existence of supernatural gods: points for and against
seems there are some babblers who do believe in gods and some who don't. I'm curious as to the reasons and logic behind these beliefs. There's been some back and forth on this in other threads (dawkins, etc) but i think it's time for a thread that is exclusive on the topic.
To me, i can't understand why people still accept the idea of a supernatural god being a real thing. I can see when people think some of the moral principles of the religions are worth noting, but that seems irrespective of whether or not the story is true.
Knowing what we now know about the world, it's age, the vastness of space and the amount of similar galaxies, structures and makeup of life, age of the earth, evolution, bacteria, science in general etc. the idea of god seems a bit presumptuous and devoid of any basis in reality.
Also, knowing that religion seems to have originated with worship of the sun and evolved from there into the many stories and versions that now exist, it seems odd to me that people can readily accept that greek gods for example were simply a story concocted by the greeks and not real. but we can't look at the still existing religions/gods the same way for some reason.
my point is that i've never heard a convincing argument for the existence of god, yet many people who are otherwise very intelligent, rational and logical still assert that there is in fact a god, and they know not only who it is, but many details about it's beliefs, morals, origins and supernatural powers.
I don't believe in god because god has never done sweet f***-all for me, but everything is negotiable.
I don't believe in a "supernatural" god, but the multi-verse itself (or whatever reality ends up really consisting of) could be a "super" natural-intelligence of sorts ... not that this "intelligence" would be recognizable by humans any time soon, nor would it likely have any concern for us humans (although I suppose it is possible if it exists it could be able to observe and/or affect humanity if it wanted,) but I see no reason to "believe" that a higher level of intelligence that could not exist on a "universal/multi-verse" level of "consciousness".
Scientist Arthur Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic as far as we are concerned. Technological advancement goes hand-ind-hand with the theory of evolution. People like Kardashev and Dyson suggested that tech advances are in mankind's future in as little as a few thousand years from whenever we attain "type I" civilized status. With tech advancement, or magic as far as we are concerned, it is only a matter of time. Evolution is a matter of time. Both are merely a matter of time. Therefore, "magic" is only a matter of time.
Everybody concocted theories of gods and the supernatural. People have always been curious as to what's out there and why we exist. People around the world have made important connection between themselves and the heavens. Scientists verify that there is a real connection between human evolution and the heavens. We are all star dust according to modern science. Stars needed to explode many billions of years ago so that we exist today.
And when the Church said that native North Americans were savages and without spiritual values, they lied. They lied because they were ignorant of the fact that a number of indigenous cultures in North America possessed deeply spiritual beliefs and had "concocted" such an elaborate spiritual framework as to be described by modern religious scholars as having been the most advanced in the world. Mankind is always capable of ignoring and even avoiding truth at the same time.
I think that the word "god" is the stumbling block for a lot of Western sceptics, although I'm surprised that more of them can't see around it as No Yards does above. You don't have to talk about "god" to learn a little intellectual humility and subtlety in the face of the universe.
About my personal faith, I can only tell you two things. From the time my continuous memory began (age three), I have always had a sense of immanence. You'll have to look that word up for yourselves. Something walks with me and comforts me and loves me, and that's the deeper reason I don't commit suicide. (The practical reason is that six kittehs depend on me.)
I grew up going to the United Church, with a mixed family background of Presbyterians (Dad) and RCs (Mum). I read the Bible when I was very young and was captivated by it -- I think I somehow intuited that it was my language, that it had formed the logic of things I was already saying and doing, which I now know to be historically true. I would never make any exceptionalist claims for Christianity or my version of it; I will only say that that is the language by which I express my sense of immanence, and it has never bothered me to do that. I love going to church, anybody's church, and I'll sing anybody's hymns if I can.
Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner. Remarkable how it helps to remember that story.
And so far we have a candidate for author of post of the thread award. Thanks Skdadl. I think your kitties must really worship you.
I don't think there is a god, and I strongly suspect that when all life ends on this planet in about a billion years whatever is left here will go with it. I don't honestly expect we are going anywhere.
That said, I have seen, and felt plenty of things that are not explainable. There is certainly enough evidence that there are unseen energies, and I accept that those may be part of a spiritual dimension. I have no idea how big that might be, if it means reincarnation or live after death, or something like what we call god. I certainly don't obsess about it, or seek to prove or disprove it, because it doesn't have much relevance to the real point of spirituality which is to become a better person and help others.
I think religion has been the vehicle for some of the worst slaughter and oppression in our history, but I also think it is part of the foundation of society, and that it is what many people use to purify themselves, heal themselves, and discipline themselves. Like anything that has a lot of power it can kill or it can save. But more importantly, it is a system which is hard wired into us (as a community, anyway - obviously not everyone has the bug or the spark in the same way). I think anyone who imagines we can erase religion is dreaming just as much as those who are waiting for the rapture.
Same thing with the bible and other works of scripture. Some people pick them apart as an example of how fucked up god and religion is. We're not looking at god when we look at the bible, we're looking at ourselves, good and evil. That's why those books (flawed as they are) are important - because they show us who we are.
Are these god threads the new rage because the luster has gone off of the 911 threads?
LOL
I'll take that as an "against"
(with a multimedia presentation)
Gee. Cueball and I used to be frendz, too. *sniffle*
It's not hard to see how religion and a belief in a god can comfort people though, it's pretty much the perfect answer you could give.
"don't worry, when you die you'll go to a paradise, you'll be reunited with all the people you cared about and live happily ever after"
as opposed to "well, you die and that's it. who knows what happens?" but a good answer is not a good explanation in itself.
no matter how good it sounds, one obvious question is "how do we know that?" and i don't think there is really an answer for that other than:
"somebody at some point just decided that was how it is. Sounded pretty good to me!"
I mean i can see how people would believe it a few thousand years ago, often under threat of death, but if someone showed up right now and claimed to be some kind of "son of god" sent here on a mission most people would rightly dismiss them.
Fidel brought up the point of magic. Interesting, i was thinking today that if a magician came around a few thousand years ago and did even some of the more simple stuff that someone like criss angel or someone did, people would freak out and start thinking they're some kind of supernatural being and start worshipping them.
Actually, milo, I think that even "a few thousand years ago" people were capable of seeing through "explanations" of reality that were in conflict with their experience. Otherwise, homo sapiens would never have survived or evolved. People have always enjoyed a good magic show, a good singalong, a good crusade, a good crucifixion or auto-da-fe, etc. - but when it came to the other six days of the week, their activities and reflections have, by and large, been what is now quaintly called "evidence-based". And we should all thank "god" for that.
My personal reasons for a belief in a divine aspect of reality is personal revelation.
After personally witnessing the divine myself, I thought about the various possible hypotheses and explanations, and came to the conclusion that the divine probably exists.
Socrates has been described as a gadfly -- a first-class pain. The reason why this charge is somewhat justified is that he challenged his students to think for themselves – to use their minds to answer questions. He did not reveal answers. He did not reveal truth. Many of his questions were, on the surface, quite simple: what is courage? what is virtue? what is duty? But what Socrates discovered, and what he taught his students to discover, was that most people could not answer these fundamental questions to his satisfaction, yet all of them claimed to be courageous, virtuous and dutiful. So, what Socrates knew, was that he knew nothing, upon this sole fact lay the source of his wisdom. Socrates was not necessarily an intelligent man – but he was a wise man. And there is a difference between the two.
Maybe Socrates was listening for a voice in common folk that was indistinguishable from a voice of position, being that, the same voice could exist in anyone, and that voice was speaking from a "truer recognition of where it came from?"
Socrates was frustrated?
Unfettered with the events of the day, aware of the souls environs "that voice" always spoke the truth.
In classical and Hellenistic philosophyIn Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a "divine something")[6] that frequently warned him - in the form of a "voice" - against mistakes but never told him what to do
Maybe, that is the God within us all?
The best proof that God exists (and is a big giant white man with a long beard, sitting on a chair on a cloud) is the Bible.
It says right there in the Bible that it's the word of God. QED.
Plus, I *need* there to be a God, because the complexity of our universe would terrify me otherwise, and also because I can't process the concept of a world without me in it somehow, so I need a Heaven too. And if you try to take these things away from me and replace them with "Big Bang" theories or evolution I'll get really, really vicious about it.
Cornered, terrified animal-style vicious. As He would want me to get.
Flight or fight responses have evolved in the human species?:)
Maye one's conscience when it is listened too, is not considered to be magicked, or, as if a "person sick with a persona speaking," but rather a reservoir of the potential within us to actually speak that truth? Low it is that such a demon is materialized, when wrought is sought to be more than we are capable of once we actually learn to listen?
It is never a easy thing do once we are embroiled in our daily lives?
It hath been said that whosoever believeth in Him shall not die, but shall have Life Eternal.
But according to a study I read, almost all pre-20th century theists are in fact, now, dead.
Based on partial results for more recent believers, the trend unfortunately does not look promising.
Facing a possible class action suit for breach of contract, God declined comment on the study. A member of his legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity, hinted that the Respondent may invoke the "placebo effect" of faith in mitigation of any eventual damages award.
So you all grew up immodest, cocky, and aggressive, eh? Interesting case-studies ...
added to comment above:)
Can't recall when it was that I became aware that the patterns established by scripture, verse and prayers sounded remarkably similar to contemporary mainstream news. One is an earlier version.
Hopefuly to remove facets of the Inquistion, as it seems history can repeat itself under the guise of "new and modern thinking?" :)
There is an infinite number of things that we would all agree do not exist. Any of us could spend out the entirety of our days rhyming them off. Talking dandelions. 12 legged elephants. Substances lighter than helium. Flying spaghetti monsters.
Not believing in this infinitude of imaginary things is considered perfectly normal (to the point that believing in any of them would be considered the opposite). Nobody will ever earn themself a special label by not believing in talking dandelions.
But not believing in an invisible, omnipotent super-being is a whole different story, evidently. For not believing, I'm an atheist. For talking about it, I'm "cocky". I'll need to consult with the dandelion on this. He'll know what to say.
A blind man descrbing a dandelion?
The Blind Men and the ElephantJohn Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
I mean, who knew what that elephant could become?:) More then "just a dandelion" for sure.:)
So you all grew up immodest, cocky, and aggressive, eh? Interesting case-studies ...
My mother gave up on God when He looked down indifferently as her parents, siblings, and first-born child were murdered because of the way they worshipped Him.
I guess she thought that that was taking martyrdom a tad too far.
I've tried to be a little more scientific in my attitude to religion. But I've come to the same conclusion.
Yes as in magic, it can appear "spooky," but now we know better don't we, and we know what we are talking about?:)That elephant was the "God issue" in a way to describe different approaches to quantum gravity?:)
Imagine, to use "a method" to describe, "God" and what was once a spooky method at that?:)
Imagine someone trying to describe the illusive and gaining such notoriety?
So along comes this group for removing "such evils from science" because it could become stained by such perseverance to explore the theoretical(issues beyound the standard model), so as to correct the maladies of a society of scientist gone rogue? Imagine to ask what exist before this universe. It's a mystery?:)
How did they think science would not be the ulterior motive to describe what they thought "was irrational behavior by the atheist?" Such errant behavior to be sure ,to be cocky, or otherwise, to somehow belong to some group of disbelievers to make the world safer for all those ignorant science people? :)
It seems to me that the atheists need something called God more than I do. My faith doesn't need a god, but the thin rationalism (note -- not reason, but rationalism) of the atheists requires an object of mockery and scorn, so they cling to that God notion.
Just try feel comfortable in the beliefs you have, to know , that what you are doing is okay. That is you. However illusive it may appear in question, you try to describe that person, that is you? You will have the last say on the condition of the opinion of your self?
Are you judgmental of others who hold life to be such a mystery? So some question the existane of what existed before this universe. "God help them" before they burn in hell as they have been taken hold by some "demon?" :)
It seems to me that the atheists need something called God more than I do. My faith doesn't need a god, but the thin rationalism (note -- not reason, but rationalism) of the atheists requires an object of mockery and scorn, so they cling to that God notion.
Indeed. six out of the seven letters that spell atheist spell theist.
@ skdadl
@Cueball
Now don't tell them that.... that will just get them all riled up. I have had atheists jump all over me because they don't actually have any belief at all, so there's nothing whatsoever to challenge.
Actually (as I said before) I agree with Cueball that this is a pretty irrelevant question, because (from my persoective) it is never one that is going to be settled, and more importantly, for anyone who is spiritual it is actually completely irrelevant to the real object of spiritual belief, which is improving one's self and the world.
Of course, the fact that we continue to be fascinated by it (the atheists too) says something about the irrational nature of all people.
I do know that humanists can be atheists. That is good thing:)
Imagine be famous for creating a term like the "God Particle?"
Einstein, Albert (1949). The World as I See It. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0806527900.
We all know Einstein made reference to the "Old One?" Maybe, he was objectifying "a mystery?" Maybe he was defining "the limits of our knowledge" and found a convenient way in which to speak to that mystery?
Maybe, we can find something in his later years that we can now call him "irrational." That he abandon his beliefs? A unkept behavior materialize with such devotion to his research, that he didn't take the time?
Be sure to discredit this part of his belief for such objectification of what appears to you in reality? Reality?
I assure you that (to paraphrase Voltaire) if God had not existed, it wouldn't be the atheists who would find it necessary to invent Him.
I, and you, have an infinite number of things that we do not believe in, and no need whatsoever to catalog, discuss or even name these.
But once I bring something forward -- do you believe in talking dandelions -- then suddenly your disbelief in talking dandelions gets framed in the context of belief in talking dandelions.
But here's an experiment that I'd love to try. Everybody, everywhere, STOP TALKING ABOUT GOD and let's see if any atheists feel any need to bring Him up. See who really needs God.
What does " " really mean?:) You can interject what ever you like, and I am sure "in context" you will have the last "word?":)
Here, let me settle this arguement once and for all..
Until proven differently; there is no God.
If your need to be part of a social group is found, by going to church , then so be it. But don't think it's anything other then that.
Just think how easy it is to be part of that group. Go to church every Sunday and believe what's writen in the bible and your in. If you're alone just think of the person called God and your not alone anymore. Instant connects to all the followers of that story.
If the poster calling themselves "Unionist" sounds cocky.. Get over it, that poster always sounds that way. Or at least 8x out of 10.
Unioinist wrote: My mother gave up on God when He looked down indifferently as her parents, siblings, and first-born child were murdered because of the way they worshipped Him.
Caissa remebers that there have been several works written that after the Holocaust believe in G-d is impossible.
trippie, re Unionist: lol. I love Unionist; truly, I do. But yeah, 8x out of 10. ;)
Voltaire was not an atheist. He was in fact a thumping deist, which is more than I am. He just didn't put much stock in the Son or, as he put it, "Madame his mother."
Christians really don't have to worry to much.
As long as they repent they will go to heaven. If the world gets to sinful, have no fear, God will save all the animals and one family, as he drowns the rest of us.
Or we'll just get roasted to death as he burns all the cities down. And of course turn us into salt if we get to run away but decide to look back.
Sounds like a great Guy if you ask me. Very forgiving.
Some people have trouble recognizing myth when they read it.
Some people have trouble recognizing myth when they read it.
You would say that of Northrop Frye, would you? (ordained minister ...)
If I remember correctly, Frye understood myth.
Indeed. Millions of Americans seem to have this problem. How can we help them understand these myths as myths?
trippie, re Unionist: lol. I love Unionist; truly, I do. But yeah, 8x out of 10. ;)
Voltaire was not an atheist. He was in fact a thumping deist, which is more than I am. He just didn't put much stock in the Son or, as he put it, "Madame his mother."
Haha
That reminds me of the joke about the two workers hanging up in the rafters of the church who decide to tease an old woman praying down below.
"Helloooo It's Jesus Christ calling you...."
"Shut up! I'm talking to your mother!"
If I remember correctly, Frye understood myth.
Frye is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest literary theoreticians of the C20, and yes, his particular way of working from deep structure could be said to have something to do with myth as that word is popularly slung about. He was also an ordained minister in the United Church.
Smith: lol. Presbyterians aren't really into the Marian thing all that much, but the RCs, wow.
I should have had a winky face, Skdadl. I'm also using myth in the sense that most literary critics would not in the common parlance of make believe.
let me rant some more about the middle east religion Christianity that came from teh Jewish religion that came from... and on and on until the beginning of human thought.
The things that distrube me the most.
- A woman called Mary being raped by a supernatural being from outrspace. So that it's child can save the world.
- If you do not repent before death, you burn in hell for ever.
- after Adam and Eve their unnamed children having incest to populate the world.
- The only son of God being forced into exicusion.
_ God forcing Abraham to kill his son and then in what is suppose to be a relief, the God changes it's mind. How kind of this God really.
_ How about the fella Jobe? What a missery his life and his families life was.
Ok I'm done now.. That feels better, Thank You and God Bless America. The End.
You're correct; that is a rant.
Here, let me settle this arguement once and for all..
Until proven differently; there is no God.
Why should a belief in god be held to a higher standard than atoms?
You can not prove atoms exist. You can amass evidence for atomic theory (which we have: copious amounts), and you can show how such a theory is consistent with observed phenomena (we have done so through experiments repeatedly), but you can't prove it.
Now, if you had said that there is no scientific evidence for god, I would agree immediately, but it still does nto follow that we should therefore assume there is no god. This is because science assumes that god is not responsible for any natural or observable phenomena. Therefore, the best you could ever do in terms of providing evidence for god is to show how something that seems to be caused by god is not caused by any known natural cause. But it could still be caused by an unknown natural cause, which is what science assumes. In other words, it is impossible to find scientific evidence for god because of how science works.
So science and magick are incompatible. I guess that makes sense.
One problem is that once you open up explanation of things to magick, you really can't exclude any other magick. How can the faithful say, with any certainty, that the earth wasn't created by Zeus? Or Satan?
It's been noted, but I'll note it again, that any atheist and the most zealous believer are going to be in complete agreement about the silliness of all religions except one. Even as a devout Xtian will expect me to open my mind to believe that his God created me, along with everything else, over a span of six days, he's going to vehemently resist the idea that the earth could rest atop the back of a turtle. Their interest in open mindedness is restricted solely to being "open minded" to those things they already believe. At times and places throughout history, an "open mindedness" to anything other than a specific dusty book could get you burned to death.
Snert, that is just not true, demonstrably not true. Huge numbers of the faithful of many different religions and denominations are long past anathematizing one another.
Y'know, some peeps here might benefit from thinking about the drawbacks of literalism. Northrop Frye can show you the way.
I might agree that some of the faithful are OK with other, similar faithful. A practicing Catholic might cheerfully abide a practicing Anglican, for example. So long as they're similar enough. How many would give any credibility at all to Animism? Or the Greek Gods?
@ trippie
And frankly, I think the stories of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac and the suffering of Job are two of the most powerful lessons in the bible. If they don't say anything to you, fair enough, but for me they have deep meaning.
@ Snert #51
Comfortable enough that practically the entire Christian religion - right down to their holidays and customs - is built on a framework of pantheist and pagan beliefs.
And lest anyone think this ended in Roman times, check out any European art right up until the end of the 19th century (when we suddenly got a lot less literate). There are at least as many, if not more, cultural references to classical pantheism than there are to Christian tradition. So no, even orthodox christianity wasn't threatened by ideas unless they were in the form of an organized living threat, or something they wanted to use as a scapegoat.
Greco-Roman ideals did not fall under that category.
Snert, you must have very limited social-cultural relations. I suspect that most of my RC relatives (huge extended family) have long believed that I was a pagan (which in some ways I am), and that's never bothered them in the least, far as I can tell. It was never a problem for my mother, who went to mass every day. Most good people know what goodness is about and they recognize and appreciate it in others.
God is a straw man necessary to atheists. Heaven is a straw haystack necessary to atheists. And literalists don't know how to read except in the most banal technical sense.
I very much agree with what Skdadl has been saying. It is very interesting that the athesist position demands a literalist and fundamentalist interpretation of any scripture and in doing so there arguments become a literalist and fundamentalist. The atheists presume to know what people mean when they speak of god and this presumption again assumes that everyone believes in the old guy in the sky. Anyone who has done a minimal reading in any theology knows this is not the case. When people speak of god or the devine I do not preume to know what they mean. There are vast number of ways of contemplating the devine. The mystics of all traditions state that any mental construction of the devine or even the use of the word actually creates a barrier to the experience of the devine. My favourite way of framing this is the statement " When the saint points at the moon the fool sees the finger." The atheist and some believers will argue endlessly about whether the finger is the devine.
I've been told before on this board that I am a bad agnostic due to my refusal to denounce. Others think that we agnostics are just hedging our bets. I maintain that as I grow older I find it less and less necessary to know any definitively. This is of course the same positon of Socarates the only thing that I know is that I know nothing. It is also an error to think that one need subscribe to the believe or not dichotomy, one can always maintain an openess to possibilty. My readings in Buddhism,( i do not consider myself a buddhist or feel the need to) have helped me to consider the necessity of deep attachment to any belief system. The demand that we believe or not is in itself a believe. I am quite content to imagine that possibly there are fairies loch ness monsters, ghosts or flying spaghetti monsters. There are certainly things that I consider more implausible(the guy in the sky being most implausible) yet I resist the demand for certainty. This is the similarity that many atheists share with many believers the demand for certainty it must be this way and you must believe it to be this way otherwise there is something wrong with you.
I'm heading up North to a place I consider sacred, in otherwords profoundly and deeply comforting and meaningful so I will miss the opportunity to say things any more clearly.
My biggest problem with the Judeo-Christo-Islamic family of religions, aside from their constant internecine squabbling, is the basic premise that its God chose the Jews for His people - and didn't tell anyone else! That was unkind.
(Incidentally, re Dawkins. It's not the contradictions in the Bible that he objects to so much as the atrocities. The Israelites in the Old Testament stories behaved in a fashion similar to the modern Israelites - which none of you seem to approve of! - and it was not merely okay but good and right and holy, because God told them to.)
I have no problem with spirituality, with awe, with a perception of the sacred or an experience beyond rational explanation. People have those experiences and they are quite real. People very possibly need those experiences: there is something in the human mind that yearns for contact - let's say intimacy - with the universe, however we think of the universe at any given time.
Of course there are no gods of the kind various peoples have described in their various mythologies. And i do not make light or fun of myth, nor do i confuse it (as many people do nowadays) with lies or fantasies: mythology is far more serious and important than to be assessed by ignorant outsiders' standard. All those deities, all those belief-systems, have a legitemacy and a reality too profound to be dissected and judged as if they were as simple and accessible as an essay on the mining of copper, or a contract for a shipment of beef. Whole different category; needs a whole lot more understanding and finesse... and doesn't need to be done at all, because it serves no useful purpose.
We can see that the vast majority of Christians don't really believe in Jesus or they wouldn't behave so contrarily to his teaching. They obviously don't believe in the heaven, hell and judgment they preach, or they would be very frightened. I'm not sure of the others - don't know how much leeway they think Jahovah and Allah give their followers. I do know about the Christians. The ones - few enough and powerless - who do believe, who do act according to the new commandment, are very much worth having on one's side.
The problem is not belief but power, not the gods but the institutions built in their names. Organizationas that have unchallenged authority gain ever more power and wealth; the most ruthless, unprincipled people always take over, and they always use the power destructively.
The problem is not belief but power, not the gods but the institutions built in their names. Organizationas that have unchallenged authority gain ever more power and wealth; the most ruthless, unprincipled people always take over, and they always use the power destructively.
I'm trying to remember when the last internecine war occurred. Was it the 30 years war? Today our rich and powerful warfiteers don't need religion to wage profitable wars. I guess it's true that people like Ronald Reagan through to dubya have aligned themselves with God and said that war is God's will. But they were obviously lying in order to convince millions of the need for millions to take on massive war debts and spending wildly on war. And war is always a resource grab and to project the power of one nation's elitists on another. Today, any excuse for war will do. It doesn't have to be a religious conquest. Today's wars tend to be waged for reasons that aren't very clear to the public.
Plus, I *need* there to be a God, because the complexity of our universe would terrify me otherwise, and also because I can't process the concept of a world without me in it somehow, so I need a Heaven too.
I think the major religions of the world tend to teach a non materialist view of reality, and that our existence here is only a temporary one. This is more or less an opposite point of view of things compared to 18th and 19th century science that said that mortality is the way, and that that there are strict boundaries between inanimate objects, and the view that people are more or less individuals reliant on only ourselves. The old story of science said that things and people are made of irreducible and indestructible bits of inanimate matter.
But that scientific view changed since Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg etc. Scientists today understand that merely observing an electron or photon changes it in some way. The smallest bits of matter comprising reality all around us are not independent of the mind of a scientific observer. In the post-Newtonian era of scientific truth, the division of mind and matter, between the individual and the world, is no longer true. Therefore we can't really talk about the concept of I, me, you and yourself without speaking of nature all around us at the same time, or at least, not in a scientific way.
What we are left holding the bag with today is an old world ideology that suggests riches and material wealth are individual rights, and knowledge can be stored up individually in a person's mind. Knowledge is power, and knowledge can be commodified. But how does one own things without affecting some one else or effecting the material wealth or poverty of others, or nature itself? We are all connected with nature and with one another according to modern science, but not according to the science of economics producing so much inequality. We seem to be living a way of life today that is at odds with the laws of nature. We don't live as if we are connected to very much and only "plugging-in" to other people and nature whenever the overriding economic system allows us to.
The last ones are going on now, in several places. By internecine, i mean usually Christians vs Muslims, or Christians vs Jews, or Jews vs Muslims (all three have the same roots, the same chief god), but a squabble doesn't have to be betwen nations, it may be a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, or two different Jewish or Muslim sects - anyway, it's always some damn thing, and innocent people are always getting killed and hurt, beggared and exiled.
Gods never make war. Men make war. They are always obviously lying. It's never really about religion: it's always really about getting the other people's land and resources, but God sure is a great way to fire people up. Literally, sometimes. Right now, truly frightening forces of hatred are massed under all three of God's flags - and i don't think the people who put them in motion can control them.
And I always thought it was a cold war thing with the US propping up a succession of fascist regimes in Israel with billions of dollars in aid and weapons every year, and then arming Israel's enemies to the eye teeth as well.
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
On this idea that atheists need god as a straw man, or that we have a literal interpretation of the meaning of god:
Isn't that kind of a circular argument though? For the non-believer to "need" the god? There would be no such thing as atheism if there wasn't theism. In other words, it's the theists who brought up the whole idea, we're just saying we think it's all made up.
And one of the arguments many atheists make is that it's quite true the whole story is a metaphor and anything but literal, it's the believers who have decided the story is real. I think the content of the bible is rather irrelevant to the discussion beyond what believers claim to be true: the existence of a supernatural being with power, creation of the universe and the existence of an after life.
Also, is it just me or is when anyone is forced to be a bit specific on their beliefs in this area and defend them with something other that "i just believe it okay?" then everyone starts saying the discussion is really not important anyways since we probably won't agree in the end. One of the reasons i started this thread was i was hoping the folks here, who have generally shown themselves to be rational competent thinkers, would have a better reason for believing what they do or could elaborate on it a bit more. Obviously you must have thought about these things before you decided there is a supernatural being who created the universe that informs your approach to life, i'm curious as to what it is!
the one and only example put forth was a direct experience with the divine, could you elaborate? What was it?
I've long ago come to the conclusion that many of the things I was taught about Christianity were fairy tales designed long ago to scare superstitious people into keeping the faith. Ditto for Judaism & Islam. And a 2000 year old book written in riddles translated from an obsolete dialect of a foreign language is hardly a great basis for the fount of all truth.
Still, none of this rules out the possibility of afterlife or even an omniscient, omnipotent being. There is indirect evidence of non-physical consciousness - ghosts, near death experiences. It really comes down to what you would rather believe.
Personally find it very offensive that "God" is being referred to as a she, in opposition to the historical depiction of God as a male, when one is stating their hatred of the belief in "God".
@ remind
At least some of that is mis-translation. Certainly the church as it was interpreted by Paul was very opposed to Dianic and other god and goddess cults, but the god of moses was neither male nor female.
Actually I think it's kind of odd that the most patriarchal church of all - the Roman Catholic - is also the one that has incorporated the most graven images, the most pantheism, and the most goddess worship with their focus on the saints and Mary in particular.
Personally find it very offensive that "God" is being referred to as a she, in opposition to the historical depiction of God as a male, when one is stating their hatred of the belief in "God".
Really? Personally, I find it very offensive when someone wanders into an interesting thread and disrupts it with an unsubstantiated allegation.
Throw out some vague allegation and let people troll through the thread to see if it has any merit. Nice debate, remind.
Things would be so much better if we were still offering up sacrifices by hanging people from oak trees, drowning them in bogs, or cutting out their hearts and presenting them to the sun. We have all gotten away from the essentials these days, what is needed is painful sacrifice, to Odin, to Lugh, to Quetzacoatl, heck even dread Cthulhu wants its share of bloody sacrifice.
I would say more, but the dragon needs feeding and I have to go kidnap some puppies for it.
@ bagkitty
I think that tradition is still alive and well. It is called politics.
Is the connection between man and the stars myth and legend, or might it be true that our ancient ancestors met with technically advanced people many thousands of years ago? Would they spin legend and myths for a long time afterward based on some sort of contact with strange visitors from afar? Would those ancient tales be passed on through the ages, each time made a little more elaborate and eventually read like so much science fiction today?
Hajar el Hibla The stone of the pregnant woman at Baalbek, Lebanon is the largest cut stone in the world. Was it some kind of astronomical aid used long ago?
The 2000 year-old Antikythera Mechanism is an ancient “computer” that probably aided navigators by charting the motions of the solar system.
Were 3000 Roman soldiers really turned to stone at Carnac by Merlin or Saint Cornelius?
Are these really astronauts painted on a cave wall in Val Camonica, Italy 10,000 B.C.?
Things would be so much better if we were still offering up sacrifices by hanging people from oak trees, drowning them in bogs, or cutting out their hearts and presenting them to the sun. We have all gotten away from the essentials these days, what is needed is painful sacrifice, to Odin, to Lugh, to Quetzacoatl, heck even dread Cthulhu wants its share of bloody sacrifice.
What if? What if those gods from the stars needed sustenance during their visit? What if they weren't benevolent gods and demanded food offerings on some regular basis? Some gods they were. Maybe they didn't eat solid food and required flesh of pigs or even people to be sublimated by fire. They inhaled nutrition, because their digestive tracts didn't work the same as their human hosts. They gave specific instructions to a designated slaughterer to be clean about it. Leave the person on some altar turning on a spit, and then banish the people to the forests so as to conceal their hideous appearance. Or maybe it was to avoid direct contact with their hosts who carried alien germs that might make the gods sick? Come on, we have to use our imaginations here!
Things would be so much better if we were still offering up sacrifices by hanging people from oak trees, drowning them in bogs, or cutting out their hearts and presenting them to the sun. We have all gotten away from the essentials these days, what is needed is painful sacrifice, to Odin, to Lugh, to Quetzacoatl, heck even dread Cthulhu wants its share of bloody sacrifice.
I would say more, but the dragon needs feeding and I have to go kidnap some puppies for it.
The whole point of Christianity is to replace the annual child or young man with a once-for-all redemptive godling. As such, it wasn't a bad idea. All that preaching he did beforehand was also a break with tradition - or should have been. I only wish fewer of the saved took the sacrifice for granted and more took the preaching to heart.
What seems odd to me is how people in various parts of the world could concoct stories and myths about gods descending from the heavens to hand them important agricultural knowledge of the seasons, when to sew, harvest etc. It seems even odder for me to think of ancient people sitting around, thousands of years before the telescope was invented, and that they might imagine gods living somewhere out there among the twinkling stars. And especially when they didn't understand what a star is or that planets sometimes orbit around them. They might think that the earth is all there was of creation, and that stars in the sky were merely tiny lights appearing in the night after sundown and nothing more. Really odd.
You can create myth out of a "ideological struggle" and represent it by recognizing a underlying psychology?
Strange that we could have seen A Jungian Understanding of the Wagners Ring cycle, portrayed in todays world and how could have this been accomplished. But by re-introducing a fictional story and embueing it with the archetypal structures of what Jean Shinida Bolen called, "The Abandon Child, The Authoritarian Father, and the Disempowered Feminine."
But I think you have to find some comparison to understand how such construction could manifest allegorically the experience, and then realize how creative we can be by using language to transmit the ideas of that experience.
In the Greek mythology, Mount Olympus is the home of the Olympians, the principal gods in the Greek pantheon. The Greeks thought of it as built with crystal mansions wherein the gods, such as Zeus, dwelt. It is also known in Greek mythology that when Gaia gave birth to the Vols they used the mountains in Greece as their thrones.
Why don't we just come out and describe the experience? Why does our situation in life have to be metaphorically distilled irrational tidbits of experience in our dreams for deciphering? Is Myth then a use of language that we never considered before?
Heaven
In the modern age of science and space flight the idea that Heaven is a physical place in the observable universe has largely been abandoned.[citation needed] Religious views, however, still hold Heaven as having a dual status as a concept of mind or heart, but also possibly still physically existing in some way on another "plane of existence", dimension, or perhaps at a future time.[citation needed] According to science there are unobservable areas of the universe (everywhere beyond earth's Particle horizon), although by their very nature it is not possible to observe them.Culturally adapted myths used to send information from one generation to the next?
So, the divine is a personal experience? How do you measure it? Could such parameters of truth be established that regardless of religion or denomination or as one holding atheistic views, that what is at fault here is "language and how it is used?"
Do you now recognize the parables of one's bible as holding a different meanings now that you understand how information can be transmitted? How you hide "experience" behind your choice of language.
If deduction is another way of knowing in TA, where and when is it applicable? Berne did use Venn diagrams, circles either distinct or overlapping, which were borrowed directly from symbolic logic to visually describe transactions. Perhaps TA in part can be considered a theory that analyzes ones own deductions based on childhood primitive assumptions. Perhaps it focuses on how people become irrational in decision making. In this case, TA provides critical thinking skills for human relations and can be considered a basis for analyzing the accuracy of our reality testing. Much as mathematics provides the language for science, TA may provide the logic for human relations and can be at least in part a deductive language.
The point is, is to distill the information to it's ultimate source?
Mathematically this may be real as if seen in context of "Game Theory?" How it is applied to all negotiation processes.
A Theory is Born
This science is unusual in the breadth of its potential applications. Unlike physics or chemistry, which have a clearly defined and narrow scope, the precepts of game theory are useful in a whole range of activities, from everyday social interactions and sports to business and economics, politics, law, diplomacy and war. Biologists have recognized that the Darwinian struggle for survival involves strategic interactions, and modern evolutionary theory has close links with game theory.
Game theory got its start with the work of John von Neumann in the 1920s, which culminated in his book with Oskar Morgenstern. They studied "zero-sum" games where the interests of two players were strictly opposed. John Nash treated the more general and realistic case of a mixture of common interests and rivalry and any number of players. Other theorists, most notably Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi who shared the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize with Nash, studied even more complex games with sequences of moves, and games where one player has more information than others.
A lot of dynamics "like experience," but ultimately its reducible to an interactive relation that brings the process to fruition, whether it is liked or not, by each relevant negotiator?
While we may have figure our whole being "as complex by any rational standards" there were patterns established by producing parameters around that experience which can help us to see the underlying psychology that is presented by our own collage of personal experiences.
On some ephemeral level this may appear as interactions of entanglement when see in relation to drawings of Venn Logic and seeing our makeup in TA as circles overlapping as experiences in our makeup??
@ Pants of Dog Post #48:
Like I said, until proven differently; there is no god.
Your arguement did not prove anything other then you trying to slick talk your way around it.
@6079 Smith W Post #52.
Yes you are correct , they are stories. Kind of disturbing stories, but stories none the less.
Think about it. This God that created the universe wants one of it's creations, Abraham, to kill anther one of it's creations, Abrahams son.
It's like going to the theatre and watching one of the SAW movies. In those movies no one would question who the sicko is. But the bible, oh thats just God teaching a valuable lesson.
And Job, his family dieds and his life is in ruins. But does he blame the God that created everthing for this situation. Oh no that would be bad and sinful. No he's respectful to the God that created and distroyed everything in his life.
I can understand ancient people creating myths about gods from the sea or the earth itself. Forces of nature must have been the source of a sense of awe for ancient man . Even the air above them possessed powerful forces in wind and sunlight.
But those stars way out there in the blackness of night - they are just dots of light for ancient man who had neither telescopes nor binoculars. Had there been binoculars thousands of years ago, it would have been a shocking experience for the observer. It would be like us looking down from atop the tallest mountain at a village of people thousands of feet below and seeing what look like ants running around - not very impressive from our ancient point of view. But then to see the people walking around inside the metal tubes in our hands would have been a magical experience in itself. Why should ancient people in various places all over the world believe that anyone could travel to and from the stars, tiny points of light suspended in the blackness of the heavens above?
@ posts 54 and 55:
Let me state it this way.
Until proven differently; there is no divine entity, of any kind, anywhere in the universe(s).
Having fictitious friend(s), so that you can cope with the complexities of life, is one thing and must be understood as such. But thinking that this invisible being, thing or what ever actually exists is another.
@ trippie #75
Of course, it's gory and sometimes plain weird (Jacob wrestling an angel all night until his hip is broken? Magic food falling from the sky like in Lost?) But in that it's not much different than any other tradition's mythical stories. It reads a bit differently when you realize that probably no actual humans were harmed during the making of this story (the oldest part of it anyway - certainly up to the exodus, and probably a good deal of it afterward).
And like any other myth, it makes a lot more sense if you interpret it in the same way a dream might make you feel. THings start to get screwed up when people start to interpret it literally and expect to pattern their lives directly after it.
Abraham's story is an indication to me of how far a person can go in devoting or sacrificing his or herself for a greater ideal - that's one way of looking at it, anyway.
Myths:
I love the new ones. The ones that come out of Hollywood and make people believe that the USA is out there saving the world.
How the Jews got their singular God.
Moses came out of Egypt during the time of Ramsis II.
Ramsis's II father invended the singualr God above all other Gods.
The End.
the Real reason why humans invented religion?
I am in agreement with the argument that humans invented religion and God(s) because or our need for social contact.
God(s) and relgion brings social cohesion to humans.
The thing is, humans understanding has surpassed such need and religion should be exposed for what it is; outdated philosophy.
@Smith w Post #78:
I think you missed the point of Abraham and his son.
Abramhan is God and his son is Jesus. It's just the same biblical story repeated.
Abraham has to sacrifice his son to save_____. Just like God has to sacrifice his son to save humanity.
the Real reason why humans invented religion?
I am in agreement with the argument that humans invented religion and God(s) because or our need for social contact.
God(s) and relgion brings social cohesion to humans.
The thing is, humans understanding has surpassed such need and religion should be exposed for what it is; outdated philosophy.
I think this is true but would add to it. We (humans) also need god because we are afraid of death. With god, death is just a stepping stone to somewhere totally groovy. Without god, death is just stopping living.
yup.
How about this one... Oh in this life it does not matter if you live in the gutter. Because in the after life you will live in paradise and those rich people that just walk over you will live in hell. Yup it's better to wait for the after life.
Actually, if you are talking about the bible. It says 'ashes to ashes and dust to dust'. Basicly when you die you will turn to dust. There is no one going heaven in the bible.
Just say the Lords prayer and you will see is says 'peace on earth just like heaven'. But there is a resurrection, were everyone comes back to life and lives on earth and the devil is let loose for 1000 years and then he is taken away again and then ... What a story I tell ya . What a story.
To me, i can't understand why people still accept the idea of a supernatural god being a real thing.
It probably is easier, as you suggest, to believe in a natural god.
I think that imperialist adventurers have from time to time purged various religious and cultural beliefs of indigenous people around the world. European explorers and their priests were infamous for burning and destroying the writings and religious scriptures of the people they conquered in Latin America. Thousands of manuscripts preserved for centuries by indigenous cultures and valuable for, at the very least, an historical record and to anthropologists, were destroyed over the course of a few centuries. This is true of indigenous cultural and spiritual beliefs here in the western hemisphere as well as other parts of the world. It was thought by imperialists and church that native ways are inferior to those of the conquering forces. Imperialists tended to believe that because indigenous peoples are conquerable, then everything about them must be inferior WRT everything the conquering invaders have to offer them as a right of being on the winning side of things in general.
Can Tales of Sirius Be Taken Seriously? Jay Ingram, Toronto Star
This second star was said by the Dogon to be composed of an extremely dense material ("all earthly beings combined cannot lift it") and to move in a 50-year orbit around Sirius. The anthropologists estimated that this knowledge had been part of the Dogon mythology for several centuries.
What struck westerners as remarkable about these beliefs is that it wasn't until 1862 that astronomer Alvan Clark discovered that Sirius did indeed have a small, barely visible companion star. The Dogon had apparently beaten Clark to the punch by several hundred years. [...]
Pick your favorite explanation, because you'll never be proven wrong says TorStar science columnist Jay Ingram.
ETA:
The Extraordinary Tale of Red Rain, Comets and Extraterrestrials 9.01.2010
More circumstantial evidence.
@ Pants of Dog Post #48:
Like I said, until proven differently; there is no god.
Your arguement did not prove anything other then you trying to slick talk your way around it.
Please explain how my post was incorrect. Thank you.
I'm your God.
I can't prove that statement is true. You can't prove it's false. The probabilities are that it's false. But what if having decided it's false, you're wrong? You're going to hell that's what. So I strongly encourage you to hedge your bets by worshiping me. Ask about the specially discounted family plan. At the Holy WingNut, Your Soul Is Worth Saving.
@Smith w Post #78:
I think you missed the point of Abraham and his son.
Abramhan is God and his son is Jesus. It's just the same biblical story repeated.
Abraham has to sacrifice his son to save_____. Just like God has to sacrifice his son to save humanity.
That is not the point, trippie. It's certainly not the point for Jews. Some Christians have interpreted it that way, but only some. (I certainly don't!) It's likely that behind this story was a historical practice of child sacrifice. It's a horrible story, but at least at the last minute, God says, "don't do it". It's at least arguable that that's the point.
I'm your God.
I can't prove that statement is true. You can't prove it's false.
Lord Wingnut, prove the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for any curve with rank greater than 1. You've got one minute to solve it before being demoted and forced to turn in your god cap and gown.
You're going to hell Fidel. As your Lord and Master I need not prove anything. You have one chance to save your soul. Do you have a PayPal account?
ha ha