Cris ... Jan Ardena
Cris
Not all notions of god are delusional, but all of them are extrapolations of the believers' psyches. That's why I advocate the stripping of the silly Christian contexts from the word "God". Only one definition ever came out of the Christian camp that suffices, and that being that God is greater than anything we can conceive.
If we simply redefine the word "God" to mean "all there is", we effectively strip it of its petty, comparative aspects. The only real benefit of holding onto this word is that if we somehow do stumble onto a tangible god-force, there's a little bit of psychological preparation for the idea.
We can do the same thing with the word universe. Multiverse? So what? In the end, there is a generalization of
existing that makes the multiverse a universe. The only need for the idea of a multiverse comes while we cannot leap easily between them.
Likewise of gods; Jack Cady once asserted that the Puritans created a real and living devil; not necessarily a flesh and blood creature that leaves footprints and scents for hounds to track, but as a footnote Cady pointed to the power of collectives to manifest an intangible force; his example was to ask any jazz musician about the idea. Put five guys with their instruments together, and they can give you an ineffable force. There well may be a Yahweh and Christ and Satan, or a triune Mother, or a Zeus or Ahriman/Ormuzd or any number of petty gods fashioned of the desperations of humanity out there. We may well have generated some force and lent it authority. But just like the devices of magick, it's a mere faith point until it's proven. Even as such, though, these entities would still be
part of the Universe, and when we consider the academic assertion that even the Greek and Roman pantheons were, essentially monotheistic by proxy of the fact that the deities responded to a higher ethic or law. Likewise with gods: if God is Universe is All There Is, the myriad menacing deities of human fancy fall away to dust and theology once again becomes a useful tool in considering the ineffable mysteries of being human.
So there's two cents on behalf of gods. It should be noted, though, that if the "official" theology of a religion runs more than two words long--
God is--then I can pretty much guarantee you that the deity involved is a delusion.
I have to protest
self-delusion on one particular point: Some of our Christian neighbors never stood a chance; from the cradle to the grave they are taught that they are worthless without god; they may be deluded, but not by the self. It's not like racism, either; I always say that I won't blame a racist by upbringing for his racism until he has rejected ample opportunity to understand the issues. In the case of religions, and specifically
redemptive religions, the "others" (e.g Satan) may be lying to you when presenting "ample opportunity to understand", and there is always the fact that the stake transcends life itself. The delusion is difficult but not impossible to break; one must do it in kindness or risk creating an equally negative spectre about the new understanding. So the lifetime victims of the Jesus-cult aren't self-deluded; there are those who conspired to bestow the gifts of fear and self-loathing. I can't speak for the born-again crowd, though: they invite their own troubles when they throw their intellect out with the bathwater.
Now ...
Jan Ardena
There is no distinction, because there is no delusion as to whether God is real. God is real. Delusion is brought about through ignorance as to the nature of the self and body, and sense gratification. You are the one who is deluded, that is why you, an atheist on a religous board not an atheist board.
Just for the record, what exactly is your purpose on this board?
*
No distinction: you have proven the point with your response. That does not necessarily mean you're self-deluded, but that you would rather eliminate the question than consider its myriad facets is a compelling argument toward your self-delusion.
*
Atheist on a religious board: You'll note, sir, that this
website is called
Sciforums. Its former name, for the record, was
Exosci. We might, then, wonder at the curious circumstance of a religion board being so popular at a science website. Why are
you at a science site and not a religion site? In other words, save the useless arguments for a useless day. Do you believe in Judgement Day? Save the useless arguments for then.
Lets correct that, 'you' will have no way of to know that your belief is not self delusional, because you are the one who relies on 'an independant objective mechanism.'
I am a musician, I don't know whether you play music or not, but if you did i bet your music would lack something. Probably technologically sound, but no feel man.
Sounds like the classic argument that I think is Anselm:
I can't see God or feel God or experience God so I know He must be there. At any rate, I was not born recognizing the concept of God, and neither was
Cris and I'm willing to bet large sums of cash that neither were you. Somebody had to teach me the idea of God before it even mattered. And that they had to teach me to fear God instead of know God ... that's a compelling argument toward their self-delusion and their attempt to infect me with the same sickness. The objective state is that there is no God; there is no evidence suggesting that the assertion of a God's existence is true. Without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.
Then don't beleive, nobody is forcing you to do anything
Well, I lived in Oregon, where Christians tried to disenfranchise gays based on biblical principle;
Cris lives in California, home of the Schlafly ministry that protests textbooks in schools based on biblically-derived objections; a church in downtown Seattle asserts that Liberty is the freedom to worship a specific God in a specific manner--and yes, that means all other gods and methods of worship are out; why are laws allowing nudity laws and not the natural state (were you wearing a formal gown when you came out of your mother?); all across the US are groups which want laws written making religion a science and therefore limit the contribute of science by throwing out the need for verification of results and even the need for results at all ... You're right--nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything, but boy-oh, do the religious in the US want to make us live according to it.
You'd think that the freedom to live day to day would be a subject worth discussing ... tell us
Jan, what is
your purpose here? Seem a cheap question? Well?
Yes!
I wondered when some accusation like this was gonna surface.
You are so predictable dude.
And so are you, which is what's funny. Here:
I predict that the next person to assert the existence of God will be unable to demonstrate that assertion as true.
Like I said above, without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.
thanx,
Tiassa
