Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

[grotto]

You're confusing technology with science, science as a methodology is useful for producing technology but is not the same thing.

I agree, and I hear what you’re saying but for sake of the current argument, semantics doesn’t do much. Science is not separate of technology in our current world, it creates the technology which also increases sciences ability to continually seek truth. Science does not exist alone in a lab and technology didn’t arise separately in a church. Science has breed technology.

I'm not a great fan of American Idol, and I hate Cheetos - but, frankly, I'd rather people had the opportunity to get fat watching TV and eating crap than were burned at the stake, or were shot at in muddy trenches, or were starved to death by their own corrupt and avaricious governments.

Thing is - and I say this as a lifelong champagne socialist -modern Western culture might not be very edifying, but it's difficult to think of any other working arrangement that provides the choice - every single day - of whether to hang out at the gym and MOMA or to slump in front of the TV with a pizza on your lap, and in either case to do it without much real fear of ending up dead by dinnertime.

So - you you may not think that American Idol, Wal-Mart and Cheetos constitute progress, and no one would suggest that a life based around that is the highest form of individual achievement - but in order to convince anyone that it's a Bad Thing, I think you have to point to a working societal model - religious or secular - that's a demonstrable improvement on it.

You took the pun part and ran with it, no problem, and I do agree with you, but, I don’t feel that the current social system gives many choices to the masses, no different than the past social system under religious order. I was merely poking at the choice of poison, One dies at the stake, another on the couch. There isn’t much opportunity any more to be burned at a stake though, but being anesthetized in front of endless mind numbing gibberish has it’s own death sentence.


For sake of the original topic, I think man projects what he wants to see as his savior, whether that be a god, a science, a technology or an idiom. He wants to continue to do as he does with the hope that something or someone else will protect him. He looks else where for his personal meaning instead of finding it in himself and its far easier to create what you want then to see what it is you are and if you’re one who has no creative abilities, there certainly are a number to of gods to pick from. Just pick the one that gives you the least personal responsibility.

[PeterL]

Oh, they may well do - my point is that Jesus appears to western christians as a white man, something which the bible specifically tells us he was not.

So do you have a disagreement with all those people? If so, then what is the exact disagreement?

That's exactly what I said!

The one, true god is true, but the other 999,999 are not.

I find it really easy to add that last one in, but some people struggle with the conept.

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

[OrphanPip]

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

That's a silly conclusion.

[The Atheist]

So do you have a disagreement with all those people? If so, then what is the exact disagreement?

There's no disagreement at all - I am simply pointing out how many of the people who claim to have seen a god are wrong. You know, 1+1=3 wrong?

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but I'll explain it slowly anyway.

The question of the OP is "Is god a projection of our thoughts only?"

Part of the evidence for that is how god/s appear in human representation. They are usually drawn to specification by people who claim to have seen one or more of them.

In the case of Jesus Christ, if a human as described in the christian bible actually lived, he was not blond. Someone seeing him as a blond can be shown to be wrong.

It doesn't disprove his godliness, but it certainly proves that that person's projection of JC is indeed only thought.

And what would be making you think that there is "one, true god"? I think it is much more likely that there are hundreds of true Gods and Goddesses.

Well, if I add up 2 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, a billion hindus and another billion or so people who all worship a single god or godhead, it's an assumption I'm prepared to hold.

That there are hundreds of gods is an extreme minority view. I'll give you that it's no less valid than any other god theory/ies.

[PeterL]

That's a silly conclusion.

Why would you be thinking that?

There's no disagreement at all - I am simply pointing out how many of the people who claim to have seen a god are wrong. You know, 1+1=3 wrong?

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but I'll explain it slowly anyway.

The question of the OP is "Is god a projection of our thoughts only?"

Part of the evidence for that is how god/s appear in human representation. They are usually drawn to specification by people who claim to have seen one or more of them.

So what are you trying to say here?

In the case of Jesus Christ, if a human as described in the christian bible actually lived, he was not blond. Someone seeing him as a blond can be shown to be wrong.

It doesn't disprove his godliness, but it certainly proves that that person's projection of JC is indeed only thought.

How is that relevant?

Well, if I add up 2 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, a billion hindus and another billion or so people who all worship a single god or godhead, it's an assumption I'm prepared to hold.

That there are hundreds of gods is an extreme minority view. I'll give you that it's no less valid than any other god theory/ies.

Apparently you are asserting that you do not believe that any gods or goddesses exist, but your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

[MarkBastable]

your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

[OrphanPip]

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

That's a bad way to decide to believe in things. Logically, things which don't exist can't be proven not to exist without omniscience. So, essentially your position is that we shouldn't not believe in anything which doesn't exist. We should shape our beliefs around positive evidence. From your position, it would be unreasonable to say that leprauchans don't exist, or elves, or rainbow unicorns on Mars.

[PeterL]

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist.

Such as?

[PeterL]

That's a bad way to decide to believe in things. Logically, things which don't exist can't be proven not to exist without omniscience. So, essentially your position is that we shouldn't not believe in anything which doesn't exist. We should shape our beliefs around positive evidence. From your position, it would be unreasonable to say that leprauchans don't exist, or elves, or rainbow unicorns on Mars.

That was my point exactly. That I have never seen a Blue Whale means nothing as to whether Blue Whales exist. Similarly, just because you have never met any of the Gods and Goddesses, means nothing to the discussion of whether they exist.

I don't know anything about "rainbow unicorns on Mars", but it is very likely that leprechauns and elves existed in the past, and stories about them came through the millennia as folk tales. It is very illogical to think that something does not exist simply because one would prefer that it didn't exist.

When the discussion iis of Gods and Goddesses, then the rules of evidence should be regarded so they reflect the abilities and skills of the various Gods and Goddesses. Then there are the Gods and Godesses that clearly exist, Mother Earth for example, and Bacchus is wine. If you claim that those two deities do not exist, then I would wonder.

[MarkBastable]

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

Okay - I can't help myself. What's the documented corroboration?

[PeterL]

Such as?

Do you doubt the existence of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, or any of the other planets?

Okay - I can't help myself. What's the documented corroboration?

Have you ever read the Bible or any other religious scripture? If not, then you should. I will not vouch for the accuracy of any of those, but they existand are widely accepted as truthful.

[MarkBastable]

Have you ever read the Bible or any other religious scripture? If not, then you should. I will not vouch for the accuracy of any of those, but they existand are widely accepted as truthful.

I have. A lot. I know the Bible - both Testaments - better than most Christians. But as the existence of God is the guiding premise of the work, it can hardly be taken as independent corroboration, can it?

Would you say that the proof of fairies existing was a book written by a man who believed fairies exist?

Actually, you probably would.

[PeterL]

I have. A lot. I know the Bible - both Testaments - better than most Christians. But as the existence of God is the guiding premise of the work, it can hardly be taken as independent corroboration, can it?

Did I say anything about independent corroboration? If that's what you want, then you might consider the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. His opinion would be considered independent, if he had not become a Christian.

[/QUOTE]Would you say that the proof of fairies existing was a book written by a man who believed fairies exist?

Actually, you probably would.[/QUOTE]

No, I would not, at least not by itself. Elves and faeries have been features of literature for a few millenia, and it appers that they were a part of pre-literate story telling. I don't know when they originated, but the wide distribution of stories about them suggests that they may have originated from pygmies, either the ones in Africa or others pygmy peoples around the world.

[The Atheist]

Just because most are wrong doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. And just because you have not seen a god doesn't mean that gods do not exist.

I did say just that.

I have never seen a Blue Whale, but many people claim to have seen them. What doe that say about the existence of Blue Whales?

Excellent analogy, thanks; I've never seen a blue whale either!

I have pictures of blue whales. I have also been to the museum and seen the skeleton of one. I have seen videos of them and I know that Whalewatch in Kaikoura runs boats out to see them when they pass NZ.

When the same level of evidence is presented for god/s, I'll start believing they exist as well.

I love that analogy - it's pretty common, but as you see, it places the onus of evidence onto theists.

Apparently you are asserting that you do not believe that any gods or goddesses exist, but your reasoning is the same as the reasoning of a believing religionist: God doesn't exist because I say so.

Exactly this:

..no it's not. His reasoning is, "It seems highly unlikely God exists because there's no independent evidence for it."

Is that all that different from: "It is highly likely that the Gods and Goddesses exist, because there have been many reports of them over a very long period of time?"

This is when we start applying a little intelligence to the situation and goes back to why I have stressed the "one, true god" point.

If I believe all of the people who claim to have a relationship with this one god chappie, I find a terrible conundrum - there is more than one god! Which group do I believe?

When anecdotal evidence conflicts, you ignore it. Have you ever studied eyewitness testimony? I used to run security courses for bank staff at risk of armed robbery. They were told that they would be tested on their observation skills. An armed robber would then burst in and spend 4-5 minutes in full view of the audience.

Each staff member then went away and filled in a form describing this person they had been watching for several minutes.

There was no consistency at all, and even things like the colour of his clothing was never better then a 40% success rate.

We don't covict people of crime on hearsay evidence, and I'm certainly most uncomfortable with it when it pertains to something I cannot see, hear or touch and for which not one single piece of physical evidence has ever been presented.

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

This I disagree with completely.

As above, if anecdotal evidence is removed, there is none at all.

Theists cannot even agree on where their sky-daddy chap was buried! The event of his resurrection is the single defining moment of christianity, yet nobody can say with certainty where it happened. The shroud from Turin has been proven fake and it's known that many alleged miracles - holy fire, levitating host and the like, are actually simple parlour tricks.

Then there are the Gods and Godesses that clearly exist, Mother Earth for example, and Bacchus is wine. If you claim that those two deities do not exist, then I would wonder.

Nobody claims they don't exist. What's in doubt is their godliness. Do some people really believe wine is a god?

Did I say anything about independent corroboration?

Yes

Actually, there is much more evidence for the existence of the Gods and Goddesses than that they do not exist. While not all of the evidence has been corroborated, there have been some corroborating experiences.

bolding mine.