a priori, there are no Gods - what then?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
I'd rather not, he's a scary man... I'd rather look at... Paris Hilton, perhaps? Donald Trump?
Ham,
"jp-Show me how many politicians are not liars and charlatans of one ilk or another..."
That would be hard to do, but I don't follow them as a god either.
"as to your worldly goods, if you are selfless, you have no selfish thought, only generosity... without a deity, your self-worth and belief in your worthiness of your posessions characterize you as your own god..."
How so ?
"There is no implied insult here, let me stress that... Being your own god is probably as functional as anything else..."
I find it funny that we tend to say "Oh god" alot when we are having sex. Don't know what that has to do with anything, just thought I would bring that up.
"jp-Show me how many politicians are not liars and charlatans of one ilk or another..."
That would be hard to do, but I don't follow them as a god either.
"as to your worldly goods, if you are selfless, you have no selfish thought, only generosity... without a deity, your self-worth and belief in your worthiness of your posessions characterize you as your own god..."
How so ?
"There is no implied insult here, let me stress that... Being your own god is probably as functional as anything else..."
I find it funny that we tend to say "Oh god" alot when we are having sex. Don't know what that has to do with anything, just thought I would bring that up.
Orange is the color of evil... what a wise girl...
Had a feeling you would do that. LOL
Power to make decisions over how my tax dollars are spent, yes.
Power to tell me how I should view the world and how I view other people based on texts written by other humans, no.
Nor should I base my world view or philosophy on any other author(s) I read, I take in the information, I consider whether I feel it is valid or not and go from there.
If you mean that I don't allow others to rule me, sure. But if she was hot enough I might consider it. I would be more inclined to worship a goddess than a god, but that's just me.
Well we know a fair amount about the mormon founder. He was a con man and a philanderer. He stole the book of mormon from a book of religious fiction.
There's some history of Saul in the bible, not a very savory character. Mohammad was a warlord who might have been schitzo, stoned and/or making it all up.
I think the desire to wield hordes of fanatical followers for personal wealth and power which continues to this day explains a lot of it. The rest would seem to be no more than not understanding mental illness.
It seems to me there are two categories of people – when you boil it down.
Those telling what they think is the truth.
Those telling what they know is a lie.
Was Buddha a liar? It doesn’t seem like he would be, because he seems to attribute his ideas to himself, or at least to a process. He then says give it a go yourself. Seems simple enough. Yes, this makes the big fat assumption that said ideas where from Buddha, and, as SAM’s post points out, they very well may not be. But the point is, he doesn't legitmize his ideas with some bullshit they came from a God. He's a Philosopher.
Was Jesus a liar? Well now, lets make the assumption there was a Jesus (something I personally don’t think is true, but for arguments sake). I’d say maybe. Or maybe crazy. Or, more than likely, some other people made it all up, along with Jesus.
Was Mohammad a liar? Again, I’m not convinced he even lived. But, if so, it seems the evidence suggests either yes or crazy. I’m not sure which way to go, people say he was a smart man, if so (and he was not crazy) then he was obviously a liar. The stories are based on Xian stories, the chances of coming up with the same tales out of the blue is zero. There is a chance he was crazy. He did have “fits”. If he had heard the stories and then he heard some voices in his head, well, maybe these voices retold the stories and he thought they were an angel. More than likely some other people made most of it up well after the fact. That's the way this stuff usually goes.
Was Joseph Smith a liar? I’d say the evidence is saying hell yes. Dumb, dumb dumb dumb, DUMB. There's a chance he was crazy. But I really think he was a con artist.
Was Ron a liar? I’m leaning yes. At least he had the presence of mind not to be a plagiarist as well. I suppose as an author he could at least appreciate that much. That said, I thought Ron started Scientology from Dianetics? He DID found a religion didn’t he? There’s also a chance he could be crazy. I'm betting con artist and liar.
Was Claude Vorilhon (founder of The Raëlian Movement) a con? You know, I think he really believes that aliens abducted him. I would think theists would like to learn about him. I mean, he’s a Living Prophet. Maybe they can glimpse a little of what their religion’s founder was like. At least the psychological aspects could be intriguing.
Then there’s Asguard’s point that religion was used to control people. You know, of course it was, BUT, I think way WAY back in the day. Say in the time of the Pharaohs, their writings seem to suggest that everyone was plugged into thinking about Gods for all aspects of life. They really believed they were connected to the Gods. All evidence suggests they were not liars. We’d actually have to go back in time, to a time when we were pre-Homosapien primates and just when our culture was developing. At this time, the belief in Gods gave us an edge (we’re starting to unlock the proteins that control this – studies are now showing even being “conservative” is genetic). Anyway, I’d say at THAT point in our evolution we believed it. Oh probably people lied now and again, but more than likely they believed. The balance between the two could be an intriging study.
Those telling what they think is the truth.
Those telling what they know is a lie.
Was Buddha a liar? It doesn’t seem like he would be, because he seems to attribute his ideas to himself, or at least to a process. He then says give it a go yourself. Seems simple enough. Yes, this makes the big fat assumption that said ideas where from Buddha, and, as SAM’s post points out, they very well may not be. But the point is, he doesn't legitmize his ideas with some bullshit they came from a God. He's a Philosopher.
Was Jesus a liar? Well now, lets make the assumption there was a Jesus (something I personally don’t think is true, but for arguments sake). I’d say maybe. Or maybe crazy. Or, more than likely, some other people made it all up, along with Jesus.
Was Mohammad a liar? Again, I’m not convinced he even lived. But, if so, it seems the evidence suggests either yes or crazy. I’m not sure which way to go, people say he was a smart man, if so (and he was not crazy) then he was obviously a liar. The stories are based on Xian stories, the chances of coming up with the same tales out of the blue is zero. There is a chance he was crazy. He did have “fits”. If he had heard the stories and then he heard some voices in his head, well, maybe these voices retold the stories and he thought they were an angel. More than likely some other people made most of it up well after the fact. That's the way this stuff usually goes.
Was Joseph Smith a liar? I’d say the evidence is saying hell yes. Dumb, dumb dumb dumb, DUMB. There's a chance he was crazy. But I really think he was a con artist.
Was Ron a liar? I’m leaning yes. At least he had the presence of mind not to be a plagiarist as well. I suppose as an author he could at least appreciate that much. That said, I thought Ron started Scientology from Dianetics? He DID found a religion didn’t he? There’s also a chance he could be crazy. I'm betting con artist and liar.
Was Claude Vorilhon (founder of The Raëlian Movement) a con? You know, I think he really believes that aliens abducted him. I would think theists would like to learn about him. I mean, he’s a Living Prophet. Maybe they can glimpse a little of what their religion’s founder was like. At least the psychological aspects could be intriguing.
Then there’s Asguard’s point that religion was used to control people. You know, of course it was, BUT, I think way WAY back in the day. Say in the time of the Pharaohs, their writings seem to suggest that everyone was plugged into thinking about Gods for all aspects of life. They really believed they were connected to the Gods. All evidence suggests they were not liars. We’d actually have to go back in time, to a time when we were pre-Homosapien primates and just when our culture was developing. At this time, the belief in Gods gave us an edge (we’re starting to unlock the proteins that control this – studies are now showing even being “conservative” is genetic). Anyway, I’d say at THAT point in our evolution we believed it. Oh probably people lied now and again, but more than likely they believed. The balance between the two could be an intriging study.
Michael you do realise the pharaohs belived they WERE gods dont you?
what does that suggest to you?
not so much in an indervidual sence as to wether they were lying or not because they were as much indoctinated into that philosphoy as the "public" but rather what does it suggest about the cultural motives for religion?
Im not suggesting that the first priest though "hey this is great, i can control people" or even that ANY of them did. Im suggesting that it on a cultural level it gave a rival sorce of power away from the millatry source of the king or other worror type ruler. It also importantly was a source of protection for the tribe.
Say im the priest and i ask "can you kill and eat chicken when the moon is full before sunset?" You would naturally answer "yes, why not?". So if i made the tribe make that action taboo you have a way to determine if a person is a member of the tribe or an impostor. Its like monkey or dog pack calls but more sophisicated.
It did also keep the tribe itself heading in what its leaders belived was the right direction, the king could threaten death. The priest could threaten death AND punishment after death. Look at the egyption punishment of being thrown to the crocadiles. This destroyed the body which was estential to getting to the after life.
what does that suggest to you?
not so much in an indervidual sence as to wether they were lying or not because they were as much indoctinated into that philosphoy as the "public" but rather what does it suggest about the cultural motives for religion?
Im not suggesting that the first priest though "hey this is great, i can control people" or even that ANY of them did. Im suggesting that it on a cultural level it gave a rival sorce of power away from the millatry source of the king or other worror type ruler. It also importantly was a source of protection for the tribe.
Say im the priest and i ask "can you kill and eat chicken when the moon is full before sunset?" You would naturally answer "yes, why not?". So if i made the tribe make that action taboo you have a way to determine if a person is a member of the tribe or an impostor. Its like monkey or dog pack calls but more sophisicated.
It did also keep the tribe itself heading in what its leaders belived was the right direction, the king could threaten death. The priest could threaten death AND punishment after death. Look at the egyption punishment of being thrown to the crocadiles. This destroyed the body which was estential to getting to the after life.
Every one who turns to Buddhism starts with a problem. Its called Dukkha - suffering. Addiction, clinging, grief, fear, anger, ignorance ... it takes many forms.
But that's the whole point. Finding your way free.