need a creator?
Christian: He just doesn't okay!
(Pause)
Christian: God loves you, Jesus loves you, you need to just have faith and be saved, etc.

MvT Cracker
October 3rd, 2007, 02:32 AM
um, its actually just one God. its 3 different manifestations, or, kinda like a 3 way rope. its still one rope, but it has 3 ends.

me, im a christian, and looks like im the 1st on this thread...
i dont know how anyone could be an atheist. if you spend time studying it, you'll realise there has to be some type of God out there.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good

george carlin on religion

lets take another look the only "proof" of god is in a book well anyone can write anything into a book so anyone could have changed it at anytime so how can you trust everything or anything in said book now you might say god would punish that well look at how many people say he is not real or say things about him and he dose not punish them

now where did religeon and the idea of god come from the middle east where people spend to much time in the sun and beleive there "god "allah" wants them to wage a holy war and suicide attacks. but there are muslims who think those people are wrong or extremists prooving they are not that smart and maybe spend to much time in the sun


But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f***ed up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever **** things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
George Carlin
On Religion

"One phrase that come up quite a bit in abortion discussions is "sanctity of life." What about that? Do you think there's a thing as sanctity of life? Personally,, I think it's a bunch of shit. Who says life is sacred? .....god? Great, but if you read your history you know that god is one of the leading causes of death and has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, all taking turns killing one another, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god, the blood of the lamb, Vengeance is mine, onward Christian soldiers. Millions of dead people. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question: Do you believe in god?

No.
BAM! Dead.
How about you? Do you believe in god?
Yes."
Do you believe in MY god?
No.
BAM! Dead!
My god has a bigger *ick than your god.
George Carlin

Alice Shade
October 3rd, 2007, 10:02 AM
Did I said anything about "complicated"?

NO. I said, that solutions implemented are INANE for any sane maker to use.

They can be only explained by gradual mutation from lesser forms into higher ones. Maker could`ve just rebuilt the problematic nodes into upgraded versions, rather then build numerous workarounds and leave leftovers everywhere.

___

As for your example with computers... I`ll continue it.

Yes, computers are built in a rational way. They squeeze an extra bit of functionality wherever possible, they discard old standards completely, whenever needed, they are, in essence, remade anew each five years. Computer of today would have little to nothing in common with computer of 2002, save for external looks made for the convenience of inanely-constructed humans, who just can`t adapt to changes operatively. They have to evolve those adaptations.

___

Now... Let`s take human, and try to build a computer on the base of human.

First of all. Let`s connect EVERYTHING with two-inch long wires. We`ll solder a battery-powered amplifier with switch to one end of each wire, and jack to other. (And yes, we will have to build a special conveyor to replace batteries on all the multitude of the amplifiers.)

Let`s make ALL the rest of equipment dependant on small batteries, which are moved around on the complex conveyor belts, which are powered by same batteries. (Yes, we`ll be going through thousands of batteries a day, sorry about that. We`re making a God-inspired computer.)

Let`s omit all kind of voltage/amperage regulation - if batteries are too weak or too fresh, we`ll just have to suffer from system instability.

Now... Interfaces.

Let`s make our microphones out of metal wires, coal and circles. To make sure they work, we`ll mount a bottle of oil to constantly leak oil over the microphone. (Yes, we will have to clean out used oil manually.)

Let`s put two cameras to receive visual signals. Let`s make it so black and white vision requires additional battery to kick in, and let`s make it so color vision does not works at all, until there`s a bright light shining outside. Now, let`s put wires in FRONT of our cameras, and write complex program so it`d subtract the image of wires out of received image, and then restore the original which we`d receive, if there were no wires in front of a camera.

Now, let`s get back to those tiny wires with amplifiers/switches. Let`s take a couple more of those, and start assembling them into one hell of a complicated circuit. Let`s do this until all those switches, wires and amplifiers turn into a computer CPU. We`ll use a few trillions of them, but that`s all cool. After all, they definitely can`t be replaced with integral plates, can they?

___

And voila, we have human-computer... Complicated like hell, unefficient like hell, expensive like hell to make and upkeep, and useless like hell and beyond that.

Still think your creator`s up to something? Well, he must be damn green in any construction work, that`s for sure. (How the hell the very same guy could balance a planet to keep up in roughly-spherical form, even?)

GeoffBoulton
October 3rd, 2007, 11:03 AM
Would a creationist find it offensive to say that both the Sinclair Spectrum and the Kray supercomputer evolved from a transistor (common ancestor)?

Of course not. The transistor was a great leap forward from the 'valves' that were available before and is seen as the pinnacle of achievement at that time. How could recognising that breakthrough and the advances it led to be offensive?

Would a creationist find it ridiculous to say that the same Spectrum and Kray are both computers (related species)?

Again, they would not. It is patently obvious that they are both computers, even though they are completely different beasts, because the similarities between them are too numerous to think any differently.

Why then would Creationists think it should be offensive/ridiculous that man and other species are related and evolved from a common ancestor? Just like transistors and computers, the first single-celled organism was the pinnacle of achievement in its day and the similarities between man and other species are overwhelming, despite their differing outward appearances.

There is only one reason creationists object, because it contradicts their interpretation of the bible and questions the very proof upon which their fantasy is based, nothing more.