Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

And we now live in heaven, of course, thanks to that outlook.

:rolleyes:

What outlook is that? Theism or Atheism? Seems to me that nearly all civilized advancements have been achieved by secular means and nearly all civil destruction is a result of theists meddling with mankind on behalf of their "Exclusive Gods".

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."..http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

I see a living Hell implied in those words...
pop.gif
 
Last edited:
wynn:

To what limited extent do you think that the existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation?

I'd be happy with a clear definition of what is to be investigated. By definition "the unknowable" cannot be investigated. It's all very convenient.
 
How do you think of God? What is God? Clearly, God is not supposed to be made of matter or energy. That would seem only to leave some kind of disembodied "spirit" as an option. Is that how you think of God?

As I have been emphasizing over and over again: I think it comes down to one's intentions - ie. why one chooses to work with one definition of "God" as opposed to with some other one.

One's intentions are available to one for one's inspection and judgment.

I've already listed what I think are some of the perks of working with inferior definitions of God.


Considering this, I don't concern myself with who or what God may truly be or not (as that concern is rendered undecidable by my focus on my intentions), but I focus my concerns on why I choose or would choose to work with one particular definition of "God" over another. So my question for me is: Is my intention for my choice of definition of "God" skillful or not?

Some definitions of "God" are such that they fuel pride, others are such that they fuel hate, some fuel indecision -- all such are unskillful. It's generally not wise to pursue that which is unskillful.


How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?

Again, why are you inquring about this?

If I were to ask "How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?", I can tell you that it would be out of pride, insecurity, bad faith, jealousy toward theists. Noneof which are skillful intentions.


Why should we have faith in God? If there's no evidence of God, I can't see any rational reason in having faith in him/her/it. Can you?

Several things here:
One, as already said, there is the issue of your intentions.
Two, "rational" is one of the most hotly debated terms in Western philosophy.
Three, "to have faith in someone or something" extends far beyond merely believing said thing or person exists. It also means 'to trust, to be loyal to, to value highly, to look up to.'


I'm sure that in the 20 years that he was a minister, Barker would have come across many things that challenged his faith.

It depends on how he answered those challenges.


But he had very little exposure to rational thinking about God, and his religious tradition and environment actively discouraged such questioning. This is a common feature of most conservative religious environments.

What is your point? That the above is proof that he really believed or that he was really religious?


I'm not sure you're an atheist at all.

Why do you not believe in God?

What do you mean by "believe in God"?

To believe that God exists, the way, say, the Statue of Liberty in New York exists?

Again, it comes down to the definition of "God" one works with.

There are proposed defintions of "God" for which the question "Do you believe in God?" applies in the same way as the question "Do you believe that the Statue of Liberty exists?" applies. Mainstream Christianity, for example, seems to work with such definitions.

And then there are other definitions, like the omnimax one, with which such a question does not apply.


Thinking isn't a sense. Senses are ways you connect to the world. Thinking is something that happens inside your brain. It doesn't give you access to the world; it makes sense of what you already know.

That is so according to your particular philosophy of mind.


To what limited extent do you think that the existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation?

Here working from the omnimax definition:

The existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation to the impersonal extent.
Ie. such investigation is incomplete.
By empirical investigation, one can know God to some extent - but not know God as God, but only as His material aspect.
Much like by investigating, say, the muscles of Peter, you know something about the material, physical aspect of Peter; but the muscles aren't Peter, and simply from knowing Peter's muscles, you don't know Peter.
 
Some definitions of "God" are such that they fuel pride, others are such that they fuel hate, some fuel indecision -- all such are unskillful. It's generally not wise to pursue that which is unskillful.

Yes, I would call this subjective judgements based on idealized moral and ethical conditions.

OTOH, there is another way for humanists to analyze moral and ethical conditions and that is by evaluating the Potential for harm or good and then acting for the common good.

I think I understand most theists' equivocation of God to the Wholeness for which science actually has no real definition either.
TOE (science) = GOD (theism).

I like the word Potential as at least a "caretaker" term for TOE and GOD as both are just too contaminated with misinterpretations and misunderstandings to serve as a commonly acceptable neutral term, a common denominator , related to all aspects of existence.
 
Wynn doesn't appear to have any desire to actually discuss the topics at hand. Whenever a point is made, she simply claims the definition of given terms used are up for debate. and retreats.
 
Wynn doesn't appear to have any desire to actually discuss the topics at hand. Whenever a point is made, she simply claims the definition of given terms used are up for debate. and retreats.

And that basically ends the exploration of the rise of (different) religions in (different) regions. I believe the majority consensus was that regional variety in the basic concept of god(s) was due to a very early belief in gods expanded along with human migration from Africa and a slow growing of myth and morality stories surrounding the godlike creatures and those who communicated with them.
 
And that basically ends the exploration of the rise of (different) religions in (different) regions. I believe the majority consensus was that regional variety in the basic concept of god(s) was due to a very early belief in gods expanded along with human migration from Africa and a slow growing of myth and morality stories surrounding the godlike creatures and those who communicated with them.

I didn't see that as the consensus, but whatever. I think the thread has long since moved past it, anyway.
 
Okay, can you tell why that is bad, why you don't want that to happen?


(Hint: If you'd be enlightened, you could probably answer that question easily. :p)
Why is being hurt really badly a bad thing? Is that your fucking question? Quick where's my Zen stick so I can whack you on the head with it?!
 
And we now live in heaven, of course, thanks to that outlook.

:rolleyes:


Odd, isn't it? With all those gods around one should think that at least a small portion of the earth would have been reserved for all thos gods not to suffer the small inconveniences of mankind.

Did we live in heaven when the church ruled? I recall reports of hellish and terrifying practises say during the days of the Inquisition.
A little excerpt from the Inquisitors Handbook:

Wiki
Purpose

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit

Can't sweep that under the rug. It was a direct result of Canon Law, just like all religions that have ever existed. "Obey God or die!! And that is how you establish heaven on earth?

Modesty prevents me from using an expletive.

Someone mentioned respect towards theist gods, because it might offend theists? Perhaps theists should start respecting atheists and not wage holy ware on us.
 
Back
Top