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.
Printable View
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.
By means of synthetic thought perhaps. You have never seen a unicorn, but you have images of both a horse and a horn.
But the idea of god doesnt have to come from that. Descartes argued that this was what the ancient greek gods were like, essentially humans with a divine quality. He claimed that the christian god was something different (and, indeed, no human could possibly be so malignant as the christian god :D ).
But the thoughts one has are the tip of the iceberg. Below them are oceans of mental calculations which normally are not at all conscious (and they shouldnt be conscious since if one gets mixed into them he is de-humanised).
"Is God a projection of our thoughts?" How disappointing if he were! I want a God who is greater than my imagination can conjure. (After all, I know I don't have all the answers.)
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.
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.
You do not sound "certain" to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
Elanor, I basically just said I was atheist. I'm not sure how else I could be more certain.
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?
IceM you sound more agnostic than atheist, but you know yourself better than I.
Sorry, IceM that my remark was unclear. I did understand that you do not believe in an absolute, creator God. I was commenting on your choice of words. What I was pointing out was the fact that you started your statement with an emphatic "certainly" and ended with the word "theory." Now a theory is something that you think is true but cannot prove. Therefore you can never be "certain" about a "theory." You must accept a theory by faith, a fact you obviously understand since you concluded that you would hate to be wrong but that you would be "taking your chances." Again, you are not "taking chances" if you are "certain." That is why I commented that you did not sound "certain."
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.
The last in your list would still be open to the question posed in the title of this thread. The first two (altruism, random acts of kindness) certainly would not require belief in a God, actual or imagined.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
Because our imagination can design things it hasn't even encountered.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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 curiosity and the "why?" questions lead to the possibility of a creator. I'd dispute that he's seen as benevolent, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
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.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
I just stick to 99.99999recurring% positive.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
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.
This is completely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
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.
Atheists are also open to evidence. Agnosticism is just fence-sitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
The above is what sparked my comment about IceM sounding agnostic rather than atheistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
Define christian; because my definition would probably show that are far fewer 'christians' in jail than you presume.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
Quote:
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
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
Please don't start any "True christian" fallacies here.
Is becoming an axe-murderer "turning your life around"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Oops!
It sounds as if "100% certainty" is also for people who call themselves The Atheist. ;>)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
....
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.
I strongly disagree, and that is my prerogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
Only on Sundays.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
:D
Thanks to Mark for clearing this one up!Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
Given that there is no consensus whatsoever on what a christian should believe, the only possible qualifier is "someone who self-identifies as christian".Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
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.
Well, you'd better tell me what your qualifiers are, because the figures I showed are quite definitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
You mean like the "theory" of evolution? Many fundies make a lot of fuss about that, claiming it is "only a theory".Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
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
Where have I made absolute statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElanorGamgee
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
Where did you get this quote? I do not recall writing it and cannot find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
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:Quote:
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.
Full article hereQuote:
"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."
Perhaps those of faith would remember this admonition of Paul's which is still relevant in these passages:From "The Pattern of Our Parentage" by Elder Boyd K. PackerQuote:
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.
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:And lastly from 2Timothy 2:16 an exhortation that applies today:Quote:
"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 1Timothy 6:Quote:
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
Quote:
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
Well, I answered it the only way possible, so that subject's closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
My apologies, it's a bad quote by me - now fixed above.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
The bible/other religious books aren't really relevant to answer the question since they have an a priori position that a god exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by tailor STATELY
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?
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn Elessar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn Elessar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn Elessar
The evidence would suggest that less religion = better societies.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn Elessar
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
If someone actually did take that path, I agree, they would be as deluded as the worst fundy, but do they really exist?
Neat paraphrase, but without evidence that any reasobale number of people think that way, it's meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
Sorry, that one's just gibberish. Yes, Hitler made the trains run on time, but one sheep doesn't make a flock.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
I agree, but the problem seems to be that it never stops just at belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn Elessar
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.
Back to topic -
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're confusing technology with science, science as a methodology is useful for producing technology but is not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
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.