God is not a delusion. It is an illusion. Like the illusion that the moon is larger when it is near the horizon, religious thinking is an artifact of the structure of the human mind. It is not surprising that people – whose brains are built to search for patterns, meaning, causation, and human traits and motives in the explosion of sensory input we swim in – tend toward religious/magical thinking.
<continues to wait for a definition of this thing, the non-existence of which is posited as mere “opinion”>
Why not? I would quiz any so called deity to within an inch of its life. As a sometimes mystic I know enough to realize that reality takes many guises, and not everything that looks like a god, is one.
Even a display of unearthly power wouldn’t convince me something was The God, even if it was A God.
I’m quirky like that
Please tell me I’m being wooshed?
Or are you honestly suggesting that, even though God is Love, somehow He doesn’t love His children who, through God Given powers of reason, doubt Him?
That if an atheist can get into heaven, why, murderers, rapists, and terrorists are about on the same level…
Most, if not all, faiths claim to be non-violent. I’m told that Christianity is the religion of the “gentle Jesus” and I’ve been told until I’m sick of it that Islam is the “religion of peace.” Nonetheless, both of those religions have and do kill people in the name of their respective Gods.
There is nothing too horrible to do once a person convinces himself that God approves of it. If someone convinces a man that God himself approves of a certain action, superceeding all secular authority, there is nothing too vile for that man and no crime he won’t commit.
I see religious believers as a continuous spectrum. There are those like our own Faithfool and Polycarp that I would trust in almost any matter and believe to be the very best of people. They, and others like them, have clearly taken the good bits of their religion and ignored the more vicious aspects. I know some Moslems of the same type, credits to their religion.
Unfortunately, Faithfool and Poly are the exceptions rather than the rule. These two (sorry for using you two as examples!) have read their scriptures and decided for one reason or another, to ignore certain parts of it or at least sort it into a heirarchy and put the grisly, bloodthirsty bits on the bottom of the pile. Religion unfortunately attracts believers who take great comfort in not having to decide. After all, their guide to life is right there in black and white.
Unfortunately, most of the holy books were written a thousand or more years ago when different standards of behaviour prevailed and they reflect this in their attitudes and commandments. No matter what a person wants to do, they can justify it with one passage or another from their holy book of choice.
From all of my experience, which isn’t a whole heck of a lot, there is no such definition. In fact, this has become my primary obstacle to the idea that God could exist. It’s not my only obstacle, but it’s my primary one.
Ooops! :smack: Well, so much for that idea.
On a different topic, do you think there is material in this thread suitable for GD? It might have a little less of the;
“Fuck you!”
“Oh yeah? Well fuck you twice as hard!” kind of thing.
My first thread on GD was “Are fundys a threat?” I meant, a threat to cicil liberties. Of course, being my first thread and all, I got stomped. :o I was thinking of reviving that thread and trying to focus it. Given Al-Qaida and the Talliban, I would say a good case could be made for fundamentalists being a serious threat. It would go something like this:
All religions have fundamentalists.
Fundys will inevitably try to gain secular power.
If successful at gaining secular power, fundys will institute a government system as close to a theocracy as possible.
Another idea would be addressing the “delusion” or otherwise, of religious belief. On the surface, religious belief is no different from a belief in elves or leprechauns. What makes religion different?
Testy I don’t venture into GD all that often, truth be told, because I don’t feel that I’m as smart as most of the regulars in that folder. But if you’d like to start another thread I’m game for joining.
My two cents would be that a thread on why a belief in God makes sense but a belief in Pixies or the Invisible Pink Unicorn are to be dismissed, would be quite entertaining.
But a debate on the danger of fundies would be cool too.
Well, suppose we have the Disaster of Your Choice, and both you and a very good friend of yours who lives 2,000 miles away survive. But owing to the DoyC, travel and communications are very limited, and it may take months or years for the two of you to correspond.
So one day, years later, what purports to be a letter from your friend arrives. But when you open it, because it’s pretty thick, you find a lot of stuff in it. Some of it’s clearly from your friend; you recognize the tone, with a pang of missing him/her. Some of it is garbage that someone else clearly wrote up and stuffed in the envelope, in hopes you’d think it was from your friend. And there’s a long passage where your friend gives you a bunch of advice and warnings about what to expect living where you do. That last part gets grabbed by your neighbor – the one who’s always anal about the rules in any game you play; nobody will play Monopoly or Clue with him any more – and he’s going, “Aha – see! Nobody ought to go up the mountain trail any more! It says so right here, in black and white! It’s FORBIDDEN!”
Bottom line: I have the words of Jesus as recorded by four people. I have what God supposedly commanded through Moses. I have stuff God said through the prophets, which ranges from ‘sounds-like-Jesus-to-me’ to ‘sounds-like-my-anal-neighbor-to-me’ to ‘sounds-like-somebody-gave-him-blotter-acid.’ I have letters from Paul that set forth his theology in excruciating detail. I have a Platonic dialogue in Hebrew verse in the frame of a myth about the steadfast man who patiently kept faith in adversity. I’ve got collections of famous sayings – kind of a Rich Shlomo’s Almanack. And occasionally these things look like they’re contradicting each other, and I guarantee that they are going to be misinterpreted.
I like the Bible. It’s interesting to study, there’s a lot of spirit-lifting stuff in it. But I’d rather throw the whole thing out than have it used as a weapon to beat others with. And it’s pretty clear what parts of it are the most important, not in my opinion, but in the opinion of the Guy Who allegedly inspired it, and who said explicitly that they were the things people should focus on.
And, for the 338th time since I joined SDMB, the Bible is not God. It’s not even God’s Word in the most literal of senses; it was written by men inspired by Him, and how well they played this little game of God’s Gossip* is questionable.
(* You know about Gossip, also called Telephone, don’t you? Sit ten or 20 people down in a circle, and start an arbitrary message by whispering it to one person, who is to whisper it to the person on his/her right, who is to do the same, etc. By the time it gets back to the start, it’s probably distorted beyond recognition. If Jonah and Nahum were dictated by the same God, He’d have had to have gone schizo. Pretty clear one of them got the message wrong.)
There’s a reason why it’s a prevalent idea: it’s an inescapable conclusion of several logical principles. The curiosity isn’t that I’m using logic to argue against the supremacy of logic; the curiosity is that you’re using faith to argue for the supremacy of logic.
Really, I think you need to explore this idea more, instead of going out and looking for other Logicists (for lack of a better ford for those who worship logic) to support you. A belief that logic can prove its own supremacy is a violation of logic and mathematics as they’re currently constructed.
I am curious on this point.
Were I a deity, and I inspired some mortal, I’d make damn sure the motherfucker got it right. I mean, what’s Divine Inspiration worth if it doesn’t work like a charm?
What I guess I’m getting at is, how on earth could a God make such a massive screwup as to tell someone to write something, and then end up with a translation error. Surely a God would find a way around that.
Hell, I’ll take it a step further. Were I a deity, I would make the bible magic, it would shift into whatever language someone reading it spoke, totally eliminating translation errors. Or, fuck that, I’d just beam my message directly into people’s heads. And onto the sky. And flocks of birds would spell things out. And clouds would talk. Or something.
I guess what I’m getting at is, if there was a God, why on earth did he chose print as his medium? Surely an all powerful god could come up with someone neater and less likely to be mistranslated than a mere block of text ?
Or, for that matter, surely a God could have created people in such a way as that we could receive his message with perfect clarity. Right? I mean, if he made us, and didn’t give us that ability, he’s one sadistic sick fuck, yes?
“Whoa ho! I’m a Prankster God. I am killing me.” -Bill Hicks.
And this is isolated to religion? The same things are done in the names of nations, races and wealth. Should we get rid of nations and ethnicities? Equalize wealth distribution? People frequently group together against the ‘outsiders’ or those who aren’t the norm. Just because people take advantage of religion, nationality or whatever doesn’t mean we should get rid of those things, rather correct the abuse that is occuring.
Ah, gotcha ya. Sorry to have jumped on you like I did.
My belief is that the Bible is the starting point, not the destination. There’s all kinds of good stuff in there, for example Jesus’ parables and most of the Proverbs. I’m sure most people would agree with the moral lessons Jesus taught, even if they don’t believe that He is the Son of God.
Then there’s the other stuff that’s more…um, controversial (for lack of a better term), such as the Creation story. I don’t believe that God created the world in 144 hours 6,000 years ago on a Tuesday in October then rested for 24 hours. There’s all kinds of scientific evidence against that viewpoint. The story is still important, because it tells you why God created the world. It doesn’t tell you how. It doesn’t need to. That’s not the point of the story.
My belief is that the Bible tells you what you need to know. My deal is that I want to know so much more. Even the Bible tells us to search out other sources (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I think that anyone who uses the Bible as their only source of information (especially about science, which isn’t covered) is, if I may borrow a term thrown about in this thread, delusional.
I believe the rhetorical questions may have missed their mark. Nowhere have I said or implied that religion was the only reason people kill each other. Nor do I believe that one can remove all the reasons people kill. By the same token, I also do not see the necessity of having any unnecessary reasons for killing.
As far as trying to “correct the abuse that is occuring,” I don’t think it can be done with religion.
Most religions define their members as “followers,” and I believe that is a very good description. With some notable exceptions such as Polycarp and Faithfool, the bulk of a religion’s followers do exactly that, follow. After all, the commands of God himself are right there in black and white. The answers to all of life’s dilemmas have been given to the faithful.
Given this situation, my own perception is that religion attracts those who do not like to make decisions, especially moral ones. To use an example that Poly used earlier, take His4ever. She was willing to admit that all gays were not total monsters but nonetheless considered their lifestyle to be directly and unequivocaly condemned by God. Her moral decisions were already made; no thought, no doubts, and no mercy. Such people are common and I consider them a danger to society.
There, is that clearer?
Now that is interesting and I’ve truthfully never heard that one preached. FWIW, my background is as the son of an extremely brimstone-loving Southern Babtist preacher. The kind that bangs on the pulpit and works himself into a borderline frenzy.
How does this square with the line (I believe it is in Revelations) that says that anyone adding or subtracting a single word of the Bible is going straight to hell? IIRC, it was pretty definate about the matter.
On the one hand you have the commandment to “Test everything” while on the other hand you are forbidden to modify anything that might be wrong or inappropriate.
It’s just this idea that I “worship” logic rather than absolutely depend on it (as does every other thinking being on this planet), strikes me as, well, self-evidently incorrect and discounted by all the available evidence. If some of the first principles of logic are not self-evident, and require no further justification, I may as well claim I don’t exist, or that 3 is 5, or that the law of exclusion is unfounded, an surrender to chaos. I don’t think the human mind can surrender to that kind of chaos, lest it become a senseless bundle of nerves. It strikes me that people who attack logic on the basis of something self-evident themselves are using logic, which gets painfully circular. I’ll read up on it more, if you care to provide some references, but I rather doubt I will find it helpful. At the very least, I do not think you can claim there is consensus on this idea, that the first principles upon which logic is founded are themselves neither true nor false, whatever Kant or Hume may have said on the subject.
