Lol he said he'd answer any question seriously

I actually do have a legit question now. What's life like in Belgium compared to America (if you've ever been to the USA enough to answer well)?

I like AMA threads but I'm worried if I made one everyone would just troll cuz I'm not that popular :(

Math Wolf, what is your favorite food? :D

What is better clan war or clan league?

Do you believe in Baruch de Spinoza's belief in God? Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher. He was a realist. The number one question students asked Einstein was "do you believe in God". He answered,"I believe in Spinoza's God".

You seem to be a realist as I am. I a retired research chemist and engineer.

I do not.

I generally keep myself far away from any questions whether (a) G/god exists or not and which shape it would have.
All the philosophical proofs of the existence of a God, be it of Spinoza, Descartes or Acquinas are worthless to me.

I think I said somewhere in a previous post that I like to do my own thinking based on the data. Of course that has its limitations and you have to start from some axioms always. All philosophical proofs do so as well, and their axioms are rarely objective truths even though they'll go a long way in trying to pose them as such. As you say in your questions yourself: "Spinoza's belief", the belief, not an airtight proof or truth.

Nevertheless, the concept of (a) G/god is well-defined in many different ways by people all over the world, past and present. If we look at some of Spinoza's work, God equaling (all of) nature, to simplify it a bit, is not necessarily a far-fetched concept, but it's still a belief. From a technical point of view, if God is defined (axiom) to be "all-knowing" etc, then from a physics point of view, God is everything including all of nature, but also all the galaxies out there as all information is contained within all mass in the universe according to classic physics. So if someone wants to define their God that way, I can agree this is their belief and true if their axiom holds. However, it starts from an axiom that this person wants to define something or someone all-knowing exist. Same concept for all-powerful or all other properties assigned to their concept of (a) G/god.

So while I do not belief in this myself, I do observe that this concept is some people's belief so to say.
However, it's not because a majority or plurality of people belief something that this is necessary the most likely to be true. History has ample (counter)examples of that.
We have to understand that when one has to live in a time where they are constantly confronted with "God", it's hard to imagine a world without and not start all philosophical musings with that starting point in mind.
These days, there are ample ways to explain the existence of religion and belief-systems from an anthropological and sociological lens instead. Animals do not need this to make sense of their lives (as far as we know).

Finally, there is the Bayesian approach to things. The posterior likelihood of something is its prior likelihood combined with the data. Some of the things currently unexplained by science could be hypothetically explained by an "unseen force" which could or could not be something that people may define as (a) G/god. One could make arguments of the posterior likelihood of God/gods of different forms based on the likelihood of events that happened (the data) and the prior they are willing to assign to each of the different explanations. However, this is obviously an intractable problem and would in essence be a probabilistic version of all the same imperfect philosophical arguments.

So, in conclusion, there currently is insufficient data for me to prove the existence of what people call (a) G/god, nor is there sufficient data to reject the idea. I personally, at this stage in life, do not need the concept to give sense to my life, so I find it useless to give it more though. However, I do accept that others have different views and I accept those as beliefs that can be held, not as truths.

Why do things get lost in the Bermuda Triangle?

For mostly the same reasons they get lost elsewhere?

It's not sexy or fun, but from what I understand, it's just an example of a blown up sensational news article years ago that gave many people inspiration and created an urban myth.
Already nearly 50 years ago, it was disproven and there has been no indications that the Bermuda Triangle would be more dangerous than any other place at sea with similar weather conditions.
So yeah, your ship may sink in a storm there, or even in a hurricane, but the same could happen outside It.

It's interesting though, because when I personally first heard about it, I thought it was probably going to be some case of regression to the mean, a disproportionate number of events in a certain time period that over time middles out again, but the myth is born. Turns out that's not even the case, there never was a disproportionate number of events, rather just fake news to cell newspapers.
But hey, as long as it's keep selling, keeps attracting clicks and viewers with fancy titles, why stop the myth?

If something is the opposite of important, why isn't it "exportant"?

Let me start by saying your question is very exportant to me. ;)

In truth, it's actually a very interesting question, but why is the opposite not an exteresting or outteresting question?

The answer of course, is found in linguistics. The "im" in this case is not even guaranteed. Sure, we have import vs. export and implode vs. explode, but there is also include vs. exclude, interior vs. exterior and intra vs. extra (and are those even opposite?), i.e. "in" rather than "im".

However, English has a way with their 2-letter combos. "in" and "im" can also just denote an opposite! Inefficient for example or imperfect.

In fact, my English teacher in high school already explained that to us with a graph on the learning curve. It's very easy to get started in English, he told us, the basic learning curve is very gradual. This opposed to French or German, where the initial learning curve is quite steep. In German and French rules are generally more fixed rules to follow, meaning there is a lot to learn even when you want to learn the basics, but where this steep initial learning curve is followed by a rather flat continuation. English is the opposite. Once you're past the basics, English is hard. There is an exception to every rule, an exception to every exception and then exceptions to that. And that's when there are rules. Sometimes, there just aren't. Why is it swim-swam-swum, sing-sang-sung, sink-sank-sunk, stink-stank-stunk but not swing-swang-swung or sting-stang-stung (where stang actually used to exist but is now replaced by stung as past tense).

So the reason is exactly what English not is: simple. The English language is not logical, it never was. Once you get past the basics, you have to learn everything by hard, every single word and exception. The opposite of which is of course not... inception.

Do you think it's ridicolous for people declare themselves not believing in God but celebrate Christmass?

Not at all, because at least part of Christmas may be linked to pagan and Roman feasts that were held for the winter solstice, e.g. the Christmas tree.

However, it would be quite absurd for people who do not believe in God to celebrate Christmas in the same way as people who believe in God. For example, adding a crib with baby Jesus would be quite strange and to some considered in poor taste. Why bother putting a figurine of a baby boy from a legend if you don't believe the legend. However, here it does get a bit murky. Many people, e.g. at minimum all Jews and Muslims, do believe in the person of Jesus, i.e. accept his existence, but do not believe he was the Messiah. Note that Jews and Muslims also believe in a God (called Yahweh and Allah respectively) of course. They may choose to celebrate Christmas from a societal point of view as a result, including its symbolism even though it's not really all that relevant to their religion.
Although depending on the interpretation of your question, that may not be a relevant answer.

As for anyone else: I think it depends on the term "celebrate". Some things you cannot avoid. If you live in a majority Christian country, it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God, you are forced to "join" in the festivities, whether you want it or not. Family, friends, work parties, school, it's just everywhere. And people do not look kindly on people who ruin the atmosphere. At such moments, it's sometimes best for those people to just "smile and wave" and go with the flow even though they personally don't care at all.
I would not call that ridiculous personally, but rather unfortunate.

However, if such people would be themselves the biggest proponent of celebrating Christmas and organizing Christmas parties, with all of the show that has to go with it, while it has no real meaning for them, then yes, that is a bit ridiculous in my personal opinion. And yes, I do know people like that, unfortunately.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken, of course. God created all animals. He made the chicken and a chicken wife for it, and soon the first egg was crapped out.

Since life started in water, it took some time to adapt on land. The first period, land animals actually went into water to lay eggs, kind of like frogs do today.
After evolution, life finds a way; the eggs get an outer shell and some animals find a way to lay them on dry ground.

So if you accept that the chicken came out of an egg, something else laid the egg on dry ground.

Or maybe the first chicken was an underwater duck.