So why do you think humans invented Gods? I’ll agree that my reference has mainly been to the Catholic concept of God that I grew up with, and that are thousands of other Gods one could refer to. However, I have to start somewhere, so I start with my own experience. I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with that approach, apart from the fact that it’s limited. But I knew that when I first posted.
You say you regard life as purely scientific and rational. But does life ever throw you a curve ball? Have you ever become emotional about the bookends of life, as in birth or death? I certainly have, and I know many people find comfort in religion when dealing with life’s mysteries. I think that’s why we invented gods, to be honest—as a way to deal with life’s mysteries, especially affairs of the heart. Sometimes the scientific approach just doesn’t cut it. I certainly hope there’s more Life to live after this Life is over, though I know for atheists, it’s kind of irrelevant.
Sorry. I was jus going back to the beginning and answering everything so as not to miss anything. Point still stands though. God is but a dream.,
What is wrong with that approach is that you are choosing a trait of a specific recent god and attempting to project that trait back into gods invented unknown tens of thousands of years ago. It is like saying “My shirt is red. I bet people invented clothing because they like red things.”
Wow. More not understanding words. We have been talking about life as in “biological entities”, not as in “the set of daily experiences that a human encounters.” That the two are described by the same word is true in English but not necessarily other languages. So are you trying to say that God is “living organisms” or that God is “daily experiences?”
I think I’d say both interpretations work, but I think daily experiences comes closest to what I imagine when I think about the word Life. Or the word God. Or the word Love, but let’s not make it any more confusing than it already is.
Do you accept that many people deal with emotions, loss, pain, and joy with a need to invoke spiritualism? The two aren’t in conflict. Science isn’t the right tool for every problem but I haven’t found a situation where God is the right tool.
Bottom line, yeah, it kinda does always cut it.
A fair criticism. However, it’s difficult for me to go back to ancient gods with which I am unfamiliar. That’s going to take someone wiser than I am.
I agree that each discipline has its best uses. Science may not provide much comfort, but it does explain things really well. I regard religion more like literature—stories with a theme that I can learn something from. For that matter, many times literature does a much better job than religion does in providing comfort. In my experience anyway.
Refutation. Arguing against it so effectively that it collapses and vanishes.
Somehow I don’t think religions are going to vanish anytime soon any more than other kinds of literature that have been around for thousands of years. Religions actually reveal a great deal about a society. I don’t suggest taking them literally however.
The odd thing about NDW though is that he and isn’t religious at the same time. Maybe that’s why I find his ideas intriguing.
With all due respect, you have no intention of reading anything that contradicts your views, do you?
So God is Prose?
Ah contraire, mon ami. I’m not going to read anything TODAY, but it’s on my to do list. I have a feeling you won’t be reading Neale Donald Walsch though. Perhaps you could link to an excerpt from one of the books you recommend. I’m certainly not going to buy a book that’s been recommended by someone who doesn’t like what I’ve shared unless I find it very intriguing, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t. A link is a good start.
I think I said religion, not God. I would hope God is more like poetry, to be honest.
Hypnosis is my wheelhouse and you have no idea what you’re talking about here. The human brain processes different stimuli in a variety of ways, and while we don’t have a perfectly clear picture of how things work (I find the “bayesian brain” hypothesis to be very compelling, but I lack the expertise to really judge), there’s really no need to invoke anything supernatural. It’s interesting. But once you insert a supernatural element, all you’ve done is make the same mistake people have made since time immemorial when they heard thunder in the sky and thought “god is angry” - inserting a supernatural stopgap which doesn’t explain anything, teaches us nothing, and leaves us less well-equipped to find the real answer. And I resent that.
Except these just-so stories do more than simply comfort. When you learn from religion, you’re often learning things that aren’t true. That are nonsensical. That actively impede our understanding of reality. That teach grossly immoral lessons. Even the very basic, innocuous religious belief of meeting your loved ones in the afterlife teaches us that we don’t need to care as much about the one real life we know we have.
I’m firmly of the belief that there’s no such thing as a harmless lie when you’re lying to yourself, because it’s epistemological poison. It teaches you how to think wrong. And leads to muddled, confused beliefs.
Okay, this might be a stupid question.
If you want to change these definitions, why not just make new labels?
Here’s a radical suggestion: if you want to create new definitions for words, and are frustrated when people get confused by conflating your new definitions with the old definitions, just make up new words instead. What you insist on calling “god” can be called “bregg” and what you insist on calling “life” can be “clube”. These are completely new, unique labels in the english language. They have no baggage attached. Nobody is going to get confused, because the only meaning these words have is the meaning you explicitly attach to them through your definition.
Try it! Go back through this thread, and whenever you’re talking about “bregg” or “clube”, mentally replace the word, and see if what you’re saying makes any sense whatsoever.
If it does, congratulations! You’re talking about discrete concepts that make some coherent sense and have some relation to reality. Keep using those terms to reduce confusion, and to keep language nerds like me from shouting obscenities at you.
If it doesn’t, congratulations! This entire discussion has been a huge waste of time but we can at least save ourselves the next ten interminable tedious pages of this thread. Keep using those terms anyways, to help make that more clear to others.
See, this is exactly the kind of confusion I’m talking about! By your definition of “Gods”, humans have been inventing “Gods” for maybe a couple centuries. By the classical definition, it’s completely irrelevant question, because throughout history, almost all “gods” have been, in one form or another, larger-than-life anthropomorphizations of nature created to attach meaning and significance to a world that lacks both. Think back to ancient times - the gods of the mesopotamians, the egyptians, or any other ancient civilization - and you’ll find that their gods, traditionally, embodied aspects of nature. The sun god, who carries the burning chariot across the skies. The thunder god, who doles out his vengeance. The god of death. And so on and so forth. From there it’s not exactly a huge conceptual leap to get to one god who can just do everything.
Now, if you instead say, “So why do you think humans invented breggs?” the answer becomes obvious - it’s a fairly new invention; new-age woo from people who grew up believing in traditional gods, understand that the classical interpretation of “god” doesn’t make any sense, but still have emotional attachment to the idea, and so want to salvage it somehow.
These “gods” have approximately fuck-all to do with what you’re talking about. This is why I’m so bothered by the shifts in definition - because the entire point seems to be this confusion!
Rationality is not simply “examining problems rationally”. It’s “examining problems rationally from within the framework of the human brain”. It’s dealing with the fact that we, as humans, aren’t beings of cold logic, and trying to reach rational conclusions despite the numerous significant biases we have. We get emotional, sure. It rarely actually helps us to take those emotions and run with them - if my father is dying, and some shady witch doctor offers me a miracle cure for a thousand bucks, my emotional side is going to want to cut them a check right away, regardless of how stupid that actually is. (It would behoove me to not do that.)
You have responded with a great deal to contemplate, not the least of which is whether Bregg is just another word for Clube. I will respond in greater detail once I’ve had a chance to absorb it.
I’d like to second (third? Fifth? Tenth?) the notion that you really, really, really need to decide what you mean by the words “Life” and “God”. As you clearly realize, the meanings of those words are quite literally central to your position and this discussion.
If calling them Bregg and Clube helps you separate your definitions from the standard baggage that comes from the words being prepackaged with other definitions, then that would be a good tactic to employ. Because you are seriously stumbling over baggage here. You seem unsure whether bregg is a sentient entity or not - which would seem to be pretty fundamental!
If I’m honest, I’ve read all I need to read from Mr. Walsch. I simply do not subscribe to New Age ideas because I’ve find them to be without merit.
But it that does not turn you off from my suggested reading, then I suggest you start with Robert Wright’s blog. I think you’ll find his interest in human development and insights on religion and faith to be well thought out. He refers to himself as a Secular Humanistand doesn’t entirely exclude the possibility of a grander purpose, though he does not believe in creationism or intelligent design. I think his reasoning is far more cogent and coherent than what you’ve presented from NDW and your own beliefs. To whatever extent your ideas overlap with his, you may find his views interesting and enlightening. Or not. Entirely up to you.
I really life discussing things that interest me. I’ve done it all my life. The topics of life and life are some of my favourites. However, one-sidedly listening to someone explain how he has lifed life his whole life, and that he believes life and life and life all mean the same thing - I mean, life, life gets tiring sometimes… Oh well. Don’t forget that life lifes you - in fact, life IS life. Also keep in mind that you can’t legitimately life others unless you life yourself first.
And whatever you do, don’t turn to a god of crime. Your godded ones would be lonely and blue for the rest of their gods if you received a god sentence and spent the rest of your god in prison. What kind of a god would that be?
Well, I hope in the future I hear you are off on some tropical island loving the good love. Maybe even that you’ve fallen in life. Or you may just go swimming for the rest of your love, watch reruns of This Is Your God and The God Boat, and read Love magazine.
