How can God not exist?

[YoYoPapaya]

So you're sticking to the term atheist religion IOW?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

My issue is with "just calling things this or that", esp. when it comes to God.

It suggests a kind of self-confidence that makes many of us shiver in fear of solipsism!

You mean something like; ''don't show me that rope, you know i'm
frightened of snakes''?

But Hindus, too, often have a nasty supremacy trip against Westerners and others.

There is a lot of domestic violence in Hindu families and violence against women that is supposedly justified with the Vedic culture ("the husband is superior and always right, therefore, he can hold his wife's face to a hot stowe plate and she must accept this as just and right and godly"). Dowry deaths. Acid throwing.

Why asociate that with 'religion'?

Because the people perpetrating those acts claim they have a religious basis for them.

Of course, we could look into how come so many of us are so willing to buy into their justifications at face value.

They have their own belief system which they call ''religion''.
I would go as far as to say, that is the current state of of the religious institutes.
It seems anybody can start a religion nowadays.

I said "Eastern religions", which could be understood to mean "particular sects or traditions", which is also what I meant (I otherwise rather strictly use the term "religious tradition").

Anyway, the core question is how can a run-of-the-mill person know what in particular instances is religion (ie. service to God), and what is not.

The idea is that a run-of-the-mill person is completely disqualified from proper understanding and as such completely at the mercy of those who claim to be religious; and whatever those people claim to be religious, the run-of-the-mill person has to believe to be religious.

I think a comprehensive way to begin to discriminate between ''God-centered'' and ''self-centered'' religions, or people, is to read and try to understand scripture.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

CptBork,

No one on this planet has ever defined an idea of "God" when describing its omnipotent features- all that has ever been defined is what "God" is not. "God" is stronger than all the forces of nature combined hence not weak, more intelligent than all the brains of humanity combined hence not stupid, etc. It's completely based on everyday reality, nothing inherently divine about it at all.

Can you imagine coming into contact with something; ''stronger than all the forces of nature combined'', and something; ''more intelligent than all the brains of humanity combined?

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

So you're sticking to the term atheist religion IOW?

This question was for you Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

(The reservations) A division between god-centered (Judaism and Christianity) and self-centered (everything else) is a Christian distinction that's popular on the fundamentalist end.

It's simply 'a distinction'. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Sikh, etc.. are merely names which identify specific belief systems.

God-centered religion is good, self-centered religion is sin.

It may be, but only because it is.
Not because we say it is.

It assumes that there is a god, that 'he' has revealed himself in certain special revelations, and that only the biblical religions are oriented towards god and not towards man and his self-centered imagination.

No it doesn't.
You're jumping the gun.
It is what it is.

The only system of belief that does not assume the existence of God,
is utter, and complete ignorance of God.

I look at things very differently. To me, ALL of the religions and all of their gods are creations of the human imagination. So the distinction in the last paragraph is illusory.

Okay.
Why do you see them as human imaginations?

(the response) Having said that, I will say that I agree with Jan in the sense that religions with one or more gods will probably continue indefinitely. 'God-centered' religions may dissappear eventually, but that day is probably many centuries off. Personally, I don't think that theistic belief will ever disappear, as long as humans are human.

I think that day is here, save a few scatterings of real devout people
across the world (in comparison to world population).
We have a different sense of what it is to be a ''theist''.

I agree with that. Religion is as close to a cultural universal as there is, this side of spoken language perhaps. Every culture at every period of history for which information exists has displayed some form of religiosity. The form and details of the religions displayed are almost infinitely variable, but we can be reasonably certain that some kind of religiosity was in the mix.

Excellent point!
How can man NOT have religion?

That makes me think that there is something innate in human psychology that tends to generate religion. I'm not alone in thinking that, it's a widespread idea in religious studies, psychology and anthropology and there's a large and growing literature on it

.


I think it forms part of our human-ness.
We have to believe in something which brings some kind of salvation, belief and liberation of that part of ourselves we deem essential.

I just wanted to make this post because I notice that Jan was attacked for the post that I quoted a few pages back and I largely agree with it. It will be interesting to see if Jan's adversaries come after me for agreeing. (My guess is that I'll be ignored, as usual.)

Maybe they just need to grow up.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This question was for you Jan.

I've already given my analasys.
If you have a problem with it, then please be more specific.

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

you avoid the yes and no question because you know it will get you in trouble?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

The only system of belief that does not assume the existence of God, is utter, and complete ignorance of God.

Belief in a God or Gods is nothing more than primitive ignorance, that uses the boogieman of going to hell to pressure young children into believing the fairytale of God. So do your best to convince me you weren't brainwashed as a child.

 

[CptBork]

Can you imagine coming into contact with something; ''stronger than all the forces of nature combined'', and something; ''more intelligent than all the brains of humanity combined?

Can I imagine it, as in truly visualize it and fully understand all the resulting implications? No I cannot, and I contend that no one else on this Earth can or ever has. But can I contemplate the idea that such a contact might one day happen? Sure. Nothing divine about it, it's all derived by extrapolating on the world around us and anything else we can ever expect to see.

 

[Mathematical Facts]

The process of having people believe in these questionable things is unfortunately surprisingly easy. We all have weaknesses, be it fear, loneliness, lack of purpose, whatever.

One interesting thing to look at which is more of a condensed example and perhaps easier to analyse is the Third Reich.

Just take a look at the tools used, the hysteria created etc

It managed to entrap an entire nation of people. I'd even argue that the majority of people who follow a religion don't truly truly believe in it, but rather they have some ulterior motive which is not even apparent to their own reasoning. A collective will perhaps.

 

[Jan Ardena]

you avoid the yes and no question because you know it will get you in trouble?

Oh, is that what you're fishing for?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Belief in a God or Gods is nothing more than primitive ignorance, that uses the boogieman of going to hell to pressure young children into believing the fairytale of God. So do your best to convince me you weren't brainwashed as a child.

No thanks, I think I'll leave you with that ground breaking, brilliant, and individual thought.

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Oh, is that what you're fishing for?

jan.

So that's a no?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can I imagine it, as in truly visualize it and fully understand all the resulting implications? No I cannot, and I contend that no one else on this Earth can or ever has. But can I contemplate the idea that such a contact might one day happen? Sure. Nothing divine about it, it's all derived by extrapolating on the world around us and anything else we can ever expect to see.

If you can't imagine, or visualise it, how do you conclude that something
like that wouldn't be ''divine''?

What is divinity from your pov?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So that's a no?

What's a no?

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

to the yes and no question...

Do you stand by the term "atheist religion"?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I know God exists in the same way that I know Love exists.

 

[Enmos]

I know God exists in the same way that I know Love exists.

God is a feeling?

 

[Jan Ardena]

to the yes and no question...

Do you stand by the term "atheist religion"?

Of course I do.
Can you refute it?

jan.

 

[Yazata]

If the human conception of God wouldn't necessarily require any divinity in order to be conceived, then there would be no atheists.

So you are saying that the existence of atheists is logically conclusive evidence of God's existence? You actually believe that? (If so, what becomes of your non-theist posting-persona?)

Most people can and do conceive of God on the grounds of negating ordinary terms, but only some take to worship of God.

Not "negating". That's apophatic theology, which is an alien concept to most conventional theists, although it's very big in the Western mystical traditions. Rather, it seems to be a matter of expanding a selected set of human-derived qualities until they are supposedly "infinite". Take supposedly desirable human qualities X, Y and Z, then imagine God as the ultimate being that embodies infinite-X, infinite-Y and infinite-Z.

That expansion isn't a tremendously difficult psychological process to imagine and it certainly doesn't suggest or require any divine intervention.

Your second clause (after the "but") sounds like a reference to the traditional Christian doctrine of divine grace. Many Chrisians, particularly protestants of the Calvinist sort, believe that individuals are called, in fact predestined, by God to be Christians.

That's the doctrine, but I'd be more inclined to attribute religious adherence largely to accidents of birth, and in the case of conversion, to psychological factors.

But whatever it is, it's an entirely different idea than the ontological argument.