The concept of a god was the thing that humans needed earlier on in our development. When we were all a simple bunch, things that a common knowledge now were absolute mysteries then. The sun moving across the sky, for example, could only be explained in the form of a sun god. Crops failing would be explained by a god of the harvest, etc, etc. These was the original forms of gods. Nothing more than a way of explaining the things we couldn't possibly understand. As we all grew smarter, and started to understand more and more about the way the universe and the world worked, these primitive physical gods started to morth into metaphysical gods. Gods who, instead of simply performing a purpose, actually loved us and cared for us. This makes a lot of sense. The human race was growing in intelligence, and soon the questions that we posed had changed from "why do my crops fail?" to ones such as "what happens when I die?" The transition to a loving caring god was simply the next rational step in human development. Now, in a time where science prevails, god has become more and more elusive, spiritual and metaphysical then ever before. Now he is everything and nothing; an undisprovable all-powerful entity who "has a plan." So, my concept of god is as follows. God is a figment of the imagination that people latch on to, simply because it gives them some hope and makes it easier for them to try and understand the world around us. It gives people a sense of purpose, assures them (for those who need it) that there is a reason why we're here, and also takes away the fear that when you die, you're dead, and that's it. These are thoughts that people would rather live without, and god (now that he is no longer required in physical form) slots nicely into that position. God is the convenient answer to all the unknown questions. There are also evolutionary reasons and advantages behind religion, but I won't get into those now.
516 days ago | Tagged As: God of the gaps
xaeon, You seem to think that providing a 'scientific' explanation for our concept of God somehow shows that God does not exist; a classic example of the genetic fallacy. The origin of a belief says nothing about the truth of a belief.
I think you're wrong. I feel that tracing the origin and evolution of religion shows quite clearly what a backwards way of thinking it is. And, I was only providing the very brief history of religion in order to justify my argument and my concept of god.
Wrong about what? Please provide some examples of how "tracing the origin and evolution of religion shows quite clearly what a backwards way of thinking it is." You have clearly committed the genetic fallacy. Tracing the origins of our concept of God, while interesting, leads to nothing in regards to determining the existence of God. Yet everywhere I turn it seems, someone, including you, is spouting off about the history of religion and how our understanding of God has changed and coming to the conclusion that therefore God is not necessary. This conclusion is not even close to being supported by the premise. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett may be good scientists and communicators but they are absolutely lousy philosophers, and if you get your philosophy wrong, your science will lead you nowhere. The only thing that you can conclude from tracing the origins of religious thought is that religious thought has evolved. If that cranks your tractor, then have at 'er, but don't be duped into thinking that the fact that religious thought has evolved has anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of God.
516 days ago | Tagged As: genetic fallacy
"Tracing the origins of our concept of God, while interesting, leads to nothing in regards to determining the existence of God." Well, this is where you and I are going to disagree. I feel that taking a good look at the roots of religion is very enlightening when thinking about religion today. What it started as was something that was niether spiritual nor divine, but simply a mechanism to help us understand the world around us. Tracing the evolution of religion makes it plainly clear that what it started out as and what it has come to be now are two completely different things. The main reason for this shift in religious views was simply because we started to have a greater understanding of the world around us. As we started to understand more, the physical god was pushed aside into a metaphysical god. I don't understand how you can accept that the religion we had then and the religion we have now are completely different, and not see how this belittles religious thought today. I've hardly commited genetic fallacy, as the point you're missing here is that the history of it isn't in any way irrelevant. In my view it is an extremely relevant pointer to religion's benefits in terms of evolution and society, but complete downfall in terms of anything divine or spiritual. The conclusion is very much supported by the premise. Take for example if I were to make up a story about a fairy living in my garden who used to steal my cabbages. This made sense to me because occassionaly my cabbages would disappear. A few generations later people start to realise that it's actually rabbits stealing my cabbages, but we've hold on to the fairy belief so much, and its been so ingrained into our minds that we cannot let go of the cabbage stealing fairy. So, she no longer steals cabbages... but she does still play an important part in my life. She's now, possibly, helping to look out for me in times of trouble when my cabbages are stolen by the rabbits. The point is that now she is something that she wasn't, and I know full well what she started off as, ragardless of what occured in between to get her to the state she is in now. This is a rather silly example, but can't we see the relevance of knowing the roots of something, and seeing how it's now turned out? Religion wasn't divine, and now it is. Regalrdless of how this divinity was picked up along the way, it still makes a folly of religious thought today. "Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett may be good scientists and communicators but they are absolutely lousy philosophers, and if you get your philosophy wrong, your science will lead you nowhere." So who exactly are good philosophers? People who have the same ideas as you? No one is any more qualified to be a philosopher than anyone else. And the case in point is that Dawkins isn't a philosopher... he's a realist. I guess when people are presented with irrefutable facts, they have to name them as philosophies and bash them in that respect instead? "The only thing that you can conclude from tracing the origins of religious thought is that religious thought has evolved. If that cranks your tractor, then have at 'er, but don't be duped into thinking that the fact that religious thought has evolved has anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of God." As I said, I think you're completely wrong on this point. Maybe if religious thought had evolved, and that was the only factor, then you'd be right. The important bit you're missing is that religion has evolved from the non-divine to the divine... and it's that divinity part which I question. When you take the divinity out of religion, you lose your all powerful god, and religion becomes nothing more than simply a philosophy to live your life by.
Yup, we disagree...but isn't that the point of this site? Here we go. You assert that religion began as neither spiritual nor divine. Since you provide no evidence for this assertion, and you could not possibly know one way or the other, we can discard your bald assertion. You say that religion has changed over time. I agree. Our understanding of God has changed over time, however this says nothing about whether or not God actually exists. Too bad for you. You very clearly commit the genetic fallacy when you say that the history of religious thought has any bearing on the current status of religious thought. (See the link below to read up on the genetic fallacy before you deny it again.) Good philosophers? Kai Nielsen (with whom I disagree), Antony Flew (former atheist, now theist, with whom I agree and disagree), JP Moreland (with whom I agree and disagree), Francis Beckwith (with whom I mostly agree), William Lane Craig (with whom I agree). Here is a sampling of Dawkins' philosophy... On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows: "1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. 2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. 3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. 4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics. 6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" Holy Smokes batman! The conclusion comes from absolutely nowhere! Even if every premiss were true, the conclusion does not follow. Worse for Dawkins is the fact that his 6 statements are not even premises! #1 is an introductory observation and therefore irrelevant. #s 2&3;are meant to cancel each other out and are therefore irrelevant. Skip #4 for now as it is it's own mini argument. #5 is an admission of a problem #6 is wishful thinking Neither 5 nor 6 are relevant to the argument and need to be discarded. So we are left with #4 and the 'conclusion'. Even if we grant #4 (a highly dubious statement), the 'conclusion' is totally unrelated and unsupported. Dawkins calls this the central argument in his book. You would hope he has something better than this drivel. If Dawkins wants to gain credibility outside the unthinking masses who buy his books, he has a heck of a lot of work to do. He is a very poor philosopher. And now you return to the genetic fallacy. To repeat myself yet again...the history of religious thought has nothing to do with the truth of current religious thought. Current religious thought must be evaluated on its own merits today.
I think the thing you are missing is that aiding towards a conclusion by exploring the history and concluding based solely on the source are NOT the same thing. You can post as many links as you like to the genetic fallacy (I know full well what it is), until YOU actually take in what it is and its applied context and usage, please stop telling me that I am commiting it, as I will simply shrug it off as ignorance the same way you have done with my arguments. We are just going to have to agree to disagree about religious history's implications. The history and, dare I say, evolution of religion is, in my book, extremely relevant. Maybe you'd rather it wasn't? Can you honestly tell me that the history and roots of a religion such as scientology (which is new enough for us to see and understand its roots and their implications in regards to the religion) is irrelevant?
410 days ago | Tagged As: God of the gaps
I agree. With religion when you ask someone why they believe something its typically because someone told them about the religion, and someone told that person and so on until you get to the first person who came up with the idea. If his reasoning was flawed then religion is false. If on the other hand god told him to do it then religion is correct. I tend to believe that religion is out of date in a society where more and more of life's big questions can be answered by science. I also have more faith in humanity then to think that a book needs to dictate what's right and wrong, and without this book we are hopelessly doomed.
513 days ago | Tagged As: genetic fallacy
"There are also evolutionary reasons and advantages behind religion, but I won't get into those now." Go on!
Well to answer your question, those societies who had religion in one way or another were able to survive. This is because in most cases people feared that if they committed a crime such as murder or something that would hurt that society as a whole then there would be retribution from some kind of supernatural being (God). Religion acted as a buffer to keep people in line. Those societies without out some set of beliefs tended to fail because people had no reason to not do what was in their own best interest. At the most basic level, early religions used fear to keep people in line, and it worked. Almost every civilization that survived up until more modern times had a set of beliefs. Another reason that religion was beneficial to societies is it usually explained death. As xaeon explained earlier, religion was used to explain things that people did not understand. Most people fear death, and if you get and explanation that you will be reincarnated or go to heaven then your not so afraid. In this way religion acts as a drug, altering the mind state of the masses so that they will not question long held beliefs.
I hope that whatever God turns out to be that I can reason with him. In other words, I would like to communicate with him and have him respond. Hopefully he wont call me a troll and vote me down ;)
Troll. This is you... getting voted down... by the almighty
There are many gods, not one single, all-mighty, all-knowing, all-good, all-all ruler of all creation. The highest of the gods would be the universal god, the universe itself. This god, however, is impersonal and neutral. Don't expect any help from it; it is nature itself and is therefor entirely impartial to your wishes and demands. You are as important as a deer,a rock, the planet Saturn, and Alpha Centauri as far is it is concerned. Behind creation is the universal force of contradiction; the force that brought something from nothing, light from darkness, and sentience from thoughtless matter. Below the universal god and in accordance with the universal force of conflict there are innumerable gods and goddesses representing various forces on earth (and elsewhere, I would assume). These deities act in accordance with the forces which they are a part of, they are the self-aware aspects of these (as far as I believe). Good, evil, and essentially neutral; they are diverse and many and they listen only to those they deem in accordance with their force (if you are a good person a good god will help you, only evil gods help the evil) and, depending on their temperament, may expect some amount of personal skill, effort, and sacrifice in order to solicit their assistance.
Good old polytheism. Possibly even more nuts than the idea of the Abrahamic gods.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion I suppose. I would enjoy a debate rather than bland dismissal, though. Would you like to point out what is insane about my belief structure, specifically, and find some logical or factual fault with it?
Well, there are so many types of polytheistic religion that you'd have to give me a clearer understanding on what your actual beliefs are before I can start finding the logical and factual faults (of which, I am sure, there will be many). On a side note, it grates me how the religious always try to find a way of pushing the emphisis of proof onto the non-believer, when infact you should be bringing some facts with you to the table in order to back up your argument. Anyone can spout any old nonsense about what they believe or don't believe, but until they provide some reasoning, some evidence, some facts, etc, it's all just the same old tosh. Polytheism, and its obvious grounding in mythology, quite possibly the most tosh of all of them. I'm sorry, but in this day and age people should be smarter than believing in what is quite clearly ancient mythology for a human civilisation who needed to invent the concepts of gods to understand the (then) unknown. A very inteseting experiment I'd love to try on the religious is for them to explain why their religion is right and everyone elses is wrong. As the old saying goes: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible religions, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." Bring one bit of factual evidence to the table to back up your religious beliefs, and then I'll think about changing my tact from bland dismissal to debate. Until that happens, I'll continue to blandly dismiss any and all religion for the nonsense it clearly is. So, if you can, please provide me with one fact about your religion?
I plainly stated my beliefs, the one who sweepingly used the "polytheistic" label was you. If you need further clarification please tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on. "On a side note, it grates me how the religious always try to find a way of pushing the emphisis of proof onto the non-believer, when infact you should be bringing some facts with you to the table in order to back up your argument." It grates me when people say "no you are wrong, show some facts!" to very large and complicated statements. You never pointed out a point of contention; I don't understand what you find silly or what you need specific proof of. Additionally, the argument heading was "What is your concept of god", which I answered directly with my concept. I am fully capable and willing to back it up, I just wish to know what parts of my statements you disagree with and why. My philosophical epistimology follows along the lines of "something is true until proven untrue"; coupled with the concept of "probability" or the "likelyhood" of something being true. Oddly enough, I have an answer for your question "why is your religion right and all others are wrong?" The answer is, my religion isn't the only correct one. All religions (and ideas) are correct until proven incorrect; either through facts or inherent logical contradictions. A religion that posits "my god created the universe" can't really be disproven; so it is technically true within a measure of probability. A religion, however, that says "my god is all good but he kills people when they look too hard at rabbits" is a logical contradiction and the religion is, in part, false. "Bring one bit of factual evidence to the table to back up your religious beliefs, and then I'll think about changing my tact from bland dismissal to debate. Until that happens, I'll continue to blandly dismiss any and all religion for the nonsense it clearly is. So, if you can, please provide me with one fact about your religion?" You are on shakier ground than you believe. You do realize that the very fundamentals of the universe have not been proven with facts, they are theories with a high likelyhood of probability (until they are disproven). You can harp all you want, but the very existence of the universe makes absolutely no sense. At some point something, matter, had to pop into existence from nothing. This completely turns the laws of matter and energy on its head; matter and energy cannot be created nor destroy? But if they cannot be created...how on earth did they come to exist? Anyways, name what you think is incorrect and I will back it up with logic. Otherwise you are just following preconceived notions and general prejudices. It's like telling someone that what they are doing is evil without pointing out what exactly about what they are doing is transgressing against the principles of good (or not even enunciating what those principles are).
"I plainly stated my beliefs, the one who sweepingly used the "polytheistic" label was you. If you need further clarification please tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on." Agreed. I obviously didn't put into words what I really meant. My actual questioning in regards to this was more akin to whether you are using your religious beliefs more as a good moral compass and philosophy to run your life, rather than an actual "religion." A lot of polytheists I know (mainly Pagan, etc) seem to use their religion as a philosophy rather than what I would call a "traditional" religion. "It grates me when people say "no you are wrong, show some facts!" to very large and complicated statements. You never pointed out a point of contention; I don't understand what you find silly or what you need specific proof of." I disagree with you on this point. I feel that when it comes to religion, the burden of proof should be on the religious. If, as you state, "All religions (and ideas) are correct until proven incorrect," would this mean you'd be willing to accept any and every religious thought that cannot be disproven? Say, for example, I told you I had an invisible lizard in my garden who created the universe. We both know this is clearly nonsense, as I just made it up. But, what proof do you have to disprove it? None. So, are you willing to go out on a limb and tell me, and absolutely mean it, that you are willing to accept my invisible garden lizard as a god? How about the teacup of life, that orbits the moon and spouts out energy and matter? Until you provide some proof, your religious beliefs occupy the same space as my made up (and frankly, ridiculous) beliefs. So, I am not going to accept the great teacup of life as a ligitimate religion, and with that logic, yours niether, until I see some proof. Going back over your previous argument about what your concept is, it actually seems to me that you are taking bog standard universal forces (which I consider a part of science, not religion) and calling them gods. "A religion that posits "my god created the universe" can't really be disproven; so it is technically true within a measure of probability." Hmm, I love it when people misunderstand probability. The argument here also revolves around infinity, and how your god lies within the realms of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore, the probability is that you are completely and utterly wrong. Whilst it is a non-zero that you are right, don't bring probability into it, as probability states that you are almost certainly wrong. "You are on shakier ground than you believe. You do realize that the very fundamentals of the universe have not been proven with facts, they are theories with a high likelyhood of probability (until they are disproven)." Again true. I, however, am willing to say I simply don't know how the universe started, rather than fill the gap in with gods. Like I said, in regards to infinity, you are almost certainly wrong... and therefore my stance of bland dismissal until I see some facts is a far more realistic stance to have. "You can harp all you want, but the very existence of the universe makes absolutely no sense. At some point something, matter, had to pop into existence from nothing. This completely turns the laws of matter and energy on its head; matter and energy cannot be created nor destroy? But if they cannot be created...how on earth did they come to exist?" The laws of matter and energy are universal laws. Therfore they aren't true outside the bounds of the universe (meaning that it is perfectly logical for the universe to be created out of nothing). "Anyways, name what you think is incorrect and I will back it up with logic. Otherwise you are just following preconceived notions and general prejudices." See, I can't, and this is the tricky thing about religion. You've spoken about your religion, and religion in general, in such a wishy washy way that there is nothing there for me to disprove. You've basically taken universal forces, called them gods, and then asked me to disprove them. Your religious beliefs fall within a realm of inifinity, and therefore I can say with a large amount of certainty that you are most definately wrong. So, this leaves us on a level playing field. We're both probably wrong. The thing is that I'm willing to accept that I don't know, rather than saying "god did it." The moment you say "god is this" you are wrong. Even with your wishy washy statement, you are still at least tieing your religion down to certain constraints (multiple gods in a heirarchy, consistent with universal forces, etc), and in the realms of infinite possibilities, you too are definately wrong. So, why bother?
psst... your lizard looks like a straw man. Tread carefully, for it is a treacherous creature!
Whilst I may have been applying a certain element of reductio ad absurdum, I certainly wasn't misrepresenting his view. His view on religion is extremely open, and he clearly stated that he is willing to accept all gods as real until evidence is provided to the contrary. So, what I present was not, infact, a straw man.
1. To make things clear; I started with a philosophy and I found gods. If my philosophy ever changes my concept of religion will also change. My morality is hardly influenced by my gods, as I accept the existence of evil gods as well as good. If I wanted to be evil I would choose wicked deities, if I wanted to be good I'd choose holy ones, if I didn't want to be bothered with such things I'd choose neutral gods. My gods are chosen because they are in line with my "force", who I am. With their help and guidance I believe I can accomplish much more; I also wish to show my appreciation for the forces which control my life and my destiny, out of respect I suppose (also as a reminder to myself of who I am and what I am about). 2. If you seriously believed that an invisible lizard in your garden created the universe a series of logical questions could easily affirm or discredit your belief. "How", "When", "Why" can all be used to back absurdities into a corner and negate them out of existence. It's easiest to do with absolutist religions, ones that are more style than substance. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity are easy to knock down due to the ease in which their beliefs can be questioned and successfully discredited with logic and facts. Boiled down, though, your lizard and teapot or any other made-up gods or creatures will usually end up representing what past and present worshiped gods represent(ed). It's all rather futile, really. 3. I'm going to copy and paste this one due to how funny it is to me: "Hmm, I love it when people misunderstand probability. The argument here also revolves around infinity, and how your god lies within the realms of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore, the probability is that you are completely and utterly wrong. Whilst it is a non-zero that you are right, don't bring probability into it, as probability states that you are almost certainly wrong." You may have destroyed someone who believed in a single god. I, however, believe in all gods. That is, I believe in all possible gods. Therefor, the probability that my own personal religion (a religion of technically infinite gods) is 1. Probability-wise, my religion of utter inclusiveness is surely correct simply because it is so open and inclusive (according to your understanding of probability I might add). Only religions and gods that deny the existence of others (a logical contradiction or a statement of negation against what cannot be disproven) are denied by me. 4. My own personal belief in the creation of the universe follows the quantum cosmological model: nothing is unstable and therefor created bubbles of something. I am going to admit a grave mistake when I stated, as an example of something that cannot be disproven, a religion who claims a god created the universe. I should correct that and say they cannot be disproven with facts (yet), only logic and questions. Most of the popular religions on earth can easily be chopped down (in part) through simple argument. 5. That in itself is contradictory. 6. You are conflating me with other forms of religion. Just because I accept other religions as equally valid (unless they can be defeated by logic and reason, through their own inherent contradictions) doesn't mean I actually stand certain of their beliefs or my own. I am perfectly willing to change my beliefs and understandings given scientific, philosophical, and logical discoveries and advancements. My statement of belief in gods is not a statement of "I will always believe this", you are mixing me in with blind adherents of faith. All that I believe in I believe in up to a point and always with the understanding that it can and will probably change with time, insight, and argument. As for my "wishy-washy"-ness; that's a matter of opinion. I am always open to clarify my beliefs and positions you need only ask me to. While you say that you accept that you are probably wrong; only one of us dismissed the other person's beliefs. Not only that, but it what was dismissed wasn't actually held by that person as true. I never said "god did it" with regards to the creation of the universe. Also, my conception of god is, as you have noted, not a strict and easily bordered concept. Defeating other people's beliefs won't defeat mine; and until you find a point of contention I don't see the problem. All that seems to be at issue here is that your taste, your personal preferences deviate from mine. You seem, though, to not like my defense of my deviation from what you find to be personally agreeable.
In response to the argument of probability you said: "...That is, I believe in all possible gods. Therefor, the probability that my own personal religion (a religion of technically infinite gods) is 1..." You are assuming that there must be a god. Do you say that there is no chance that there isn't god? (excuse the double negative). On the other hand, what if there is only one god, or a limited number of gods? Wouldn't you therefor be "wrong" in a way? (What I mean to say is that would the existence of a single God contradict your belief structure.)
OK, one up vote for the first 4 paragraphs but the fifth???
Jesus Christ! What are you talking about? Where did you get that from???
Bradford, someone voted you down to -1. I can only vote you back up to zero. There. I like being moderator ;)
I formed my belief structure using various beliefs, philosophies, and religions as well as my own understanding of things. I didn't realize my beliefs were terribly outlandish (especially so outlandish as to get "voted down". I found that to be a rather odd thing).
I didn't see that you were voted down. I don't know why anyone would since it's your belief. I mean, how can you be wrong? Anyway, is it possible to communicate with these Gods (BTW, a capital "God" pisses Bradford off so use it at your discretion :)?
Yes, there are ways. It all depends on the god, really; but there are a number of divination techniques, spiritual journeys, and "special connections" you could potentially use. It all comes down to your personality and which god or gods you choose to worship. Personally, I like to use Tarot to ask them questions; I am more familiar with it and it is quite fun to experiment with. They'll usually answer your questions, and facilitate explorations into the future. Tarot doesn't actually work without them, you need outside help or else it'd probably be mindless gibberish. I am sure they'll "communicate" with you in other, more direct ways. If you choose a good god and do wrong; they'll probably send a message or two your way (in the form of bad luck. All I can say is that when I say something bad about someone out loud I seem to immediately trip, stumble, fall, run into something, or get hit by something; nothing official but it is something I think about). If you choose a god of education and you are slacking in your studies, expect some "hints" that you aren't following along with your obligations; bad grades, technical difficulties, usually amiable teachers no longer cutting you slack...etc...etc... If and when they communicate with you depends on which god you are trying to talk to and whether or not you have done what is expected of you. A god of strength and war won't piddle around with cowardly weaklings to say the least. I know it sounds hokey, but I really am able to back up my beliefs with logic. I don't mind people not agreeing with my religious faith; not at all, but I don't believe I am baseless in my beliefs.
Yeah, and I was essentially asking if that is an established or popular belief... I wasn't putting you down for it. "Jesus Christ", I thought would be funny because I wanted to convey a sense of astonishment like "omg" or "oh my god", but then I decided to make it more specific to a more popular religion, and... yeah. No hard feelings, I don't pick on people for believing in something, even it's the celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.
So what can your tarots tell you about me? About my future?
The concept of God is the embodiment of Bronze Age wish thinking and tribalism.
God or source or whatever we choose to call it. I don't think you have to walk outside very far before you recognize something bigger than us at play here. What is it? who can know? But that it is a thing or a God is just mere speculation. I grew up being indoctrinated and have tried extremely hard to look at the the entirety of Religions and higher powers. Most peoples understanding of the concept of God is based on geography and indoctrination. But, If there is a god I would bet he doesn't write books. In the words of Jack Kerouac, All I have to offer is my own confusion.
God is something, but unexplainable. the universe? a supernatural being? it is something beyond understanding. it could be the very human mind. we, in fact, could be god.
I concur with "the pyg", the whole concept of God and religion would fall through if God was a tangible and "know-able" thing. For an illustration see: Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzche and "divine donkeyism".
410 days ago | Tagged As: God of the gaps
God is an unembodied mind; both rational and personal.
How more wishy washy can you get?
So can we communicate with it?
I don't know... I think there's a few questions that proceed this one in importance. Firstly, is whether or not we can even know if there is a god. Secondly, does it matter if there is a god? If we're talking about one god here "God", then you're basically asking from which religion do you get your concept of God. If we're not talking about the God, then how can we even know if we can know? I mean, someone explain to me what truth means, and then I'll consider what god is to me. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ WHAT_IS_THE_MEANING_OF_TRUTH
I wrote that when I was drunk... sorry if it doesn't make sense. Down vote for me :^/
Some of my stuff was written while drunk (notice, I didn't categorize it). Can you tell ;)
That’s another reasons that its impossible to discuss religion with a bunch of new age self-enlightened individuals who are suckers for consensus with the scientific community and think that they can, or have, defined everything in the universe and completely ruled out that there is a God - the creator of the universe in which they are no more than tiny pip-squeaks: they’re so goddam inebriated most of the time that you can’t even make out if they’re rational enough to realize the truth if it was spilling over them like hot coffee. It’s rather difficult to find out what God is and what the truth is (which I believe is the highest form of knowledge that humans can ever know) if you’re not even letting yourself use half the mind that God gave you in the first place.
Normally I'd have beef with comments such as that, but as it's directed at Joe, I'll let it slide. :-)
What? We have a history, you and I. You're gonna give all that up for some newbie? I mean, the enemy of your enemy is your friend but if they are both your enemy then you should chose..... hey wait a minute.... you just paid me a compliment.... you should chose the enemy that poses the least threat. You see me as superior to what's his name and so you decided to take his side.... nice ;)
Yeah! But don't you think that if your too open minded your brains will fall out?
A blind man who examines the front of an elephant will have a much different understanding than a blind man examining the elephant's rear. The two blind men's descriptions would even seem contradictory. . . The atheist often seeks to understand his world by understanding its smallest parts and putting the pieces together, i.e. a bottom-up approach. "God", on the other hand, is quite simply the top-down approach of understanding the universe. God and nature are synomous; the only difference is which end of the elephant that blind humanity desires to study.
One day, an astronaut (an atheist) and a Brain Surgeon (a christian) were talking about their views on religion. The astronaut says to the surgeon: "I've been into space many times and I've never seen God or any angels." To which the surgeon replied "So, I've operated on hundreds of brains and never seen a single thought...."
410 days ago | Tagged As: God of the gaps
God is a figure of mind made up by people who need to feel 'special' or 'loved'. people devote their entire lives to this one thing, the idea of God. it shows a weakness in their emotional or spiritual side, seeing 'god-incidence' or things that would require some kind of supernatural being, i.e. people who get cancer then randomly dont have it... christmas has become more 'giftmas'. it has become something that has completely lost all meaning of christianity, a day when all people, whether they believe in god or not have a day to get a whole heap of presents and awesome ham etc. The meaning of life is apparently in the bible. IV READ THE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE AND ITS NOWHERE IN THERE!!! the closest iv come to knowing the meaning of life is 42!!! basically the idea is, God is a figment of peoples imagination, built up to the ideology of religion. as intelligence goes up, beliefs go down. less and less people are getting into religion. as people grow up, starting to think for themselves, they find themselves wondering what this shit is that their parents have been stuffing down their throats. MORAL OF LE STORY: God doesnt exist. FUCK GOD!!!!
reading bible doesnt mean you will understand it itself... some articles/phrases from the bible are hard to understand that even your intelligence couldnt reach the meaning of it... thats why ther is the science,to support the bible,actually if people will just search answers combining the two,it would clear the 'the meaning of life'... both compliment each other, i read science and bible and just found it both overwhelming each other... then the 'knowledge' replaces the 'belief'. --believing,somehow, help those people you describe as need to feel special or loved...how,ther faith to God are stronger than the intelligence you actually has found--
Yeah but don't you think we need like a trinity or something? I mean, a little science, a little bible, a little alcohol (or pot. Please note reference: http://tinyurl.com/4svxrz))
Father, forgive him; for he knows not what he types.
God is like a father to me.
Another day, another Joe.
|
