sol13: God is dead.
*************
M*W: God didn't actually die, he never existed as anything more than a delusion.
*************
M*W: God didn't actually die, he never existed as anything more than a delusion.
Monotheism a myth
- Thread starter sol13
- Start date
There you go M*W... god was part of primitive man's undeveloped consciousness, when man became aware, the voices had gone silent.
Quote; Archaic humans were ordered and moved by the gods through both auditory hallucinations and visual hallucinations. The gods mainly "talked" to them--but sometimes "appeared," such as Athene appeared to Achilles. And "when visual hallucinations occur with voices, they are merely shining light or cloudy fog, as Thetis came to Achilles or Yahwey to Moses." [Ibid, p. 93]
Jaynes believes in the mentality of the early Mycenean that volition, planning and initiative were literally organized with no consciousness whatsoever. Rather such volition was "told" to the individual--"sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god,' or sometimes as a voice alone." [Ibid, p. 75]
link
This is a good book M*W. " link "
Godless.
sol13 said:
You said that Niezsche was alive because you believe in Him. By that standard God is Alive and Kicking since most of humanity believes in God -whether you like it or not.
:m:
sol13 said:
No I insist. I would like you to make a subjective decision. If I put a gun to your head, and ordered you to make a decision and choose between of the two, what would you choose.
1-Leave humans in existence.
2-Take humans out of existence.
3-Do nothing, which is the same as number 1.
:m:
Yes most of humanity are religious, but thats a broad definition. Most of humanity believes in DIFFERENT gods/goddesses (only 1/3 of humanity is Christian). And any new-age "they are all really the same god'' nonsense doesn't apply since many of these beliefs *very* much contradict each other. Also, what/who specifically is believed in changes with geography and time. So clearly sheer number of believers proves nothing.
At one point most of humanity may have believed earth was flat, or believed earth was the center of the universe. But those beliefs didn't change reality even if 100% of humanity aligned behind a belief.
You are pushing me into a corner and forcing me to make a decision I would rather not make. With a gun at my head you leave me little choice. It would have to be option (2) Take humans out of existence.Bruce Wayne said:
How can I choose option (1) when the person holding the gun to my head believes in a god who has scant regard for human life. God may be in one of his nasty moods and tell you to shoot anyway. How can you, his disciple, disobey?
By choosing option (2) there is the small comfort that by taking humans out of existence would mean your death also.
Now the question is; if you knew that I was going to choose option (2) thus knowing you would be signing your own death warrant would you have made such a threat in the first place.
With regard to your other question. I concur with Gravity. The monotheistic god only exists if you believe he exists. If you stop believing in him he ceases to exist. I do not believe in a monotheistic god therefore he is dead. Kaput. Ceased to be. He is no more. (I know. I've said it all before but I enjoy saying it)
Gravity said:
Numbers are not the issue. It was stated Nizsche exists because sol13 believes in it. Therefore it suffice to have one person (moi) belief in God for him to exist.
About the "new age nonsense". You haven't thought that out. Fits I believe that we could say that most Christians believe in a similar god, omnipotent, omniscient, they even claim to belief he is one.
Muslims (off course
) have a more aligned vision of their Creator. And they too are a group of more than a couple of million.Gravity said:
Explain that to sol13.
:m:
Actually, I've thought that out for years . . . thank you. The God of Christians actually has a VERY wide variety of incarnations - many of which are incompatible with others. Hell - though the Shrub and his Administration are courting the Catholics and such, Pentacostals like Ashcroft and reborn Neo-Cons like the Shrub don't believe Catholics are even true Christians . . . they think they are going to "hell"! (But they want their vote!)
Amish, Mormons, Quakers, Baptists, Pentacostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics -- there are WIDE and divisive differences between them and others. And the idea that "oh they are really all the same God" is an argument especially prevelent among the more modern newage (rhymes with ''sewage'') type of Christian apologist.
Most of humanity are religious -- that's a bad indictment of religion, since most of humanity ARE ALSO VERY STUPID.
sol13 said:
You have ample choice between the two.
sol13 said:
Somehow I don't really believe you.
sol13 said:
You are letting your imagination to get the better of you, here.
sol13 said:
How cruel!! You would kill off all humanity to get to me. Hitler is a saint compared to you!
sol13 said:
I was just playing with you when I concurred with this statement before. According to your logic I believe in Him, so He exists, so He exists in this reality, so He exists everywhere, so all that is left for you is to disbelieve in the notion of God.
Again, I think you are in denial of my earlier point. (Humanity with good and evil is better for you than no humanity, no good and no evil).
:m:
Gravity, you misunderstood me. What I objected to is the label "newage nonsense".
More importantly, it suffices that they believe in a "God" as opposed to sol 13's no-God claim.
:m:
More importantly, it suffices that they believe in a "God" as opposed to sol 13's no-God claim.
:m:
Well Bruce do you believe "there is indeed a god, and all the various religious actually worship the same god even if they don't know it"? If so, such a statement would indeed threaten your worldview, and I can see why you would object to it. If your vision of reality is not thus, then please explain why you find it objectionable?
Gravity said:
Find what objectional?
:m:
All your contradictions point to is that the Abrahamic religions are self-contradictory and man's interpretations are flawed.
If you believe this:
I read all of this, but I fail to see how any of what you said supports the assertion that monotheism, as a concept in and of itself, is inconsistent with itself.
Leave the Abrahamic religions out of this altogether if you are really claiming that monotheism itself is inconsistent.
Try this:
Explain how monotheism itself is inconsistent as a concept without naming any God(s) Religions(s) or doctrine(s) at all.
If you believe this:
then this:sol13 said:
Is a meaningless question.sol13 said:
I read all of this, but I fail to see how any of what you said supports the assertion that monotheism, as a concept in and of itself, is inconsistent with itself.
Leave the Abrahamic religions out of this altogether if you are really claiming that monotheism itself is inconsistent.
Try this:
Explain how monotheism itself is inconsistent as a concept without naming any God(s) Religions(s) or doctrine(s) at all.
Gravity, bear with me o.k. Much has been said.
Well I objected since in my pinion, the opinion is not new age. I have to admit that under new age -in this case- I understand: "hippy", "they are all looking at the same thing from different directions", "they are all standing on different banks of the same river".
I said that it suffices that they believe in a god, since sol 13's claim was weakly drawn and very vague, since he objects to "god" without specifying its meaning.
Also, I personnaly think there is but one God (big surprise). That God sent messengers to mankind, to different tribes and nations in different eras. The message's core was always the same, the differed in small details. In time the message gets distorted which results in mutually exclusive, diverging religions, of whom only one is correct, i.e Islam (again, big surprise). This view has accompanied Islam almost as long as humanity existed (since Islam predates the Prophet -peace be upon him). So it is not really "New Age".
:m:
Well I objected since in my pinion, the opinion is not new age. I have to admit that under new age -in this case- I understand: "hippy", "they are all looking at the same thing from different directions", "they are all standing on different banks of the same river".
I said that it suffices that they believe in a god, since sol 13's claim was weakly drawn and very vague, since he objects to "god" without specifying its meaning.
Also, I personnaly think there is but one God (big surprise). That God sent messengers to mankind, to different tribes and nations in different eras. The message's core was always the same, the differed in small details. In time the message gets distorted which results in mutually exclusive, diverging religions, of whom only one is correct, i.e Islam (again, big surprise). This view has accompanied Islam almost as long as humanity existed (since Islam predates the Prophet -peace be upon him). So it is not really "New Age".
:m:
Conservative theologins believe there is one ''God" but that the idea that all of the religions are worshiping the same god with different interpretations is the ''newage'' type of thought. They believe anybody not bowing to their particular god is worshipping a false god, or even Satan or such.
So, the God you bow and scrape before is not a loving being then right? I mean, to be all powerful and omnisient and yet use such an inadequate way of letting everybody know they need to flatter and praise you or be tortured for eternity? Inadequate in the sense that messenges sent to different ''tribes'' and nations - knowing that it would get distorted, knowing that therefore lots of people would get bad or contradictory information?
This harkens back to an *old* piece of verse:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-- (Epicurus)
So, the God you bow and scrape before is not a loving being then right? I mean, to be all powerful and omnisient and yet use such an inadequate way of letting everybody know they need to flatter and praise you or be tortured for eternity? Inadequate in the sense that messenges sent to different ''tribes'' and nations - knowing that it would get distorted, knowing that therefore lots of people would get bad or contradictory information?
This harkens back to an *old* piece of verse:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-- (Epicurus)
Gravity said:
Abstention from interference does not necessarily imply malevolence
Basically there are some people that believe that since "God" is omnipotent and omniscient he must know what the future will bring, therefore he must approve of pain and suffering since he apparently does nothing to curtail human suffering.
My view is that if there is a God, he would be closest to the Diest version.
He created all, set the rules, put the ball in play, then backed off to let it do what it's going to do while he watches (or he may not even care to watch).
He would still be omnipotent.
The ability to control all does not imply the necessity or obligation to do so.
I could invent a board game.
I would know all the rules.
I would know how to cheat.
I would choose to abide by the rules I created.
The game does not have power over me, I chose to follow the constraints I invented.
The rules are imbedded into the game already.
The laws of physics.
There are no other unbreakable rules.
We can't break them, not because God is watching and will squash us with his thumb if we do, like the Tower of Babel or something.
We can't break them simply because they are integral to the design of the system.
I can kill you right now.
If God were "good" and enforced Biblical morality, I wouldn't be able to do that.
Since God created me with free will, I have the choice to kill you.
He CAN do something about it, but he doesn't because he is abiding by the rules of non-interference that he made for himself.
However, I can't fly to the moon right now under the power of the magic wings I tuck under my shirt while I am at work.
Not because God is watching me, but because it is a rule built into the game.
Allowing "evil" to happen to people does not make God malevolent himself.
He does not perpetrate the evil.
Abstention from interference does not necessarily imply malevolence.
Especially if "Heaven" exists.
The petty little woes that humans suffer on earth are but a speck of sand in eternity.
That is like saying if your mother cared about you she wouldn't let you get a hangnail.
Besides, the VAST majority of suffering humans go through is caused by other humans.
Maybe he is watching and saying, "You deserve it you shallow, self-absorbed, arrogant little fucks!"
Who's to say?
The point, however (believe it or not, I do have a point buried in here somewhere), is that someone could very well be omnipotent, but not interfere.
If he IS omnipotent, he has the power to turn his back if he wishes.
Omniscient means all-knowing.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.
A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.
Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... Unknowable by anyone.
If there is a "God" that designed this system, he very well could have designed it so the future can not be known nor entirely predictable.
Plus, as I said earlier, even if he DID have the ability to see into the future, he could simply choose not to.
Even if God does exist, what makes humans so arrogant to think that he would give a shit about the absurdly petty troubles and wishes of ANY of us, nevermind ALL of us.
If he cared even in the least about us, what would compel him to intervene in any way, nevermind orchestrate every least detail of everone's lives?
Even if he cared enough to intervene on some level, what makes us say that he would want life to be easy and happy for all?
If there is such thing as heaven, shangri-la, paradise, nibbana, etc, existence there, by account of all the major religions, is without trouble, difficulty, pain, strife...
If anything, life here would be a diversion from that, and the risks faced during your earthly lifetime is what would give this whiole existence any appeal to someone in a "paradise".
Risk is what makes life on earth interesting and exciting.
Don't you think?