No such thing as God.

[Solace]

iconoclast,

Why is the thread closed? If you don't want to post in it anymore, that's up to you. But is this how things work around here, that because you start a thread based upon a baseless assertation you get to say the final word?

I'm not equating hope to faith, I'm putting them on an equal level. To be honest, and like it or not, I would say that at least you hope God exists; I guarantee that there are a lot of people who believe God exists, but they sure as heck hope that he does not. You have yet, and obviously if you haven't by now then you absolutely cannot, prove that faith is destroying the world as you maintain. Misguided decisions made by those with blind faith may be contributing to it, but I have faith and I can see past the bs that those who misuse faith are peddling, so why not another? I've tried my darndest to reason with you on your level, to accept that basing life decisions on scientific knowledge is the superior way, but if you're going to be completely obstinate about inisisting that I lose my faith, then you're headed for a dead end, just as your hopes for saving mankind are at a dead end. Cause I'm one of the more reasonable subjects who believe that God exists that you're going to find. Most certainly wouldn't have entertained your ideas this long. If you can't find a way of dealing with people without insisting that they drop everything they believe and follow what you say blindly, then you're no better than the same people that you percieve yourself to be fighting against.

As for the part about God saving his children, I was speaking about the spiritual notion of salvation, not about the prospect of the species going extinct. Sorry for not making that clear.

Zeth,

It IS frightening THAT the being can judge. Get over it or else forget about it is my advice, cause there's nothing about it that says your notion of God is any more or less correct than another. It's your notion, and when I talk about it, it's just my notion. Obviously we have two very different notions of who and what God is.

[Didymos Thomas]

I almost proposed it as a quid pro quo - contributing to the site for a day on the basis that I'm a believer, but i don't know how i could begin to address these issues without coming to despise a God who'd exacted such a high price for a single instance of disobedience, a God who would have us suffer the terrors and trials of reality when with a wave of his omnipotent hand they might be removed, a God who'd let good people suffer and die while the villianous prosper, a God who'd plant fossil fuels in the earth for us to find, and get addicted to in ignorance of thier climactic effects, a God who'd set one man against another like dogs in a pit. And toothache! What's that about???

The point I've made over and over again is that the God you imagine you would come to despise is not the only God we can imagine.

The transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to multi-tribal and social ways of life couldn't have occured that way for any number of reasons. Imagine, you've got HG tribes - one tribes piles in, kills the menfolk and makes off with the women. They've now got to provide for these extra, unwilling people - but more than that, unless they want to suffer the same fate, they've got to up security. Enemies within - enemies without. That's no basis for a society.

No. You have to suppose some kind of consensual agreement - and because it's known that God is a concept central to the lives of socities throughout history, and around the world, it makes sense to suppose that sharing a God concept is how HG tribes came together in the fisrt place. Stonehenge - what's that about?

I'm not sure what sort of history books you read. HG tribes were the basic social unit of man, tied together with the common interest of finding food. Even this early man had notions of God. Then, man began to learn agriculture, and tribes came together to grow food communally. Notions of God changed over time to reflect the changing nature of human society.

To suggest that God was the reason HG tribes 'came together' is nothing but idle speculation. Tribes are united and splintered due to, often bloody, power shifts and struggles. Religion helps to create social cohesion, but does not seem to be the catalyst for society - the catalyst for society is the need to eat.

Otherwise, what's God for? Even if you suppose that God revealed himself to generation D, would generation E,F,G,H....Z still be banging on about it? Or would it be yesterday's news wrapped around tommorow's fish and chips.

God notions have a variety of purposes and uses - depends on which society we are talking about. There is no need to talk of God 'revealing' himself - the notion of God is something man invents.

Use of the term 'Lord, Our God' is not just a way of expalaining yesterday's news to the masses - it's a way of intertwining the power structrues of the state with divinity. It's a leftover from the feudal system and Coverdale's Bible - translated from the Latin for King Henry VIII.

'Lord God' is a metaphor, a way to help people understand some aspect of God by comparing God to earthly Lords. European monarchs used this metaphor (by turning it around) to great effect in trying to justify their own power, which was an easy slight of hand in an age of almost total illiteracy.

This metaphor was not an invention from the Coverdale Bible. We see the same metaphor in China with the Jade Emporer in Heaven and the earthly Emporer of China.

The metaphor doesn't work as well in today's world because monarchy is no longer a common way to organize the political structure.

Science and religion are both worldviews with considerable overlap. They are approaches to understanding the world we live in - and because science proceeds on the basis of demonstrating hypotheses with reference to empirical evidence, rather than demanding faith in some unknowable, unquestiobale, absolute - scientific knowledge is more valid.

Science and religion are both aspects of world view - my worldview is made up of, among other things, my religious and scientific understanding. They are both approaches to understanding the world we live in, but they should approach different aspects of that world.

Also, your argument about science being more valid than religion still suffers from simple logical fallacy. Religion does not necessarily demand 'faith in some unknowable, unquestiobale, absolute'.

It would be crass in the extreme to try and console you in scientific terms for the passing of your friend. I don't seek to do so. But that's not because there's nothing to say. Individuals die, and the species lives on. That's the way it is and the way it must be if each subsequent generation is to evolve to enjoy the faculties that make life so bitter-sweet.

Right, science explains the physical process of life. Religion, on the other hand, gives humans meaning and direction while humans carry out those physical processess of life so well explained by science.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent me. I'm not suggesting that science can prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist - what i'm saying is that human curiosity has certainly tried to prove the existence of God and failed to do so while a mountain of evidence based knowledge about the world amasses largely ignored for the sake of adherence to a concept that persists solely on skeptical grounds.

So what's your point? There have been misguided attempts to prove the existence of God. So what? Foolish people sometimes ignore science because they are affraid the science will compromise their flimsy faith. So what?

None of this is essential to religion. None of this necessarily applies to all religions, nor all religious people.

You go on to say that science has nothing to say about good or evil, beauty and so on. I disagree. If we consider the human being an evolutionary animal we can begin to understand good and evil as social constructs, and the golden mean - or golden section, 1:1.618, as drawing upon the proportions of the human face and body.

No, that's not at all what I said. Here it is again:

Science has not found any evidence of 'good' or 'evil'. Science has not found any evidence of 'beauty'.

Science can explain the process of man developing these notions, but science cannot say what they are - that is the realm of personal introspection. Science might try to explain why we call something beautiful, but science cannot say X is beautiful - there is no way to test.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism certainly do, and i suspect that in practice, if not in principle, Bhuddism does too. But are there no 'coming of age' rituals in Bhuddism?

No, Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not require blind faith. Some sects of these traditions do, but again you are making the same old logical mistake - making the mistake of thinking that what is true of some is true of all.

Coming of age rituals are not demands for blind faith. Again, Buddhism for example, explicity teaches against blind faith.

When you say things like this it makes me laugh and cry, i would dismiss you as idiotic but it makes me furious that in all seriousness you have the temerity to propose and defend belief in the existence of some supernatural entity, without a shred of evidence, and then accuse me of logical fallacy.
As i have already indicated an inductive inferrence is jutified in this case as i have identified the origin of the concept in the evolution of man. Are you suggesting that primtive man got it wrong, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, they all got it wrong, but Bhuddism...now that's true!?

Great job at refusing to address my argument and relying on personal attacks to make your case.

Again, notions of God are not necessarily supernatural.

What sort of evidence would I have for God? All I have done thus far is expose mistakes in your arguments.

Oh, and like it or not, you continually commit the same logical fallacy- a fallacy I have once again explained in this post.

I'm suggesting that your interpretations of history only serve your thesis here, and are off base and misguided.

The idea of unicorns originated with man, mermaids, ghosts, golblins, Gods... I'm sorry, but your capacity for logic seems somewhat undermined by your faith in that which cannot be shown to exist. As i've said, you might reasonably hope that God exists - but to belive something without evidence is illogical.

Hey, good job making assumptions about my personal views without a shred of information about my personal views. You must be so wise to know the personal convictions of people you meet over the internet without them explaining those convictions to you.

[Zetherin]

Hm, there seems to be too much hostility abounding, and I'd hate to see this thread really close.

Please talk civilly about all of this; noone's notions are any better than anyone else's. We all seem to have intelligently thought about these abstract ideas, and are just presenting them. We are all learning here, so let's not try to get personal. The moment we let our emotions take over, and convert this discussion into an argument, is the moment we stop progressing.

Let's keep sharing our ideas, but not in voice to attack another. Rebut with respect.

[Solace]

Posted by DT:
Again, Buddhism for example, explicity teaches against blind faith.

Allow me to also add that Christian documentation also teaches against blind faith. Paul said to believe a doctrine if it is sound. So believe it if it makes sense to you. He didn't say believe it just because someone said it, and much of Christian doctrine is based on Paul's writings.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Allow me to also add that Christian documentation also teaches against blind faith. Paul said to believe a doctrine if it is sound. So believe it if it makes sense to you. He didn't say believe it just because someone said it, and much of Christian doctrine is based on Paul's writings.

Are you sure about this generalization over all Christianity?

I was raised in a Christian church, and they didn't tell me, "Believe what you think is sound". They said, "Believe this because God says this is the truth". And through my experience, just observing, I don't see Christianity say, "Just believe what makes sense to you". They say "This is the way, the truth, and the light...and if you don't do this, you go to hell".

[Solace]

Heh heh, I never said it was a generalization over all Christianity, believe me when I say that I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity, cause I'm not. All I am saying is that it is written in the Bible. (Oh no, Solace used the B word! :-p) Paul, nor people who take his good advice to heart, can be faulted for the fact that, generally speaking, Christians don't take his advice. As I said, it is part of Christian documentation... so maybe more Christians ought to read it.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Heh heh, I never said it was a generalization over all Christianity, believe me when I say that I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity, cause I'm not. All I am saying is that it is written in the Bible. (Oh no, Solace used the B word! :-p) Paul, nor people who take his good advice to heart, can be faulted for the fact that, generally speaking, Christians don't take his advice. As I said, it is part of Christian documentation... so maybe more Christians ought to read it.

Ah, that brings up a great point!

I am actually discussing this with someone in another thread. The person I'm speaking with is saying that it isn't actually religion that causes the wars, but in fact the church behind it - the teachings by man's intervention. So, much like you say here, a church could focus on something regarding a religion, preach that it's the only way, and then influence minds to discriminate. And that's the key here. The religion existing isn't the problem, but in actuality the teachings behind the religion.

[Solace]

Well, I don't really see a difference between a religion and a church, since a religion is really all about the people who believe certain precepts. A church is a group of believers, whatever they happen to believe is what actually is their religion. Thus Christianity, as a broad overview, isn't really a religion in and of itself, rather whatever each particular denomenation believes concerning Christian ideas is their religion. Christianity then becomes a manner of generalizing anyone who claims to believe what's written in the Bible. In that sense, some might say I'm a Christian, but I don't really see myself as one, simply because I don't like being lumped together with people who believe something different about the Bible than what I believe.

As for the general thrust of what you're getting at about the other thread, I think I agree, (though I suppose I'd have to actually read the thread to know for sure). Christian documentation is often misrepresented within churches in order to prompt people to do something that the documentation itself says not to do. I'm no expert on Islam, but I don't doubt that, at least in some cases, the same can be said of Islamic writings. Any religious precept or documentation can be, and often is, misrepresented to believers, sometimes knowingly, often times unwittingly because the person representing it simply doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Well, I don't really see a difference between a religion and a church, since a religion is really all about the people who believe certain precepts. A church is a group of believers, whatever they happen to believe is what actually is their religion. Thus Christianity, as a broad overview, isn't really a religion in and of itself, rather whatever each particular denomenation believes concerning Christian ideas is their religion. Christianity then becomes a manner of generalizing anyone who claims to believe what's written in the Bible. In that sense, some might say I'm a Christian, but I don't really see myself as one, simply because I don't like being lumped together with people who believe something different about the Bible than what I believe.

As for the general thrust of what you're getting at about the other thread, I think I agree, (though I suppose I'd have to actually read the thread to know for sure). Christian documentation is often misrepresented within churches in order to prompt people to do something that the documentation itself says not to do. I'm no expert on Islam, but I don't doubt that, at least in some cases, the same can be said of Islamic writings. Any religious precept or documentation can be, and often is, misrepresented to believers, sometimes knowingly, often times unwittingly because the person representing it simply doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

Well, couldn't we say that about many religions, actually? That is, many denominations, parts of the world, or religious leaders may preach a certain aspect of a religion (possibly denying much, whether unwittingly or knowingly, as you note). So, what I'm learning is, we must be very careful when we just throw the word "Christianity"(or any religion, for that matter) out there, assuming that all notions of the religion are the same, when in fact they are not at all! Furthermore, I can't say that religion is the cage I speak of, because some notions of the religion may not be outwardly be discriminating at all, or even limiting in thought.

Thanks once again!

[Solace]

I should imagine that it is true of most, if not all religions, but as I'm not so familiar with other religions I can't say anything about them definitively. I will say that it seems to be human nature to manipulate others for our own ends. Religion can be a powerful tool for that use.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that religion isn't a cage. Religion, to me, is about more than just what someone believes, it's also about telling people what to and what not to do. In that sense, it is very much a cage. Faith, on the other hand, is not, in and of itself, a cage. However, misguided or blind faith can get people stuck in religion's cage with no perceivable way out.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that faith and religion are seperate. I have faith, but I have no religion.