Sorry. I missed this.
First off, how did you reach that conclusion?
This question is irrelevant.
Secondly, even if you are not your body it does not follow that therefor there has to be a God (not to mention any god in particular).
Just as my body has a source (ashes to ashes....), whetever i am must have
a source. I call this source God.
jan.
If you don't like Anselm's argument, this simply means that you have poor imagination.
How would making up an imaginary creature help to gain power?
Why wouldn't they just accept their lot, like other animals?
jan.
First off, how did you reach that conclusion?
This question is irrelevant.
Just as my body has a source (ashes to ashes....), whetever i am must have
a source. I call this source God.
It doesn't give anyone real power, but it can give you confidence. I don't think other animals (I should specify social primates) ever accept their low status position.
The Bogeyman Theory:
This ties in with the idea that God/religion was invented for the purpose of controlling people.
There is no doubt that religion is often used with the purpose of controlling others - and this in most exploitative ways.
Given the harm that is done in the name of religion, this notion is hard to refute.
I agree that ''religion'' as in 'the Christian religion' was invented, but there
is documented evidence for that.
The idea of a 'bogeyman' could have been actual, not invented.
There could have been different types of humanoids living at various times.
And perhaps they were scary to other types.
Religion could have been knowledge passed
down from generation to generation on how to live in order to keep the
earth nicely balanced.
The harm that has be done comes from the Judeo-Christian religion, am I correct?
Just as my body has a source (ashes to ashes....), whetever i am must have
a source. I call this source God.
jan.
Dywyddyr said:I don't see how it can be made much simpler.
St. Anselm's own "proof" can be used to show that god doesn't exist.
No, it cannot.
The Ontological Argument is a kind of ex negativo proof; it works not by delineating but by pointing toward. It's like saying "In order to get to New York from here, go East".
The core term is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". If you can conceive of X, and then you can conceive of something greater than X, then, by the OA, X is not God.
One would have to be an angel, and perhaps God himself, in order to fully conceive the concept of God.
Whatever. How does this negate the idea that being provable to some suggests that God can be reduced to human understanding, which thus reduces his Anselm-based "greatness"?It depends on the individual.
If one decides there is no God, then for that person that is the case.
According to you.The ability to hold that thought in this life, is the point of this existence.
You might want to ask the Japanese, for example, whether a better understanding of earthquakes would aid survivability or not. :shrug:What evolutionary traits?
How is knowing WHY it rains going to aid survivability?
If you think rationality is a straw then that may explain much with your thinking.You're clutching at straws by assuming God was, firstly, created by early man, and then, antropomorphized.
I'm not assuming they wanted to "so bad"... anthropomorphisation of that which they couldn't explain, giving those in power a supposed authority from which to hold power of their own over the rest of their people.You're assuming they wanted to know the reason why, so bad, they created this whole phenomena. Please give a reasonable explanation as to why they did.
So now you resort to "la la la I'm not listening"??Just because you say ''they do'', doesn't mean they do.
First you are continuing to state that they are invoking something that does not exist (by which you mean not based on anything actually existing) yet you continue to stick your fingers in your ear when people provide you with what what you are looking for. You have been provided with such details, and now it is for you to counter those with more than just "la la la I'm not listening!".Thus far you haven't provided any correlation between wanting to know why something works, and proceeding to invoke something that does not exist, as an explanation for that thing. Simply asserting they did is no different than asserting they didn't.
Then go and read about it, Jan.I am prepared to accept that THAT explanation (because there is only one so far) is a popular idea by atheists.
But now I would like a more in-depth analasys.
That which will satisfy their curiosity, and which will aid survivability.What's to understand?
It was NOT alien to their day to day life. You keep bleating on about it being so, yet fail to register any actual point in your favour.Again, why would they create something absolutely alien to their day to daylife, in order to explain something they didn't need an explanation for, as those events occured anyway?
Then open your eyes, Jan, and take your fingers out of your ears. You are doing nothing here but saying "I disagree" with nothing else to support your position.I'm looking for reasons for your assertion, not just simple assertions.
I think the jury is still out on that, religion combined with nukes could very well mean the end of our species.
The monkey on your shoulder. He is you friend he is you foe depending on which way the wind blows . He is the Monkey .god is the adults' boogyman is the most interesting thought i heard in quite a long time.
i also got to understand the ontological argument after failing for quite some time then giving up.
this thread gets an excellent rating.
hats off to Signal.
This!
Also, I think religion will eventually disappear. All this Atheism, agnosticism, neo atheism and others are just symptoms that this change is happening. Slowly but steadily as we become increasingly more aware of our surroundings. Please don't flame me