No such thing as God.

[Didymos Thomas]

HI DT, I'm glad you're here - else we would have no-one defending people's right to be as backward as they like! Cars i believe in - but not Christine. Trees though - we couldn't possibly have invented trees. We could, possibly have invented God. Indeed, if we entertain the idea, just for a moment, it seems to explain a lot. Open your mind just a fraction and give it a go.

Open my mind? Geez, buddy, do you just assume I'm closed minded because I defend certain notions of God? I've been on your side of the fence.

We didn't invent trees, we invented the concept of a tree. Humans invented all concepts. Of course we invented the concept of God. But our invention of the concept does not render the concept meaningless.

[Zetherin]

That's a great point DT - though we may have contrived an idea for something, it really has nothing to do with it's existence (it could exist, regardless of our ideas). Here's the thing, though:

The idea of God, as most currently believe (I'm basing this on documented religious texts, and of course, my experience with religion) is an omniscient, magical being, with an ability to do anything any time or place. Instead of actually continuing the thought process of what that exactly even MEANS, the average human stops. All thinking stops, and a wave of ignorant acceptance sweeps over. Nothing is questioned or considered, or ever further modified or expounded. For instance, here's a quick analysis through all of ten minutes of me considering God(I also posted this in another thread in response)----

"If every possible reality is simultaneously occurring in our universe, and every possible reality is simultaneously occurring in every other universe, then every thing is simultaneously occurring in a universe. Now, if something is omniscient and knows EVERYTHING, that would encompass all of this, completely defying our perception of time.

"It" would know it's knowing that it knows, not only in the present, but the past and future. "It" would even know that it knows it knows it knows, not only in the present, but in the past and future. Also, this would occur in all universes.

Not to mention, there are an infinite amount of "things" that come into existence at any given point in time, so every passing moment, it would know even more. But at the same time it wouldn't know any more because there is no perception of time. It wouldn't even be able to relate to "more", "less", "past", "present", "future". It would be every time, every place, every thing.

More importantly, it wouldn't be "good" or "evil". We must remember those are also concepts that we apply, not that actually exist. Therefore, there would be no judgment on it's part."

Not many can even wrap their minds around these ideas, as time and space aren't variables for us, but merely progressions. And you can't even blame people, as that's the way we live - if we questioned EVERY single thing, we'd go nowhere. However, when we willingly step into a cage (religion), and choose to not even consider, I feel that's a major problem. And it is occurring. Constantly. And I feel this ignorance must not proceed if we wish to advance, or even survive, as a species.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Open my mind? Geez, buddy, do you just assume I'm closed minded because I defend certain notions of God? I've been on your side of the fence.

We didn't invent trees, we invented the concept of a tree. Humans invented all concepts. Of course we invented the concept of God. But our invention of the concept does not render the concept meaningless.

I don't think that was to be taken personally.

[iconoclast]

DT,

I haven't suggested for a moment that the concept of God is meaningless - quite the opposite. I've suggested that it occured to man as an explanation of his existence. That's deeply meaningful in itself, but further proposed that the idea of God was employed as a common understanding and objective authority for law that enabled hunter-gatherer tribes to come togther without one tribe submitting directly to the rule of another. Rather, social rules were expressed as if they were the rules of God. Without that we'd still be hunting and gathering. It's a hugely menaingful concept right there at the dawn of human intellect, allowing and shaping our development right up to the present era.

Science is more meaningful though, because it's more valid. Let's face it - from this primitive beginning human curiosity found science, but it didn't find so much as a fingerprint to indicate the exitence of God. It's a skeptical concept holding fast in face of a mountian of evidence based knowledge - because the requirement of faith, abusively drummed into children before the age at which they can make reasoned judgments, renders curiosity sinful.

I think you are closed minded - and i challenge you to assume that God is a creation of man, and think about what that means for one day out of your life. Think about what it explains and what it means to who we are and what our just purposes are, what our obligations are to eachother, and the future of our species. I wonder if you can?

[Didymos Thomas]

That's a great point DT - though we may have contrived an idea for something, it really has nothing to do with it's existence (it could exist, regardless of our ideas). Here's the thing, though:

The idea of God, as most currently believe (I'm basing this on documented religious texts, and of course, my experience with religion) is an omniscient, magical being, with an ability to do anything any time or place. Instead of actually continuing the thought process of what that exactly even MEANS, the average human stops. All thinking stops, and a wave of ignorant acceptance sweeps over. Nothing is questioned or considered, or ever further modified or expounded. For instance, here's a quick analysis through all of ten minutes of me considering God(I also posted this in another thread in response)----

And here's the thing - while we can bring up many criticisms of God, none of those criticisms (that I have seen) apply to all notions of God.

Not all notions of God rely on God as being, literally, omniscient, magical being, with an ability to do anything any time or place. So whatever problems this notion of God (omniscient, magical being, with an ability to do anything any time or place) might encounter, we cannot make the mistake of thinking all notions of God have the same flaws.

Not many can even wrap their minds around these ideas, as time and space aren't variables for us, but merely progressions. And you can't even blame people, as that's the way we live - if we questioned EVERY single thing, we'd go nowhere. However, when we willingly step into a cage (religion), and choose to not even consider, I feel that's a major problem. And it is occurring. Constantly. And I feel this ignorance must not proceed if we wish to advance, or even survive, as a species.

And I sympathize, and share, your concerns about ignorance. And often religion is the cage you describe. However, once again, these criticisms are not universally applicable to notions of God.

This is why we have to have a degree of sensitivity when considering religious ideas like God.

I haven't suggested for a moment that the concept of God is meaningless - quite the opposite. I've suggested that it occured to man as an explanation of his existence.

God did occur to man as an explanation of man's existence. However, God's role was not, and is not, limited to an explanation of existence, and in some cases, God has nothing to do with explanations of existences in the way science attempts to explain existence. For example, notions of God do not necessarily contradict the theory of evolution, though some notions of God do contradict this theory.

further proposed that the idea of God was employed as a common understanding and objective authority for law that enabled hunter-gatherer tribes to come togther without one tribe submitting directly to the rule of another.

I have to disagree here. I think you have it backwards. God was not an objective authority for the law, instead, certain language was used to explain the abstract notion of God. Take the use of 'Lord' as a title for God. The title is a metaphor, God is like the King, the Lord. These metaphors are useful to common people when trying to understand the abstract notion of God.

God was not used as a way for various tribes to come together, tribes come together when one dominates another. Even with common religious ideas, tribes fight one another until one tribe dominates the others - consider the Mongols prior to unification under Ghengis Khan. They all had, essentially, the same religious beliefs. Consider China during it's various states of disunity. Essentially the same religious beliefs, and still they do not come together - they fight until one tribe dominates all the others.

Science is more meaningful though, because it's more valid.

And I have to ask - valid for what?

I see science and religion has having entirely different concerns, and when religion takes on scientific concerns, that religious attempt is misguided and dangerous.

Science does not give us means to cope with the passing of a friend; science explain the process of the friend's life and death, but offers nothing in the way of dealing with emotions. Science can explain the functioning of emotions (the various neural impulses in the brain, ect).

Let's face it - from this primitive beginning human curiosity found science, but it didn't find so much as a fingerprint to indicate the exitence of God. It's a skeptical concept holding fast in face of a mountian of evidence based knowledge - because the requirement of faith, abusively drummed into children before the age at which they can make reasoned judgments, renders curiosity sinful.

And why should we expect science to find evidence of God? Again, science and religion have different subjects. Science has not found any evidence of 'good' or 'evil'. Science has not found any evidence of 'beauty'. These are human concepts, concepts which do not apply to material objects. Of course scienc has found no evidence of them, they are outside the realm of scientific investigation.

There is no 'mountain of evidence based knowledge' that discredits the notion of God - again, science has no way of amassing evidence either for or against God.

Further, not all faith traditions required blind faith 'drummed into children before the age at which they can make reasoned judgments'. Buddhism, for example, suggests we abandon blind faith in anything and everything - including blind faith in the teachings of the Buddha.

I sympathize with the criticisms, as they are valid. But you apply them in an invalid manner. You find a valid criticism for one notion of God and make the mistake of applying that criticism to all notions of God. Straightforward logical fallacy.

I think you are closed minded - and i challenge you to assume that God is a creation of man, and think about what that means for one day out of your life. Think about what it explains and what it means to who we are and what our just purposes are, what our obligations are to eachother, and the future of our species. I wonder if you can?

Do you realize how easy it is for me to make the exact same call against you?

As for your 'challenge' you are years too late, my friend. I have been on your side of the fence. Your arguments are not new nor innovative. There was a time when I would have been here supporting your arguments, instead of tearing them down. But you wouldn't know that, as you do not know me - which is exactly why your assumptions about my personal character are out of line and inappropriate.

I have to begin to wonder if you can, if only for a moment, set aside those deeply held biases against religion at large, and consider the logic of my arguments thus far. I believe you can, though I doubt you will. I hope I'm wrong about you.

[Solace]

So what we've learned here is that we don't know if God exists. Which is something we all knew anyway. I like how you put that, icono; I hope God exists, but I don't know it. It's when people say that they know God exists that we find a roadblock to any sort of social or scientific advancement. I think, if you think about it, telling people that there is a more reasonable and sensible way to think about their faith and God, rather than telling them they must accept that there is no God, is going to get you a whole lot further on your campaign to save the species. I'm behind you 100%, as long as you don't turn anti-religion into a religion.

[Zetherin]

"I have to begin to wonder if you can, if only for a moment, set aside those deeply held biases against religion at large, and consider the logic of my arguments thus far. I believe you can, though I doubt you will. I hope I'm wrong about you."

If he doesn't, then he's in the same position as one in a religious cage.

Thomas, thank you for the insight - you're absolutely right. I must also consider all notions of God, and not make the oversimplication that everyone shares the same notion, and thus the same ignorances.

Nietzsche used to perceive going to a church in much the same way as going to a pub. In a pub you drink your sorrows away, denying problems, and ultimately staying blissful - but ignorant. Likewise, going to a church meant that you would also deny your problems, watering them down by believing a magical entity should provide comfort. Both provide the same duties, yet neither address a problem for what it was. Instead of denying the problem, Nietzsche believed you should acknowledge it for what it was. That is to say, don't deny your desires, problems, or perceptions, but acknowledge them, learn from them, better yourself from them. Ignoring them, denying the problem never led to true fulfillment in his eyes.

Although I'm not here to argue whether or not having a drink is "wrong", the point is, I believe too much of this blissful ignorance exists, and Nietzsche held some very good points. It's frightening even speaking to the majority of people nowadays, immersed in their everyday lives - it seems as if they all have leashes around their necks! Many don't give as much as a second thought to their actions or reasons for believing something. Infectious memes, as Richard Hawkins named them.

You're right, I must continue enlightening myself, but someday, someday I wish to enlighten others.

[Solace]

A rather wise fellow once told me (although he often called himself foolish,) that, "The man who said ignorance is bliss, was an ignorant man."

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

A rather wise fellow once told me (although he often called himself foolish,) that, "The man who said ignorance is bliss, was an ignorant man."

Ah, because denying ANYTHING is potentially ignorant, no wait, it IS ignorant. The mere fact that we think something is ignorant, is in fact being ignorant.

Which actually leads me to a previous thought of mine:

What if that cage I describe is actually just a small subset of a larger cage, that really holds all of us. In other words, every insight we actually think we may have suffers from the same problems as another other ideal or belief - a lack of consideration. The moment we think something is something, we are succumbing to ignorance.

Which leads me to my next thought: Do we really even have the capability to progress?

[ThouAreThat]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

There's no such thing as God.

ThouArThat is asking: Remember the “I am” abound?


“I am the One Whole, the ALL.

“Glorify thou Me, the One Whom I am, for I am ALL, and no other is.

“I, the sexless One, am Unity.

“What I am thou art, for thou art Me; thou art the Whole.

“Glorify thou thy Self, for in so doing thou art glorifying Me.

“I, the One Whole, am knowing Mind. I exist to think. All thinking is Light of My knowing but My thinking is not Me.

“I am Creator, creating with My thinking.

“Out of My Light of knowing are My two lights of thinking born as sexed pairs of opposites for repetition as sexed pairs of opposites.

“To think is to create. I create with Light. Nothing is which is not Light.

“I think idea. Light registereth My idea in the two sexed lights of My thinking, and form is born in the image of My thinking.

“Form hath no existence, nor have My imaginings. These exist not, for they are not Me. I alone existeth; I, the ALL.

“I create my imaged body with the inbreathing of My pulsing universe of Me.

“My universe is My image; but My image is not Me.

“All things are My image, but they are not me, e’en though I am in them and they in Me.”

---From The Divine Iliad