Is God a projection of our thoughts only? [Archive]

The Atheist

07-26-2010, 02:59 PM

Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

Because our imagination can design things it hasn't even encountered.

Dragons are a classic example. Nobody has ever seen a dragon, yet I can picture one right now.

I agree 100% with your premise that all gods are a projection only. The shared religious stories and human frailties of their gods shows that adequately.

Certainly he is. Man's curious nature probably instantly led to questions of whether or not an almighty figure existed beyond our realm of dimension. Through human bias and degrees of fear, we catered Him to seem as though he's a benevolent Creator with human health as His top priority. The emergence of prophets and the "Son of Christ" theory made this notion seem more and more believable.

Certainly curiosity and the "why?" questions lead to the possibility of a creator. I'd dispute that he's seen as benevolent, however.

The concept of a benevolent god is a very recent phenomenon. Even though the Jesus character preached benevolence and peace, it isn't as though the religions themselves have preached benevolence, or acted benevolently, and up until last century, the picture of god painted by christian theologians was still entirely vengeful and spiteful.

The son of god stuff, like most of christianity, is just stolen.

Now's it's just a matter of whether God is a theory. I'd sure hate to be wrong, but I like taking my chances.

:lol:

That's why Pascal was a believer instead of a bookie!

I take Pascal's wager any day - heck, if I'm somehow wrong about everything in the universe, I can at least look forward to having a serious argument with the sky-daddy when I explain how allowing suffering is not very godly.

You do not sound "certain" to me.

I'll just break in here, because we can not disprove that any god/s exist. It's why the British Humanists chose the slogan "There's probably no god..." Saying "There is no god!" is not a position which can be defended.

I just stick to 99.99999recurring% positive.

Thoughts alone? Hmm, I think that theists would disagree with that idea. What about altruism, random acts of kindness, people who have turned their lives around because of the acceptance of a higher power?

The "acceptance of a higher power" argument is rubbish, I'm sorry. A classic example is Alcoholics Anonymous, which has no greater success rate than some secular, non-chemical methods of abstinence.

And no matter how many anecdotal cases of people who turned their lives around through some god or other doesn't matter either. We know for certain that self-delusion is a powerful motivator for humans thank to the placebo effect, the continued usage of homeopathy and many other ways where humans react to no stimulus at all.

Altruism exists in nature as well as the secular world.

Plus, if there were some power involved from outside the human brain, we'd see a whole lot fewer christians in jail.

Now a theory is something that you think is true but cannot prove. Therefore you can never be "certain" about a "theory."

This is completely false.

The "proof" is only a philosophical position. The "Theory" of Pythagoras works every single time - it proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, but because science is honest and we cannot get the odds lower than infinity to one against, we don't call it "proof".

100% certainty is for people who gets their facts from religious books.

An agnostic, by the way, does "not know" whether or not there is a God and may believe there is no way to prove it either way. But an honest agnostic is open to evidence.

Atheists are also open to evidence. Agnosticism is just fence-sitting.

LMK

07-26-2010, 10:42 PM

Now's it's just a matter of whether God is a theory. I'd sure hate to be wrong, but I like taking my chances.

The above is what sparked my comment about IceM sounding agnostic rather than atheistic.

Plus, if there were some power involved from outside the human brain, we'd see a whole lot fewer christians in jail.

Define christian; because my definition would probably show that are far fewer 'christians' in jail than you presume.

Manalive

07-27-2010, 01:03 AM

No, it's not innate. It's hard to prove the idea of God is 'innate' because creation myths vary. What is hard to disprove though is that the human mind is searching for something of higher intelligence or meaning in creation.

What's interesting is the Church has condemned the idea of innateness and foreknowledge of God in the human mind.

The human mind has an idea of the infinite; but this idea may be and in fact is, obtained from the notion of the finite, by the successive processes of abstraction, elimination, and transcendence. The notion of the finite is the notion of being having a certain perfection in a limited degree. By eliminating the element of limitation and conceiving the positive perfection as realized in its highest possible degree, we arrive at the notion of the infinite. We form in this way, a negativo-positive concept, as the Schoolmen say, of the infinite. It is true also that our ideas have the characteristics of necessity, universality, and eternity; but these are essentially different from the attributes of God. God exists necessarily. He is absolutely, and cannot not exist; our ideas are necessary in the sense that, when an object is conceived in its essence, independently of the concrete beings in which it is realized, it is a subject of necessary relations: man, if he exists, is necessarily a rational being. God is absolutely universal in the sense that He eminently possesses the actual fullness of all perfections; our ideas are universal in the sense that they are applicable to an indefinite number of concrete beings. God is eternal in the sense that He exists by Himself and always identical with Himself; our ideas are eternal in the sense that in their state of abstraction they are not determined by any special place in space or moment in time.

Well, damn. I suppose I got this topic and the topic "Is the idea of God innate" confused. :P They're related so I'll keep this here. :D Heheh

LMK

07-27-2010, 03:40 AM

I'm not trying to prove the OP's question either way, but am simply offering thoughts and comments as a part of the discussion.

MarkBastable

07-27-2010, 03:55 AM

What about altruism, random acts of kindness, people who have turned their lives around because of the acceptance of their humanity?

What about altruism, random acts of kindness, people who have turned their lives around because of their devotion to Barry Manilow?

What about altruism, random acts of kindness, people who haven't turned their lives around at all but have always been prone to altruism and random acts of kindness?

The Atheist

07-27-2010, 04:33 AM

Define christian; because my definition would probably show that are far fewer 'christians' in jail than you presume.

There is only one qualifier to be christian - belief in the christian god, which we can tell by asking the person. The overwhelming majority of prison inmates state that they are christian. (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Please don't start any "True christian" fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/) here.

... people who have turned their lives around because of their devotion to Barry Manilow?

Is becoming an axe-murderer "turning your life around"?

ElanorGamgee

07-27-2010, 06:18 PM

Oops!

This is completely false.

The "proof" is only a philosophical position. The "Theory" of Pythagoras works every single time - it proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, but because science is honest and we cannot get the odds lower than infinity to one against, we don't call it "proof".

100% certainty is for people who gets their facts from religious books.

It sounds as if "100% certainty" is also for people who call themselves The Atheist. ;>)

By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false. Check the dictionary. Also check your math book because you are referring to the Theorem of Pythagoras. A theorem is a statement in mathematics or logic that CAN be proved to be true by logic. Of course, the theorem of Pythagoras works every time; however, a mathematical theorem and a philosophical theory are not synonymous.

MarkBastable

07-27-2010, 07:34 PM

Oops!
By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false.

....

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

the·o·rem /ˈθiərəm, ˈθɪərəm/ Show Spelled[thee-er-uhm, theer-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. Mathematics . a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas.
2. a rule or law, esp. one expressed by an equation or formula.
3. Logic . a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.
4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.

It's nothing like as straightforward as you suggest, Elanor. Both those words - theory and theorem - have different meaning depending on context - as do most words that are specific to several academic or intellectual disciplines and also used in vernacular senses.

As an exzmple of that - if my wife says I'm paranoid (vernacular use) she means I'm uptight and cautious, and I need to lighten up. If a clinical psychologist says I'm paranoid (specific disciplinary use) he means that I have a medical condition of which the characteristics are established and I need drugs.

You might argue that Atheist's use of the word was imprecise, but that would be an argument about context. It won't change the thrust of his argument, which remains in need of a response, I'd say.

And his position is this: Pythagoras' Theorem is demonstrably true. The existence of God isn't - not in that demonstrable way. You might say God must exist, or you believe he exists, or it's not possible to prove that he doesn't exist. But none of that proceeds to the conclusion that he does.

Atheist requires proof. You don't. But you can't protest that his logic is faulty, because it isn't. And he can't say your faith isn't logical, but faith doesn't require logic.

LMK

07-27-2010, 09:03 PM

There is only one qualifier to be christian - belief in the christian god, which we can tell by asking the person. The overwhelming majority of prison inmates state that they are christian. (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Please don't start any "True christian" fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/) here.

Is becoming an axe-murderer "turning your life around"?

I strongly disagree, and that is my prerogative.

Simply making a statement does not make a thing so, regardless of how passive aggressive or outright vitriolic the statement is.

I maintain my suggestion that there are probably far fewer Christians in jails than The Atheist presumes.

ElanorGamgee

07-27-2010, 10:11 PM

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous. Will you concede that both IceM and I were using theory in a philosophical context in which its meaning is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact?"

Also, in both my posts, I intentionally made no attempt to reply to the statements made. I was merely trying to point out that IceM's words were contradictory and that The Atheist was mistaken when comparing a philosophical theory to a mathematical theorem. I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others. Was I too cryptic or just plain ineffective?

Just making sure we all speak the same language and that we are honest with our logic.

LMK

07-27-2010, 10:55 PM

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous.

I disagree, that is like saying God and Religion are synonymous, in my opinion. Mathematically speaking; a theory is an idea that has yet to be proven wrong, while a theorem is an application of the theory that shows it to be consistent with the theory.

The Atheist

07-27-2010, 10:56 PM

It sounds as if "100% certainty" is also for people who call themselves The Atheist. ;>)

Only on Sundays.

:D

By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false.

Thanks to Mark for clearing this one up!

I strongly disagree, and that is my prerogative.

Sure.

Simply making a statement does not make a thing so, regardless of how passive aggressive or outright vitriolic the statement is.

Given that there is no consensus whatsoever on what a christian should believe, the only possible qualifier is "someone who self-identifies as christian".

Fred Phelps believes he is a christian, and he is, no matter how warped or insane his ideas are. Roman Catholics are all unquestionably christian, yet Jack Chick believes they are not.

The problem is, if you put qualifiers in to decide who is and who isn't christian, you immediately run afoul of the True Scotsman fallacy.

I maintain my suggestion that there are probably far fewer Christians in jails than The Atheist presumes.

Well, you'd better tell me what your qualifiers are, because the figures I showed are quite definitive.

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous. Will you concede that both IceM and I were using theory in a philosophical context in which its meaning is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact?"

You mean like the "theory" of evolution? Many fundies make a lot of fuss about that, claiming it is "only a theory".

Unfortunately, they're completely wrong and evolution is factual. Because science is honest, it uses terminology that may confuse the uninitiated.

To check my views on philosophical theories, check out the "when is philosophy drivel?" thread.

:D

I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others.

Where have I made absolute statements?

LMK

07-27-2010, 11:09 PM

Well, you'd better tell me what your qualifiers are, because the figures I showed are quite definitive.

No, I do not think I need to supply qualifiers when it was I who asked the question. Additionally, I am not sure that the figures are quite definitive.

I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others.
Where have I made absolute statements?

Where did you get this quote? I do not recall writing it and cannot find it.

tailor STATELY

07-28-2010, 12:05 AM

Is God a projection of our thoughts only?
Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen. The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

This premise is false from the git-go from my LDS, a Christian, perspective; from "The Grandeur of God" by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
"In addition to the witness of the ancients we also have the modern miracle of Palmyra, the appearance of God the Father and His Beloved Son, the Savior of the world, to the boy prophet Joseph Smith."Full article here (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=93d174536cf0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD )

Perhaps those of faith would remember this admonition of Paul's which is still relevant in these passages:
2Timothy 2:
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

From "The Pattern of Our Parentage" by Elder Boyd K. Packer
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
"And I add one more conviction: there is an adversary who has his own channels of spiritual communication. He confuses the careless and prompts those who serve him to devise deceptive, counterfeit doctrine, carefully contrived to appear genuine."

And lastly from 2Timothy 2:16 an exhortation that applies today:
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. and 1Timothy 6:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

The Atheist

07-28-2010, 04:50 AM

No, I do not think I need to supply qualifiers when it was I who asked the question. Additionally, I am not sure that the figures are quite definitive.

Well, I answered it the only way possible, so that subject's closed.

Where did you get this quote? I do not recall writing it and cannot find it.

My apologies, it's a bad quote by me - now fixed above.

[b]This premise is false from the git-go from my LDS, a Christian, perspective;...

The bible/other religious books aren't really relevant to answer the question since they have an a priori position that a god exists.

MarkBastable

07-28-2010, 05:23 AM

tailor - If you'd like us to pay attention to Paul's advice, I think you have to give us some reason to consider him an authority. In short, why should I give any credence to what Paul says on the subject of the existence of God or anything else?

OrphanPip

07-28-2010, 05:56 AM

I don't understand the question in the OP.

If you're implying that the concept of the Christian God is a construct, a fable, or merely a pretty (and often not so pretty) story, then, yes, I agree.

blazeofglory

07-28-2010, 10:46 AM

This is what I want to know for sure. I simply cannot subscribe to a mythical God or a personal God. There is a Hindu God, a Christian God, an Islamic God and the like and the followers of one God clashing with the followers of another God.

I have no evidence to prove there is a God or disapprove of a universal God. But I think the Gods or their ideologies in perpetual clash with one another. That is the root cause of the dis-harmonies in this modern age

Aragorn Elessar

07-28-2010, 10:21 PM

The Atheist

07-28-2010, 10:24 PM

I believe in a psychological god - a projection of our thoughts indeed! He is the God of our minds, nothing more, as I see it. Feel free to disagree: roughly 80% of humans, according to some estimates, are religious, which is substantially high. The percentage is dropping, though. I think with the fast improving science and technology of the modern era, people are finally coming to their senses.

What's more, the numbers of theists in educated societies has fallen very sharply in the past 50 years - outside of USA - while growth in religion has been in the less-ediucated parts of the world, notably Africa and Asia.

Aragorn Elessar

07-28-2010, 10:33 PM

What's more, the numbers of theists in educated societies has fallen very sharply in the past 50 years - outside of USA - while growth in religion has been in the less-ediucated parts of the world, notably Africa and Asia.

Yeah, I don't know that the decline of religion is actually beneficial to the human race, however. It probably doesn't cause more harm than good most of the time, so it's really nothing to worry about. But, on the other hand, there is really no reason to believe in something that has no evidence.

So, although I am an atheist, I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference to us as a species to become chiefly non religious. Rarely does religion actually do harm to others, so I suppose its existence is not so awful.

OrphanPip

07-28-2010, 10:54 PM

So, although I am an atheist, I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference to us as a species to become chiefly non religious. Rarely does religion actually do harm to others, so I suppose its existence is not so awful.

Rarely? So, I suppose the implementation of anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, with the support of the Anglican and Catholic churches do no harm, the christian/muslim violence in Nigeria, or the countless oppressive Sharia Law run Islamist societies do no harm.

The Atheist

07-28-2010, 11:35 PM

Yeah, I don't know that the decline of religion is actually beneficial to the human race, however.

Just to go along with OP's comments, it is very noticeable that the less-religious countries - European, mostly - have very low crime rates and very high standards of living.

The evidence would suggest that less religion = better societies.

JuniperWoolf

07-29-2010, 01:29 AM

Rarely? So, I suppose the implementation of anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, with the support of the Anglican and Catholic churches do no harm, the christian/muslim violence in Nigeria, or the countless oppressive Sharia Law run Islamist societies do no harm.

And that's not to mention the last two thousand years of human history. Most atheists that I know got their start by being disgusted by the track record of religion (myself included). Yep, religious history is pretty gross so I'm just going to stay away from that whole area.

grotto

07-29-2010, 08:11 AM

I think with the fast improving science and technology of the modern era, people are finally coming to their senses.

I question this. “Most” people have no clue what science is, they just take information given blindly and then revel in the benefits they receive from science while claiming science knows all. No different than any religion, both expect some god or some science to take care of them and when something doesn’t continue to give them reassurance, they then damn the one they chose.

Religion was once considered the opiate of the masses, now science has created masses who seem to be on opiates.

When the wrong man uses the right means, the right means gets used in the wrong way.

Aragorn Elessar

07-29-2010, 10:56 AM

Hmm, interesting points. Religion does have a pretty nasty history. I guess I didn't phrase my statement quite right...I just mean that simply believing in a god or supernatural force doesn't do any harm to society. However, I shouldn't have used the word 'religion' - historically it has done harm, because many religious groups try to force their beliefs upon others and that leads to chaos. And yeah, the anti-homosexual laws are a problem.

Religion is fine as long as no one is trying to force beliefs on individuals and their religious beliefs aren't implemented into political systems. Sorry for not phrasing my statements too well.

The Atheist

07-29-2010, 09:54 PM

I question this. “Most” people have no clue what science is, they just take information given blindly and then revel in the benefits they receive from science while claiming science knows all.

I always see that as a bit of a strawman argument, because I've never really seen it. I come across far more people who don't accept science than those who accept every word uttered by a scietist as true. Not to ask how someone can possibly claim science "knows" anything anyway.

If someone actually did take that path, I agree, they would be as deluded as the worst fundy, but do they really exist?

Religion was once considered the opiate of the masses, now science has created masses who seem to be on opiates.

Neat paraphrase, but without evidence that any reasobale number of people think that way, it's meaningless.

When the wrong man uses the right means, the right means gets used in the wrong way.

Sorry, that one's just gibberish. Yes, Hitler made the trains run on time, but one sheep doesn't make a flock.

Hmm, interesting points. Religion does have a pretty nasty history. I guess I didn't phrase my statement quite right...I just mean that simply believing in a god or supernatural force doesn't do any harm to society.

I agree, but the problem seems to be that it never stops just at belief.

The believers have to reinforce their own beliefs by getting others to subscribe to them. Once that starts, sooner or later, someone pulls out the collection hat and money gets involved. Add that to the natural power trip of the leader and you have all the ingedients of a first-class balls-up.

If religion, psychics, astrologers and homepathy salesmen would all swear to shut up and just believe, I'd retire from rationalism.

LMK

07-29-2010, 10:54 PM

Back to topic -

Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

Even within a religious denomination or sect there may be disagreement, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with this. Nor is there anything wrong with the multitudes of religious formations and their differing opinions and views on the subject of 'God' and the rules men apply to what God is or how a person should live their lives. This is all religion, not God.

We get so easily sidetracked and want to discuss religion; what man says about God, rather than take a topic, such as the one from the OP which is, "Is God a projection of our thoughts only?" The qualifier only leads me to want to answer with a simple NO.

An extreme example is that there are people killing and being killed in the name of God, this leads me to justify my "no" in that an individual can project God beyond their mere thoughts and into actions.

Regarding the comments along with the OP, I have never seen the North Pole, but can imagine a barren desert of ice, and could, if pressed, sketch my idea of what it might look like.

grotto

07-29-2010, 11:32 PM

I always see that as a bit of a strawman argument, because I've never really seen it. I come across far more people who don't accept science than those who accept every word uttered by a scietist as true. Not to ask how someone can possibly claim science "knows" anything anyway.

If someone actually did take that path, I agree, they would be as deluded as the worst fundy, but do they really exist?

They may not “accept” science, but they use it for their own opiate. How many people are glued to a TV? How many want or demand science to make their lives better without understanding basic ideas? Same with religion, many don’t accept it, yet ignorance, social preasure and fear of the unknown keep them heading for a pew or prayer mat.

Neat paraphrase, but without evidence that any reasobale number of people think that way, it's meaningless.

It needs no evidence, just a thought and most words spoken have no provable evidence that they mean jack squat, including yours, mine or anyone else’s. Your trump card is always evidence, so, show me the evidence that what you say actually means anything.

Sorry, that one's just gibberish. Yes, Hitler made the trains run on time, but one sheep doesn't make a flock.
Jibberish? How many sheep followed? How many millions died? But hey, the train was on time! “When the wrong man uses the right means, the right means get used in the wrong way.” This should be thought about in science also. We all know by now how much you despise philosophy, but it’s a very simple phrase that should be thought about in the scientific/technological world. Science (and boredom) have killed religion, but it certainly hasn’t fixed all of the worlds problems and there are many who would argue that it’s now worse. But no matter, American Idol is on, Wal-Mart is open 24 hours and I’m sure science will cure the obesity it’s processed garbage food has created. Pass the Cheeto’s.

I agree, but the problem seems to be that it never stops just at belief.

The believers have to reinforce their own beliefs by getting others to subscribe to them. Once that starts, sooner or later, someone pulls out the collection hat and money gets involved. Add that to the natural power trip of the leader and you have all the ingedients of a first-class balls-up.

If religion, psychics, astrologers and homepathy salesmen would all swear to shut up and just believe, I'd retire from rationalism.

Same as the disbelievers, they both need each other to validate their own position. And both sides have collection hats and ego tripping leaders and it's all projection, just depends on who has the deepest pockets at the time.

OrphanPip

07-30-2010, 05:08 AM

They may not “accept” science, but they use it for their own opiate. How many people are glued to a TV? How many want or demand science to make their lives better without understanding basic ideas? Same with religion, many don’t accept it, yet ignorance, social preasure and fear of the unknown keep them heading for a pew or prayer mat.

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

MarkBastable

07-30-2010, 05:59 AM

But no matter, American Idol is on, Wal-Mart is open 24 hours and I’m sure science will cure the obesity it’s processed garbage food has created. Pass the Cheeto’s.

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.

OrphanPip

07-30-2010, 07:28 AM

Not that this anti-science rhetoric even makes any sense. Science is not an alternative to religion, science is a methodology used to understand the natural world, it is pragmatic and logical. Science has absolutely nothing to do with religion, except when religions make claims about how the natural world works (which invariably contradict scientific evidence). To present science and religion as opposites illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. You expect science to solve people's personal issues, or fix society's problems, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what science is or attempts to be.

PeterL

07-30-2010, 01:48 PM

Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

You should have specified which god you meant. Some Gods and Goddesses are seen regularly, while others have never been seen. It is possible that the Bible, the Koran, etc. were dreamed up by humans, but that doesn't mean that all Gods were devised in the minds on humans.

The Atheist

07-30-2010, 03:18 PM

Ok, that's it.

OrphanPip and Mark Bastable, please take note:

I am officially sick and tired of the pair of you!

Thanks to stupid time differences, I come online yet again to find that some questions and assertions have already been dealt with while I've been asleep.

Now, there can be no crime greater tha stealing my bloody thunder, ok!

Brilliantly answered by the pair of you.

Chanpagne socialist!

:smilielol5:

You and me both, brother!

You should have specified which god you meant. Some Gods and Goddesses are seen regularly, while others have never been seen. It is possible that the Bible, the Koran, etc. were dreamed up by humans, but that doesn't mean that all Gods were devised in the minds on humans.

You're right, it's not proof, but there's a whole lot more hay in god's stack than just that gods are drawn in man's image.

Besides that, I look at people who have a personal relationship with their imaginary friend Jesus. They truly believe they speak to him in a one-on-one situation. They see him and talk to him.

Doesn't it occur to any of them to tell their pastors and preachers that Jesus doesn't actually look like this?

http://www.google.co.nz/images?rlz=1T4GGLL_enNZ335NZ335&q=jesus&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

We create the gods we want, and as history has shown us for at least 10,000 years, they've all been wrong - except of course, for whichever one, true god one happens to believe in at the time.

PeterL

07-30-2010, 04:18 PM

You're right, it's not proof, but there's a whole lot more hay in god's stack than just that gods are drawn in man's image.

Besides that, I look at people who have a personal relationship with their imaginary friend Jesus. They truly believe they speak to him in a one-on-one situation. They see him and talk to him.

And who are you to say that they do not have that sort of relationship with Jesus?

Doesn't it occur to any of them to tell their pastors and preachers that Jesus doesn't actually look like this?

http://www.google.co.nz/images?rlz=1T4GGLL_enNZ335NZ335&q=jesus&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

The concept that people have of a God is of llittle or no consequence to anyone else.

We create the gods we want, and as history has shown us for at least 10,000 years, they've all been wrong - except of course, for whichever one, true god one happens to believe in at the time.

You may been busily creating gods for the last 10,000 years, but that doesnt mean that all of them are wrong.

The Atheist

07-31-2010, 04:41 PM

And who are you to say that they do not have that sort of relationship with Jesus?

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.

You may been busily creating gods for the last 10,000 years, but that doesnt mena that all of the a wrong.

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.

grotto

07-31-2010, 05:45 PM

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

08-01-2010, 09:29 AM

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

08-01-2010, 02:34 PM

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

08-01-2010, 04:08 PM

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

08-02-2010, 08:52 AM

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

08-02-2010, 09:09 AM

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

08-02-2010, 09:29 AM

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

08-02-2010, 10:40 AM

..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

08-02-2010, 10:46 AM

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

Such as?

PeterL

08-02-2010, 10:52 AM

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

08-02-2010, 10:52 AM

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

08-02-2010, 10:52 AM

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

08-02-2010, 10:58 AM

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

08-02-2010, 11:07 AM

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

08-02-2010, 02:39 PM

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.

PeterL

08-02-2010, 03:07 PM

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.

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

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?

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

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.

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence. Such evidence is ofte given as part of a larger case. There are some people who can look at a scene for a fw seconds and describe everything there in detail, while other people wouldn't recognise anything.

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.

You can believe whatever you want to, but please keep in mind that different people place different weights on different kinds of evidence.

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

If you don't believe that the Earth is a Goddess, that's your business. It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

The Atheist

08-02-2010, 06:08 PM

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

Each to their own - I'm quite happy for you to have that belief. What the Canaanites are alleged to have believed has no more relevance than Australian Aborigines believing the earth is actually a rainbow serpent.

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence.

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

That's why I asked.

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

PeterL

08-03-2010, 08:48 AM

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

You are mistaken. When the evidence, bith documentary and anecdotal, is inconsistent, one weighs the evidence. If you personally do otherwise, that's your business. Judicial actions are another matter, but people are convicted every day based on lies, anecdotes, etc., but that is not what the present discussion is about.

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

MarkBastable

08-03-2010, 08:51 AM

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

PeterL

08-03-2010, 01:40 PM

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

Bacchus is a God - note the initial capital. Small 'g' gods are a dime a hundred, but there are only some dozens of capital 'g' Gods.

MarkBastable

08-03-2010, 01:59 PM

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

Scheherazade

08-03-2010, 02:11 PM

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?Godzilla?

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/godzilla_020503_460b.jpg

PeterL

08-03-2010, 02:27 PM

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

Dyeus Pater (AKA Zeus, AKA Jupiter), Poseidon, Aphrodite, Dhergom Mater (AKA Demeter), Aries, Yemos, Mannus, Perkwúno, Gouwinda, Ekwamedha, Pauson, Ba'al, Moloch, El, Ishtar, and so on.

MarkBastable

08-03-2010, 03:46 PM

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

dafydd manton

08-03-2010, 03:51 PM

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

PeterL

08-03-2010, 03:57 PM

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

dafydd manton

08-03-2010, 04:02 PM

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

Not quite. The faithful Hebrews were NOT Canaanites, far from it. They were exclusively monotheistic, and the name of their God was well recorded. Admittedly, many turned away from him, and followed gods such as Chemosh, Malcam, Baal and so forth, all of which only get a capital in English because they are proper nouns.

PeterL

08-03-2010, 04:03 PM

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

If you are interested, I convey blessings, carry messages, perform weddings, funerals, and other such events in the nameof whichever God of Goddess you prefer. I do common worship services if asked politely and paid liberally, but I prefer to avoid such things.

The Atheist

08-03-2010, 04:25 PM

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

PeterL

08-03-2010, 04:40 PM

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

My interpretation isn't as loose as the definition of people who say that someone who claimed to be a seeker of divine truth was actually a gos, even after he denied it.

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

Everyone believes what he, or she, wants to believe. Wine is a better god than most. At least wine will do something for you, even if you are not a believer.

NikolaiI

08-03-2010, 04:43 PM

From one perspective, there is no infinite.
From the other perspective, there is no finite.

God is the infinite - there is only one God, one reality. God is reality. People from different religions fight with each other only if they don't understand this. If they don't, then Buddhists will say that Hinduism is wrong because of some way they describe reality, and actually Buddhism is correct. But they will only say this if they have no real understanding of that reality - that it is infinite peace, bliss, knowledge, and existence.

There is no way to prove to an atheist that God, that the Absolute, exists. It took me most of my life to break free of my strongly held atheist views. The first time I did was when I realized that all this had a source, that the universe had a source. I was quite happy because there was absolutely nothing illogical about this, and I thought I could share it with other atheists. At the moment I realized that, I stepped from being as absolutely an atheist as Mark, The Atheist, or anyone else, to realizing that there was more to it than I thought.

A couple years later I had a direct experience of reality. I experienced what Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and Sufi mystics have once in a while seen throughout time. I cannot explain it any better than Alduous Huxley, whose seemingly simple statement contains an unknown and yet absolutely essential truth. "When the doors of perception are cleansed, all will appear to man as it is, infinite." Everything that is, is infinite. It seems like nonsense to those who say there is no infinite. From the other side, however, it's seen that there is only Reality, and nothing more. This existence is something like a dream. We think we are limited, we think we are separate from reality. When we realize that we are connected to the Source of Being, we experience that all we had thought before is nothing. It seems so far away because we feel so limited - we are ingrained with ideas that we are inherently flawed, incomplete, lacking, imperfect. There is no greater affront than to say one is perfect. When we experience our Source for the very first time it is like awakening a thousand times, like an evolution of sorts, a thousand times. A thousand times all of our doubts, fears, misconceptions are stripped away, our karma is burst open to reveal something new.

The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us, and yet it is wholly false. In this realm of subjectivity we have a great control over our lives and our reality. Our physical body alone is subject to interpretation. For some it is weak and impish; and for others it is a veritable universe of immense harmony and beauty. Taoism and Buddhism and Hinduism all revealed this truth in a surprising way.

When I experienced my connection to the Source of Being for the first time, it was like waking up from a dream, literally and absolutely. Knowing that I came from the Source, was like feeling my feet on the ground for the very first time - although this simpler analogy doesn't capture the encompassing feeling of suddenly every level of my being knowing absolutely that I was whole and complete. My range of being - and your range of being - is not what you and I have been deluded into thinking: my physical body, ending at my skin, the sum of my conscious actions. It also includes my subconscious actions, such as growing my hair, growing my bones and the rest.

The truth I am expressing is the unity of all opposites. It's the answer to every desire, every question, every need, every pain. The answer to every question we, as a race, ever wondered is there within every one of us. Consider a somewhat hapless humanity, wondering, wondering. The answer is there within, and a necessary component is non-duality. When you realize what you really are, the universe, you no longer have any doubt or question unanswered. It's not a piece of knowledge that can be spoken, and heard and simply known. It's an individual, personal experience which is also universal. It's found in Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Native American spirituality - these that I know of. As Black Elk said, Only when men know they are one with the universe will they know peace in their souls.

MarkBastable

08-03-2010, 06:01 PM

The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us...

Speak for yourself, bub.

NikolaiI

08-03-2010, 06:10 PM

Speak for yourself, bub.

Are you completely blind to context? I'm sorry it's just your posts always show this!!! I don't know how to say it otherwise - are you completely blind to it? The very. next. words. were. it is wholly false.

Thanks for shedding your brilliant personality all over the place.

dafydd manton

08-03-2010, 06:31 PM

Ooo-er!

Aced

08-04-2010, 12:43 AM

God is real. God is infinite. The alpha and omega.

He made us in his image. And he loves us ^^

just thought I'd throw that out there

MarkBastable

08-04-2010, 02:15 AM

Are you completely blind to context? I'm sorry it's just your posts always show this!!! I don't know how to say it otherwise - are you completely blind to it? The very. next. words. were. it is wholly false.

Thanks for shedding your brilliant personality all over the place.

You said: The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us, and yet it is wholly false.

I disagree that it's so engrained in us. That's the bit I disagreed with. And I said so. I agree, on the other hand, that the idea is false. In fact I don't think it's a common idea at all.

But, to be clear, you suggested that this false idea was deeply engrained in us, and I said that it's not. More specifically, my implication was that you're entitled to say it's engrained in you, but you can't say with such absolute and unsupported finality that it's engrained in everyone else. Or, to lay out that exchange more succinctly...

You: The idea we are imperfect, incomplete and lacking is so ingrained into us...

Me: Speak for yourself, bub.

Context clear to you now?

The Atheist

08-04-2010, 04:18 AM

There is no way to prove to an atheist that God, that the Absolute, exists.

Disagree. It would actually be quite simple for a god to prove its existence to me.

God is real. God is infinite. The alpha and omega.

According to that, your god is everything.

Me included.

Go figure.

Scheherazade

08-04-2010, 06:01 AM

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal or off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

PeterL

08-04-2010, 08:44 AM

deleted

dafydd manton

08-04-2010, 09:46 AM

Just to add a tiny thought, to those who are believers (and I am one of them), that to make your arguments more accessible, you might try reading;
1st Peter Chapter 3 verse 15
Colossians Chapter 4 and verse 6
Titus Chapter 3 and verse 2

It might help.

NikolaiI

08-04-2010, 11:46 AM

Mark Bastable.

I was speaking about something that is widespread in our society. It comes a lot from the Christian idea, and it's become significant in the cultural consciousness - the idea that we are weak, flawed, imperfect. Why do you take it so personally and attack me so much for it? I am saying it is a very bad thing. I am not necessarily saying that you have it too. If you don't think it's a good thing, then why do you attack me so much for saying it? Can you not understand me even this much? It seems like your view is so, so tinted with the negative that even a discussion with you is impossible for you insert so many negative motives into what I say.

MarkBastable

08-04-2010, 03:51 PM

It's an argument, and it's intellectual. You suggested a universal truth (we are all engrained...) and I expressed disagreement.

That was dialogue.

Then you accused me of lacking intellectual rigour in my response. (Thanks for shedding your brilliant personality all over the place.) Not that I have anything against sarcasm (though you apparently do (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54262).)

That was personal.

I responded by clarifying.

That was dialogue.

You have responded again with an (admittedly more measured) attack on my personality.

Again, for the last time, I'll say that I'm attacking your argument, not your person.

Why don't you try that?

Mark Bastable.

I was speaking about something that is widespread in our society. It comes a lot from the Christian idea, and it's become significant in the cultural consciousness - the idea that we are weak, flawed, imperfect. Why do you take it so personally and attack me so much for it? I am saying it is a very bad thing. I am not necessarily saying that you have it too. If you don't think it's a good thing, then why do you attack me so much for saying it? Can you not understand me even this much? It seems like your view is so, so tinted with the negative that even a discussion with you is impossible for you insert so many negative motives into what I say.

NikolaiI

08-04-2010, 04:16 PM

MarkBastable

08-04-2010, 05:13 PM

Your responses to me have never been intellectual or reasoned but intensely emotional and hostile. This is why I never expected anything reasoned from you, and I won't in the future.

...nor did you reply to my clarification of my position. You just ignored it completely. Which is fine. Carry on then.

I wish there were a God. Because if I believed there were a God then by definition I'd believe he were on my side. Which would mean that I'd feel that one day he'd take you to the back of the room and say to you, "Sorry, old dear, he was right you know...."

On the other hand, if there were a God I'd be able to transfer to him the responsibility of forgiving you. As there isn't one, I'm going to have to do that myself.

...give me a day or two.

Aced

08-04-2010, 06:05 PM

MarkBastable

08-04-2010, 06:07 PM

dafydd manton

08-04-2010, 06:17 PM

Here. To all nonbelivers and The Atheiest.

God gives everybody a chance. He doesn't force Himself on you and He doesn't force you to believe in Him. He's healed me and has done sooo much for me. I Cant wait to see Him in Heaven. And if your an athiest. What happens when you die? Nothing? Why wouldn't you believe in God if you will turn to dirt anyway?? No offence. But your going to burn in Hell =[

Well, Aced, if you're trying to put people off any god, you're doing a remarkably good job. Surely, the whole point of a belief structure is to show people how much better life can be with it, in specifics, rather than telling them things that, frankly, cannot be backed up with scripture. How many wars have been caused by those who dogmatically state that their beliefs are correct, and will not listen to the point of view of others, and then respect them, even if they are diametrically opposed to ones own. If you look, in great depth, not just skating the surface, at the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek equivalent Haides, and analyse what has been translated so many different ways in different translations of the scriptures, what is on offer is a lot better than the threats that are currently being bandied about. hell has been used as a frightener for far too long, and brings disrepute not only upon the god that humans say created it, (a falsehood that is easy to disprove), but upon those who employ it too.

NikolaiI

08-04-2010, 06:48 PM

There is no such thing as a Hell. The only permanent, eternal reality there is, is simply that - Reality; the Infinite; Om; God, etc. There's no eternal reality called hell.

dafydd manton

08-04-2010, 06:49 PM

You're dead right.

The Atheist

08-04-2010, 07:25 PM

....and there's another reason I hope there's no heaven. Hell I can handle. But heaven's looking pretty hellish, frankly.

:lol:

I agree. I can think of nothing worse than spending an eternity doing anything.

Imagine the torment after the first billion years, knowing that there's still eternity to go.

Sounds far worse than hell every could.

Besides, all my mates will be there!

Well, Aced, if you're trying to put people off any god, you're doing a remarkably good job.

:D

People like that are the best sales pitch for atheism in existence!

mazHur

08-04-2010, 08:56 PM

<<<<<<<<<Is God a projection of our thoughts only? >>>>>>>>

No! Good and Evil are!!

Scheherazade

08-05-2010, 03:32 AM

The OP:
Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.Please note that off-topic and/or personal/inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

Those who have any personal differences with other member(s) should deal with them via PMs.

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 05:24 AM

mazHur

08-05-2010, 06:15 AM

The question of heaven and hell has been looked at in another thread recently, and the position I put recently was if there can be hellish conditions on earth, then if you believe in an afterlife, then the possibility of hell exists thereafter. Heavens a bit more problematic - heavenly conditions on earth?

Heaven and Hell on this Earth are 'circumstantial', both depending on YOUR own Will to act as you will. The 'consequential' Heaven and Hell is in the hereafter......depending on God's Will who is All Merciful and Magnificient.

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 07:05 AM

Heaven and Hell on this Earth are 'circumstantial', both depending on YOUR own Will to act as you will. The 'consequential' Heaven and Hell is in the hereafter......depending on God's Will who is All Merciful and Magnificient.

This is incorret. Whose will created hellish conditions for Cambodians under Pol Pot - not their own. Same for the Nazis etc. There are slao enviromental hells such as forest fires, eruptions, weather conditions etc. Wghose will are those?

Another example is where people are suffering from mental illness and experience their own hellish mental conditions. That's not a circumstance of will, but may be physiological.

caddy_caddy

08-05-2010, 09:37 AM

Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen.

The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

Haribol , if you ask about God as an essence, the whatness of a thing , as opposed to the thatness of a thing , i.e ,its existence , then God could be a projection of our thoughts only because we could think of the essence of sth without knowing whether it exists or not .

But there is one Being alone whose essence is His very existence and that is God .

mazHur

08-05-2010, 02:08 PM

Anecdote of a Contemplative

''A madman, a fool of God, went naked when other men went clothed. He
said: "O God, give me a beautiful garment than I shall be content as
other men." A voice from the unseen world answered him: "I have
given you a warm sun, sit down and revel in it." The madman
said: "Why punish me? Haven't you a better garment than the sun?"
The voice said: "Wait patiently for ten days, and without more ado I
will give you another garment." The sun scorched him for eight days;
then a poor man came along and gave him a garment which had a
thousand patches. The fool said to God: "O you who have knowledge of
hidden things, why have you given me this patched-up garment? Have
you burnt all your garments and had to patch up this old one? You
have sewn together a thousand garments. From whom have you learned
this art?"

It is not easy to have dealings at the Court of God. A man must
become as the dust of the road which leads there. After a long
struggle he thinks he has reached the goal only to discover that it
is still to be attained.''

--Fariduddin Attar
from The Conference of the Birds
C. S. Nott version

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 03:12 PM

Is that an answer to whether hell is circumstantial? If it is, I don't think it answers the question about hell on earth. If not - what is the significance of it?

mazHur

08-05-2010, 04:51 PM

Is that an answer to whether hell is circumstantial? If it is, I don't think it answers the question about hell on earth. If not - what is the significance of it?

Heaven and Hell are analogous to REWARD and PUNISHMENT and needless to say both greatly depend on your ACTIONS!

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 04:56 PM

Heaven and Hell are analogous to REWARD and PUNISHMENT and needless to say both greatly depend on your ACTIONS!

I see - thanks. So are you saying that natural disasters are punishments - as they create hellish conditions for those that suffer them? Or is your definition of hell narrower than this?

mazHur

08-05-2010, 05:03 PM

I see - thanks. So are you saying that natural disasters are punishments - as they create hellish conditions for those that suffer them? Or is your definition of hell narrower than this?

yes, that is what the Scriptures say and as a gnostic I believe it.

There are two sides to everything: suffering and happiness. It's God's will to do whatever he wants, his Scheme of Things, His modus Operandi is beyond the mental level of his Creation; the more it tries to understand it the greater it finds itself in confusion.
do you imagine that the mental status of your Teacher would be as equal to his students?? No, the Teacher has a higher mental knowledge because he Knows more than his pupils. Likewise, a Master has superior status than his apprentice....no two can be equal and humans are still in the inchoate stage of thei journey of cognitive, intellectual and scientific learning.

There are stars beyond stars
what you see is not the end of the Universe!!

dafydd manton

08-05-2010, 05:27 PM

That is, I have to say, a horrible and upsetting misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Worrying too.

mazHur

08-05-2010, 05:32 PM

That is, I have to say, a horrible and upsetting misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Worrying too.

maybe, but by scriptures I mean ALL the Revealed Books collectively and not only the Bible.

Bible exonerates humans from sins on the basis that Jesus took over their blame. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't appeal to me. That everyone is responsible here and in the hereafter for his OWN DEEDS seems to me more appealable for being equitable and just.

MarkBastable

08-05-2010, 05:37 PM

Bible exonerates humans from sins on the basis that Jesus took over their blame. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't appeal to me.

I think that's the first time I've ever heard a religious person admit that they choose which view to subscribe to, not on the basis that they believe it to be true or false, but simply because it does or doesn't appeal to them.

I take it, then, that I can choose to believe in genies not because I think genies are likely to exist, but because I rather like the idea that they'd grant me wishes.

mazHur

08-05-2010, 05:43 PM

I think that's the first time I've ever heard a religious person admit that they choose which view to subscribe to, not on the basis that they believe it to be true or false, but simply because it does or doesn't appeal to them.

I take it, then, that I can choose to believe in genies not because I think genies are likely to exist, but because I rather like the idea that they'd grant me wishes.

No surprise there are scores of Religions apart from Christianity and as we are
discussing god it would be unjust to restrict and base our deliberations to just one outlook. Frankly, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....
The Jews , Muslims and the Hindus don't think that way.....do they??

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 07:05 PM

yes, that is what the Scriptures say and as a gnostic I believe it.

There are two sides to everything: suffering and happiness. It's God's will to do whatever he wants, his Scheme of Things, His modus Operandi is beyond the mental level of his Creation; the more it tries to understand it the greater it finds itself in confusion.
do you imagine that the mental status of your Teacher would be as equal to his students?? No, the Teacher has a higher mental knowledge because he Knows more than his pupils. Likewise, a Master has superior status than his apprentice....no two can be equal and humans are still in the inchoate stage of thei journey of cognitive, intellectual and scientific learning.

There are stars beyond stars
what you see is not the end of the Universe!!

This is the problem I have with the idea of a creator God. Creating the ability to question, but not to be able to understand. Creating what seems to be an arbitrary evil, that hurts good people. Creating inequality and myriads of suffering. I just don't buy the "you can't undertand" idea. Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

The Atheist

08-05-2010, 07:23 PM

Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

Western religion. It's why the RCC tries to downplay the OT apart from prophecies and so on. The god depicted in the OT is one mean bastard; very "Kill all the men and enslave the women!" Not to mention Noah, Sodom, and Joshua [?] the Bald guy, etc, ad nauseum.

The CoE have evolved almost to the point of agnosticism to counter the English resistance to unforgiving, judgemental god/s. Unfortunately for Rowan's team, people seem to nowadays prefer the immoral, inconsistent and vengeful god again.

The less knowable it is, the more powerful it is deemed to be. If a god is so nasty as to infect kids with terminal cancer, he must be truly omnipotent, because there is no form of human logic which can explain it and you're left with "God moves in mysterious ways" or that awful parable of Jesus' about the vineyard workers.

mazHur

08-05-2010, 07:39 PM

This is the problem I have with the idea of a creator God. Creating the ability to question, but not to be able to understand. Creating what seems to be an arbitrary evil, that hurts good people. Creating inequality and myriads of suffering. I just don't buy the "you can't undertand" idea. Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.
There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?
Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....
Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing. Death is inevitable for mortals.....suffering goes with happiness side by side, we cannot expect to seek mere happiness or all divine metabolic activity, that would be against justice. There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

The Atheist

08-05-2010, 07:50 PM

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

That's trust, not faith.

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.

Except for parents that beat, maim or kill their kids, no doubt. A large number of animals also eat their babies.

There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?

Except for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many other billionaires who are giving away their fortunes.

Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....

Except when brothers, friends or spouses kill each other or physically assault them.

Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

Except when he decides to flood or burn some or all of it, or if you don't believe in the god.

There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

Hits my previous post dead centre!

Paulclem

08-05-2010, 08:02 PM

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.
There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?
Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....
Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing. Death is inevitable for mortals.....suffering goes with happiness side by side, we cannot expect to seek mere happiness or all divine metabolic activity, that would be against justice. There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

But I have questions - and saying that questioning causes problems does nothing to assuage my disquiet about the idea of a creator God who has created the difficult and sometimes hellish circumstances people have to live with.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing.

What is the main object of creation that requires inequlity?

a part of the 'game'

The game of life? Well it's a game that goes very well for some, but others will never have a chance to take such a complacent view. I feel it's a view that is fine for someone who is comfortable to trot out, but I could never say to some of the people I've met not to worry because it's part of the game.

If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God

Some people clearly have in a manner of speaking. Stalin and Mao come to mind. Yet they continued their mass murder until they died of natural causes. All that time the Gulags and slave labour camps were full. Was it hell for those prisoners? Why was it hell for them and not Mao and Stalin?

Manalive

08-05-2010, 08:28 PM

Western religion. It's why the RCC tries to downplay the OT apart from prophecies and so on. The god depicted in the OT is one mean bastard; very "Kill all the men and enslave the women!" Not to mention Noah, Sodom, and Joshua [?] the Bald guy, etc, ad nauseum.

I can give you a multitude of passages from the Old Testament that we Catholics use to express God's love for humanity. We have a reading from the Old Testament at Mass EVERY Sunday. It is not downplayed, it has become more understandable with the New Testament.

Vatican II explains this "change" in OT/NT as:

In his goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation (DV 2).

Vatican II: Dei Verbum (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)

When God became man, and shared his life with the Apostles, then a better understanding of God was possible. Divine revelation was progressive, not static. After Christ's Ascension revelation stopped-- if the revelation that God became man and lived on this earth isn't enough for people to believe, then nothing can be.

The less knowable it is, the more powerful it is deemed to be. If a god is so nasty as to infect kids with terminal cancer, he must be truly omnipotent, because there is no form of human logic which can explain it and you're left with "God moves in mysterious ways" or that awful parable of Jesus' about the vineyard workers.

Oh, great Postmodern man! Thou is wise in your view of power and authority! How contemporary and true your view is!

No one has an easy answer to the suffering of children. I'm human and fallible-- and can not in the least begin to understand God and his thinking. If you want to be a Stoic and say: "I did not believe I was giving birth to an immortal"; or that it is just how things go, that's your own right. But don't belittle people for hoping to see those family members and friends that have suffered and died in the After-life.

The Atheist

08-05-2010, 09:58 PM

I can give you a multitude of passages from the Old Testament that we Catholics use to express God's love for humanity. We have a reading from the Old Testament at Mass EVERY Sunday. It is not downplayed, it has become more understandable with the New Testament.

Does the RCC preach that creation, Sodom, the she-bears and the flood were allegorical or real? Does the RCC admit that the god was unable to overcome an enemy of the Hebrews because they had iron chariots? Does the RCC preach that a bloke actually spent three days inside a fish? That the earth is flat?

The RCC emphatically does not embrace large swathes of the OT as anything but allegory.

But don't belittle people for hoping to see those family members and friends that have suffered and died in the After-life.

No, I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. If people who think an omnipotent god exists are upset by the words of one man, then their faith is questionable to say the least. They should also learn the meaning of "omnipotent", never mind think about the conundrum of "seeing one's loved ones in heaven".

You're appealing for special treatment for religion, an idea I find quite replusive given religion's history. In fact, as far the RCC goes, it isn't just history, it's still happening. From RatZZinger's time in Hitler Youth, through the ongoing cover-ups of mass paedophilia to the absurd and continuing misogyny it displays (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/vatican-says-female-priests-as-sinful-as-child-abuse-2261015.html), the Catholic Church is one of the organisations most in need of a reality check.

Manalive

08-05-2010, 10:42 PM

The RCC emphatically does not embrace large swathes of the OT as anything but allegory.

The Church has believed in the use of allegory for as long as it has existed. St. Gregory Nazianzen, from the 4th century, taught that the story of Jonah is a parable. The Church herself has no official position one way or the other though. As long as the metaphysical teachings and the literal teachings do not conflict, then it's fine to believe in either one.

No, I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. If people who think an omnipotent god exists are upset by the words of one man, then their faith is questionable to say the least. They should also learn the meaning of "omnipotent", never mind think about the conundrum of "seeing one's loved ones in heaven".

Should they be upset by your words or should they learn the meaning of "omnipotent" and their conundrum? I'm not quite clear on that one.

You're appealing for special treatment for religion, an idea I find quite replusive given religion's history. In fact, as far the RCC goes, it isn't just history, it's still happening. From RatZZinger's time in Hitler Youth, through the ongoing cover-ups of mass paedophilia to the absurd and continuing misogyny it displays (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/vatican-says-female-priests-as-sinful-as-child-abuse-2261015.html), the Catholic Church is one of the organisations most in need of a reality check.

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. I hardly think it in need of the reality check. If it was swayed by the whims of every generational opinion or attitude it would not be around.

There are individuals in the Church that have done horrible things. But the percentage of abuse is not any more than what is documented outside of the Church. And I really don't understand your point on Benedict being in the Hitler Youth? There are former atheist who used to be Christians. Following that logic and your belief in the "repulsion of evil religion" are these former Christians, now atheists, somehow in the same category of "evil" Benedict too?

MarkBastable

08-06-2010, 02:30 AM

No surprise there are scores of Religions apart from Christianity and as we are
discussing god it would be unjust to restrict and base our deliberations to just one outlook. Frankly, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....
The Jews , Muslims and the Hindus don't think that way.....do they??

Yeah - of course we should consider all religions.

I'm simply saying that you have decided against Christianity because you don't like the scapegoat premise, rather than because you have any evidence that leads you believe that the central beliefs of Christianity aren't true.

You say, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....

I absolutely see your poiint. You have tendency to invest in the specific responsibility of the individual. This tendency makes it difficult for you to believe that God would set up the Universe in such a way that everyone has the get-out that Jesus will take the blame. I think that's perfectly valid.

However, it means that you're picking a belief systen that suits your personality - you're not doing it on the basis of any evidence that it's true. It might be that, actually, Jesus was the Son of God and that he did die for our sins and that that's just the way the Almighty decided to resolve the sin/mortality/redemption issue. And he did it without taking into account the fact that you (and I) would find that a tough one to understand.

Because, you've got to admit, it is possible that God could set up the universe in a way that doesn't naturally appeal to mazHur. After all, you currently believe he's set it up in a way that doesn't appeal much to the Pope.

The Atheist

08-06-2010, 04:10 AM

The Church has believed in the use of allegory for as long as it has existed.

Yes, and full marks for the RCC in not trying to preach the impossible, but it's not the only church around and many of the other ones are biblical literalists, so it can't be said that Catholics are necessarily right. (Except when it's said by Catholics, of course.)

Should they be upset by your words or should they learn the meaning of "omnipotent" and their conundrum? I'm not quite clear on that one.

Let me make it plain then.

If my best friend just happens to rule the universe, which it also created, why would I let one unbeliever bother me?

If you genuinely believe in the omnipotent sky-daddy, how does one man's opinion hurt? If I were deluded enough to believe the Jesus myth, I'd be laughing at atheists, not debating them. What on earth could an atheist say to upset a true believer?

The conundrum is to do with heaven. I suspect that the vast majority of believers actually haven't a clue what heaven is supposed to be - since none of them have ever been there - and have never bothered to think about all the logical contradictions.

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. I hardly think it in need of the reality check. If it was swayed by the whims of every generational opinion or attitude it would not be around.

I see you quote Vatican II, so I'm guessing you must be somewhat aware of the history of the RCC. I listed a few of its points that need work, and taking other nice bits of its history into account - the Borgias and Inquisition, for instance - you must realise that it has changed its ways lots of times over the centuries.

There are individuals in the Church that have done horrible things. But the percentage of abuse is not any more than what is documented outside of the Church.

Nice of you to avoid the main part of that point - the informed cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the RCC.

And I really don't understand your point on Benedict being in the Hitler Youth?

WWJD? Or more pertinently, what would Jesus have done?

Do you honestly think the son of the god-chappie would have joined the Hitler Youth?

According to every christian theologian on the planet, Jesus would have died before he put on the brown uniform. This is the bloke who took whips to the blokes in the temple, right? I just cannot see Jesus giving a Sieg Heil salute and worshipping Uncle Adolf.

What's good for the god's good for a pope, in my view. The pope is apparently able to talk one on one with the god on rare occasions.

Oh yeah, of course, he's probably very sorry and asked forgiveness.

There are former atheist who used to be Christians. Following that logic and your belief in the "repulsion of evil religion" are these former Christians, now atheists, somehow in the same category of "evil" Benedict too?

So, you agree with me that churches are evil organisations run by madmen?

:D

mazHur

08-06-2010, 09:55 AM

Yeah - of course we should consider all religions.

I'm simply saying that you have decided against Christianity because you don't like the scapegoat premise, rather than because you have any evidence that leads you believe that the central beliefs of Christianity aren't true.

You say, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....

I absolutely see your poiint. You have tendency to invest in the specific responsibility of the individual. This tendency makes it difficult for you to believe that God would set up the Universe in such a way that everyone has the get-out that Jesus will take the blame. I think that's perfectly valid.

However, it means that you're picking a belief systen that suits your personality - you're not doing it on the basis of any evidence that it's true. It might be that, actually, Jesus was the Son of God and that he did die for our sins and that that's just the way the Almighty decided to resolve the sin/mortality/redemption issue. And he did it without taking into account the fact that you (and I) would find that a tough one to understand.

Because, you've got to admit, it is possible that God could set up the universe in a way that doesn't naturally appeal to mazHur. After all, you currently believe he's set it up in a way that doesn't appeal much to the Pope.

I have studied some major religions of the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism and Zoroastrianism, all of these preach goodness but the main 'controversy' seems to be ''personalities'. However, in some religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, the former denies the existence of God while the latter is animistic in nature and sees God in everything, everywhere! Christianity is based on assuming Jesus as son of God...whereas Islam believes in the Unity of God. If I am given the choice to select among these religions on the basis of their fundamental concept about God ie whether He is or He is Not I would either prefer Buddhism or Islam. Christianity is out of question as I am not convinced that God could have a son...and no grandsons.....daughters and grand daughters seem to be 'out of divine deal!! ' And, personally I believe everyone IS answerable for his own actions ,,,,and I would be too mean to shift my blame of the Great jesus! If I do wrong I must face the music....
Well, these are just my thoughts and maybe I am wrong!!

MarkBastable

08-06-2010, 10:03 AM

I If I am given the choice to select among these religions on the basis of their fundamental concept about God ie whether He is or He is Not I would either prefer Buddhism or Islam.

I know. That's what I said. You pick the religion that suits you best. We agree.

...next.

mazHur

08-06-2010, 10:11 AM

I know. That's what I said. You pick the religion that suits you best. We agree.

.

yes, but for some reason!!

Scheherazade

08-06-2010, 10:14 AM

Out of curiousity, MazHur, did you convert to Islam or were you born into it before you decided to study other religions available?

MarkBastable

08-06-2010, 10:23 AM

yes, but for some reason!!

Yes, of course. The reason is intrinsic to your personality. You look at the premise of Christianity and you say, "Well, I don't think that's any way to run a universe. It completely undermines the notion of personal responsibility. I therefore reject the Christian explanation of what the hell's going on between man and God." And then you look at Islam and you say, "Aha! That's what I call a basis for Cosmic Justice, baby. I'm gonna sign up to that!"

I do exactly the same thing, except that I can't find a fit for my personality in any religion at all.

But it's reassuring to know I've got the process right, even if I'm not arriving at the conclusion that God would like.

mazHur

08-06-2010, 10:53 AM

Out of curiousity, MazHur, did you convert to Islam or were you born into it before you decided to study other religions available?

I am a born Muslim...
I did my 'A' levels from an elite missionary school in Karachi, where I had to learn scripture in primary classes until later it became optional for Muslim students, then graduated from Karachi University in Science.
By profession I belong to fisheries ,....and since last decade am doing Industrial process machine design and Industrial refrigeration..
People of many religions and ethnic races live here...and I had the chance to spend time with Christians, Parsi's (Zoroastrians) and Hindus, who still happen to be my classmates and friends.

Among Muslims, I have friends from several sects...

Frankly, I was never a practicing Muslim, ie one who could never observed Islamic 'obligations' regularly; I hardly go to mosque or congregations....or meet clerics..

I studied major religions of the world out of interest...to delve down deep into their doctrines. Most religions were mainly philosophical eg Buddhism. I compared at least five major religions with islam and frankly I found not much difference in them except that all taught good things...the main difference was over 'personalities' ....such as Jusus, Muhammad, Moses, Rama etc etc....Hinduism was overly ritualistic, Budhism preached 'suffering' was the way to 'emanicpation', Christianity was controversial in that some believed in Old testament whereas others rejected it or rejected all of it! I observed that nothing was lacking in Islam which was not told by those religions...except Islam emphasized on the Ultimate Unity of God; No compulsion in religion; all humans are responsible for their own deed; belief in angels, Scriptures, Day of Judgment, Jesus as Messiah, giving alms and charity, moral and ethics, Jihad for Self-defense and earning rightful bread and butter; that God was not begotten nor anyone begot him, that you don't need any intercessor to 'call His Grace' anytime anywhere , etc etc

I found that Islam preaches a complete code of Life....ethics and morals universally accepted but not so seriously applied by Muslims themselves...but I noticed Muslims scantily follow them in their daily lives. They fight over little things, 'personalities and rituals'; they go to mosque, fast during Ramadan but don't pay due regard to 'values' which Islam actually teaches to live a good life. Then I compared it with other religions and found the situation was the same if not worse there....so I thought I would better stay what I am..
Islam strongly disapproves harming oneself and above all condemns committing suicide or killing innocent people....according to the Quran :: the killing of one innocent human being is the killing of entire humanity''.....
there are many good things about Islam provided these are not read out of context!
cheers!

Paulclem

08-06-2010, 12:55 PM

mazHur

08-06-2010, 02:04 PM

Interesting Mazhur.

Can I just point out that Buddhism does not teach emancipation through suffering. The path seeks emancipation from suffering. The 4 Noble Truths describe suffering and its causes, and then the path to liberation from suffering.

Yes, you are correct. Buddha saw this world as human suffering and went out to seek Nirvana. He found it but the path to Nirvana doesn't seem to be for everyone. Asoka the Great was a great Indian warrior King who shed so much blood that it turned a river red. After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

War is also a necessary evil if it is forced upon you but Buddhism forbids it ( I think Christianity also says the same (at least in theory) ---'turn your other cheek'!- And that I think is Unnatural!

Paulclem

08-06-2010, 04:29 PM

dafydd manton

08-06-2010, 04:40 PM

Yes, you are correct. Buddha saw this world as human suffering and went out to seek Nirvana. He found it but the path to Nirvana doesn't seem to be for everyone. Asoka the Great was a great Indian warrior King who shed so much blood that it turned a river red. After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

War is also a necessary evil if it is forced upon you but Buddhism forbids it ( I think Christianity also says the same (at least in theory) ---'turn your other cheek'!- And that I think is Unnatural!

There are about another 30 scriptures that say that war is a no-no. Just out of interest, in a war, who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the right to take another life? Who has the right to say that their concept of God is correct? Can war be justified? (Interestingly, a lot of the world's pacifists are atheists. Hmmm!)

mazHur

08-06-2010, 05:00 PM

Budhism preached 'suffering' was the way to 'emanicpation'

After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

That's two reasons you didn't become a Buddhist, but both are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Death_and_legacy

The link is about Asoka and his legacy. he ruled for 40 years, after inheriting the largest empire on the Indian subcontinent. He wasn't overthrown but converted to Buddhism, kept an army for the defence of the kingdom and was very sucessful in his promotion of Buddhism, but also his tolerance and support for other religions.

Either your sources are competely wrong or you didn't study Buddhism that much.

I'm happy that you're Muslim. It's your choice. I don't think much of propagating false ideas about another religion.

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT propagating any idea against any religion. I just stated what I know to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I may be wrong somewhere but my error would only be inadvertent.

I studied Buddhism in my history class at the Grammar School...I still recall the Golden Age of Chandra Gupta Mauria and Asoka the Great. He was a Hindu before he converted to Buddhism. And because Buddhism preaches tolerance Ashoka's opponents got stronger and finally ousted him.
What I meant to say was that too much 'leniency or tolerance and inaction'
towards 'excesses' and 'mutineers' wasn't good for Asoka which finally paved his downfall.

I also note that later writers have 'tampered' with history and the history books that I read in school days have been rewritten in a style which contains altered facts with more of writer's own opinions and prejudices....

Buddhism seems to me totally 'subjective' and over-philosophical' , same with Bhagwat Gita, which is strong philosophy beyond the understanding of a common man. Bible is simple ..
Quran is explicit in several matters relating to code of life...and seems to be an extension of Bible, Torah and Talmud.
As you know the Bible was revealed to reform the Jews....
The Quran is believed by Muslims to have been revealed to reform all the previous revealed scriptures which every Muslim is commanded to believe in! Consequently, you will not find any Muslim talking ill of any revealed Prophets, including Jesus and Moses or Queen Mary. They cannot even talk ill of any other religion, including Hinduism or Buddhism because it is forbidden to do so by the Quran. If some Muslim is found to talk ill of any prophet or divine personality attributed to some other religion he's transgressing the commands of his faith. this is the reason Muslims are very sensitive about 'gossip' or 'ridicule' of their Prophet Muhammad etc moreso because they regard him as dearer than their fathers!

I think the West still has to learn more about Islam for a better understanding of the 2nd largest religion in the world!!

Paulclem

08-06-2010, 05:22 PM

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT propagating any idea against any religion. I just stated what I know to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I may be wrong somewhere but my error would only be inadvertent.

I studied Buddhism in my history class at the Grammar School...I still recall the Golden Age of Chandra Gupta Mauria and Asoka the Great. He was a Hindu before he converted to Buddhism. And because Buddhism preaches tolerance Ashoka's opponents got stronger and finally ousted him.
What I meant to say was that too much 'leniency or tolerance and inaction'
towards 'excesses' and 'mutineers' wasn't good for Asoka which finally paved his downfall.

No worries.

The version you recall seems at odds with the one I have. There's no mention of him being overthrown.

Ashoka ruled for an estimated forty years. After his death, the Mauryan dynasty lasted just fifty more years

This is a quote from Wikipedia.

A source from a book I own - An Introduction to Buddhism to Buddhism: Teaching, history and practices by Peter Harvey also does not mention it. I've never heard of any detraction from this version before either.

I also note that later writers have 'tampered' with history and the history books that I read in school days have been rewritten in a style which contains altered facts with more of writer's own opinions and prejudices....

I see - I know that Hindus originally portrayed The Buddha as someone sent by Siva to mislead his followers and test them. This later changed to The Buddha being an incarnation of Siva - both attempts to include the Buddha within Hinduism. In fact it was the discovery of King Asoka's Edicts on pillars by British Archaeologists that confirmed Buddhism as a distinct religion from Hinduism.

It's a shame that such tampering takes place. Perhaps the root is fear of a fair choice. Anyway - HH The Dalai Lama says that an individual should practice the religion they are brought up in and are comfortable with.

:)

mazHur

08-06-2010, 05:35 PM

Paulclem

08-06-2010, 07:16 PM

''Some Indian historians think that his policy of peace led to the downfall of the Mauryan empire, which fell apart after his death. He was soon largely forgotten by Indian tradition and only remembered in Buddhist circles as a great patron of the faith. With the deciphering of his inscriptions during the 19th century, he took his rightful place in world history as one of the most benevolent rulers of antiquity.

After eight years of rule, he waged a fierce war against the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa of today) and was so horrified at the carnage he had caused that he gave up violence and turned to Buddhism.''

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/budhist/asoka.htm

That was my understanding of the story.

mazHur

08-06-2010, 07:20 PM

That was my understanding of the story.

good!

you might be interested in knowing about the edicts of Ashoka, here's the link

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

Paulclem

08-06-2010, 08:02 PM

good!

you might be interested in knowing about the edicts of Ashoka, here's the link

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

Thanks - I'll take a look.:)

blazeofglory

08-08-2010, 06:54 AM

I have read different opinions centering on God, religions, religious tolerance, and intolerance. But what astounded me immensely is the religious bigotries people most loved to arm themselves with. Different posters here have their own god or gods. All are OK, good people, tolerant, not bigots at all. But when the issue of religions touches them they become shaken to the very root. I infer from this – humans without religious prejudices in their real states are good people irrespective of where doe she belong religiously, culturally, geographically. It is their conditioned mind, thus the religious mind that creates the problem. That created wars, holocausts. That fragmented humanity. That is divisive. That leads us off course.

Leland Gaunt

08-08-2010, 04:34 PM

That created wars, holocausts. That fragmented humanity. That is divisive. That leads us off course.
I don't think that religion has created too many wars, resource competition and a fair amount of greed/ambition are your real culprits. Religion can be used to justify it to those not in the know. With holocausts, I can definitely see where your coming from. Was humanity ever not fragmented? It is certainly divisive, but not inherently so. Out of curiosity, what is the course?

dafydd manton

08-08-2010, 05:21 PM

The Atheist

08-08-2010, 05:30 PM

Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid.

Beat me to it, although I disagree on WWII - I don't believe religion played a big part in the cause of the war.

I think the best current example is the Shi'ite/Sunni conflict which has only been going on for 800 years or so. Same god, same religion even, same murderous resentment on both sides. The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq is a stunning display of how internecine hatred is greater than hatred of the alleged "enemy/invader".

dafydd manton

08-08-2010, 05:33 PM

Seems to be brewing up in Ireland again, at least in the NAME of their respective religions. The WW2 thing, probably the main reason why it all kept going, although I take your point about the cause. Well Done The Churches, Well Done the Religious Leaders who bleat on about "Peace".

mazHur

08-08-2010, 05:36 PM

Wars have their own 'political' and other reasons; religions get involved when wars touch the followers or the interests of the followers of those religions. During Wars, religions are exploited to give moral and spiritual boost to its followers against their enemies....and to establish a 'good cause' for fighting in some cases.

Look at the policy of Nasir of Turkey who retracted from 'expansionism' and 'settled' the Cyprus problem so that Turkey could manage it own territories without interfering in other people's business. WWI began when murder of a dignitary was committed by Bosnian's; WWII was not against Jews but a War for dominance...Christians had their own reasons for acting against Jews..Roosevelt had its own reasons when he disallowed Jews from entering America...there was NO terrorist act committed by a Muslim in the 19 the century,Why?? and all know that it all began after 9/11 ....Why?? It's an open book!

So, it cannot be said that religion only is the cause of all bloodshed...there are many other underlying reasons for wars.

dafydd manton

08-08-2010, 05:41 PM

Oh, I don't think any of us are sufficiently short-sighted to say that it is the only cause, but merely that it is a major one. Even if it isn't it's perceived by the vast majority to be, which is every bit as relevant.

Manalive

08-08-2010, 05:50 PM

Yes, and full marks for the RCC in not trying to preach the impossible, but it's not the only church around and many of the other ones are biblical literalists, so it can't be said that Catholics are necessarily right. (Except when it's said by Catholics, of course.)

Christ promised two things to the Church: that he would be with it always and that the gates of hell would not prevail upon it. He gave Peter and the other Apostles the "keys to the kingdom" and "what is bound on earth would be bound in heaven" by the the Apostles and their successors. Every other church that does not have valid Apostolic succession are capable of making Biblical errors when they translate scripture. The Catholic Church is the only one that is able to safely translate scripture because it was set up by Christ. The fact that Christ set up one Church and there are others out there with multiple opinions on scripture and theology testifies to the error of "sola scriptura" and the Protestant beliefs.

Let me make it plain then.

If my best friend just happens to rule the universe, which it also created, why would I let one unbeliever bother me?

If you genuinely believe in the omnipotent sky-daddy, how does one man's opinion hurt? If I were deluded enough to believe the Jesus myth, I'd be laughing at atheists, not debating them. What on earth could an atheist say to upset a true believer?

The conundrum is to do with heaven. I suspect that the vast majority of believers actually haven't a clue what heaven is supposed to be - since none of them have ever been there - and have never bothered to think about all the logical contradictions.

A bit of arrogance there my friend? My soul is not bothered by you, only concerned. I like to laugh and debate. Sometimes at the same time. :)

Anyone that tells you what heaven is like is purely speculative. I fully expect to be enrolled in the School of Athens and taking notes from Plato up there.

I see you quote Vatican II, so I'm guessing you must be somewhat aware of the history of the RCC. I listed a few of its points that need work, and taking other nice bits of its history into account - the Borgias and Inquisition, for instance - you must realise that it has changed its ways lots of times over the centuries.

Don't forget the Crusades!

The Church has been around for a long time. When I signed up I never thought it was perfect throughout it's history. Christ founded his Church upon sinners.

You're looking through modern lenses when you look back at history. The right to kill an unborn in an abortion is considered a "choice" these days. That is a modern view. To Medieval peoples killing infidels and heretics was their duty to protect their children. A lot of what you hear about the Inquisition is from Protestant or anti-Catholic propaganda. I largely believe that the trails were fairer than they are made out to be these days.

It has changed. But not it's moral or theological beliefs.

Nice of you to avoid the main part of that point - the informed cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the RCC. Your main point was that the Catholic Church was responsible for repulsive evil throughout its history. I responded to that. But if you wish for a specific response to that: I acknowledge it. It's shameful and it should not have happened.

WWJD? Or more pertinently, what would Jesus have done?

Do you honestly think the son of the god-chappie would have joined the Hitler Youth?

According to every christian theologian on the planet, Jesus would have died before he put on the brown uniform. This is the bloke who took whips to the blokes in the temple, right? I just cannot see Jesus giving a Sieg Heil salute and worshipping Uncle Adolf.

What's good for the god's good for a pope, in my view. The pope is apparently able to talk one on one with the god on rare occasions.

Oh yeah, of course, he's probably very sorry and asked forgiveness.

What mountain did you descend off and what dirt did Benedict rise from?

The Pope was forced into conscription; it's not like he was the first guy around to sign up. This is the stuff I like to laugh at. Your attempting to oversimplify this for the sake of your argument and it doesn't work. Your making accusations to get a response out of me, I hope. Otherwise you fit into that category of loonies that believe every conspiracy out there.

So, you agree with me that churches are evil organisations run by madmen?

:D

"Following that logic and your belief" is what I said. It's not my belief.

mazHur

08-08-2010, 05:52 PM

Beat me to it, although I disagree on WWII - I don't believe religion played a big part in the cause of the war.

I think the best current example is the Shi'ite/Sunni conflict which has only been going on for 800 years or so. Same god, same religion even, same murderous resentment on both sides. The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq is a stunning display of how internecine hatred is greater than hatred of the alleged "enemy/invader".

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the Sunnis and Shias constitute two largest sects of Muslims, with most of the Muslim countries belonging to the former sect while Iran being the principle 'capital' of Shiite Muslims.
Shiites have many relics and holy places in Iraq and ofcourse they also constitute almost half of Iraq's population. Iraq had been an all-time Sunni state and the Shiites backed by Iran now cash this opportunity given by the war to set up a Shiite rule in Iraq , hence all the killing you find there. It's more a game of power and dominance of one over the other obviously at the behest of some 'unseen hands' ...

Likewise Pakistan is also a Sunni state with less than 6 per cent Shiites yet there is strong hatred against them by certain sub-sects of Sunnis..(shiites are also sub divided into many sub sects!!) So, you can see what goes between Sunnis and Shiites is religious differences between the same people same as between Catholics and Protestants. They are not warring, they are killing each other!! Reason: because followers of one sect don't believe the doctrines of the other sect...and vice versa. I don't think the previous 10 year War between Iran and Iraq rested on religious reasons,,,it was for 'political' ambitions!

In Afghanistan ( and Pakistan) Muslims are killing Muslims...regardless of their sects....because the 'terrorists' believe those killed are not co-operating with them or are not with their cause and instead are supporting or co-operating with the invaders and their allies! This is what they think.... we as traitors who aren't supporting them!! This leaves us between the devil and the deep sea! And now the scourge of God.....floods causing huge devastation in Pakistan!!