What God Wants

[Theoryofrelativity]

Scripture is the indication of what god wants - what other authority are you going to approach ? One's mind? (of course you can approach scripture with the view to fulfil what is in one's mind, but then that is kind of an issue of impaired hearing)

What scripture? Whose scripture? Your main mans scripture?

Who evers scripture you are refferring to it came from a mans mind. Why is his the assumed authority, because he said so? Who convinces the people what he said is correct, ...oh he did...then they did and so on and so forth...........I see. An influential chap no doubt.

 

[lightgigantic]

Theoryofrelativity

What scripture? Whose scripture? Your main mans scripture?

Well there are few options out there .....

Who evers scripture you are refferring to it came from a mans mind.

Perhaps according to your mind - interesting how you can say that without even knowing what scripture I have in mind - | doubt you have investigated them all - and frankly I doubt you are likely to either - it raises the question what general principles did you aply to come to this conclusion

Why is his the assumed authority, because he said so?

You mean god's mind, or the mysterios person or persons who have apparently penned all scriptures?

Who convinces the people what he said is correct, ...oh he did...then they did and so on and so forth...........I see. An influential chap no doubt

Acually the epistemlogy convinces people, although there may be a myriad of reasons that are superficial causes that can bring one to the point of applying the epistemology

 

[Dreamwalker]

This would suggest evolution is about improvement in some regard, note the use of the word 'improvement' in this short extract.

Improvement through evolution is somewhat subjective I would say. After all, improvement needs a certain standard to begin with, but such a standard obviuosly needs to be created, by us that is, for I do not see such a standard given by nature itself. I would rather say evolution is all about change and adaption, whereas both could be seen as improvements if one takes a subjective point of view.


Anyway, back to the things god wants:

First, I partially agree with the points made in the original post. At least on a theoretical basis, since I do not believe in god(s).

So, to some of the responses:

Generally god asks us that we control our senses and teaches us how to keep our pants on - if we cannot obey that simple request it is unlikely we will be instructed in anything higher

Well, I am quite sure god never asked anything from me. Of course, you might be referring to scipture here, but then I have to ask which one would be the correct word of god(s), after all, there are myriads of religious beliefs and scripture, what makes one more reliable than another?

Generally one goes to hell by activities and one's activities are shaped by one's mind -

This does not seem to be true, note, I am using christian theology now, maybe you refer to another belief and hell, there are enough around. Anyway, I assume by activities you mean something like murder, robbery, sodomy and such. Fair enough, I can see why the belief in a hell is usefull when telling people about a god that punishes evil persons, that makes him popular after all. But, also believing in other gods would condemn you to hell (at least in some religions), that, by itself is no activity, just a process of thought. So, someone who never heard of the right god and its teachings, who instead believes in a pantheon for example, would be condemned to hell just because he perceived things different, not by any malevolent action, right?

I guess it indicates that people in general have no idea what god wants - the responsibility falls on the shoulders of religious leaders (ie it raises the question who is a qualified or unqualified religious leader)

With this I have to agree, it seems that religion offers power for those who participate in it and advance in its hierarchy, even though those people are utterly unqualified, powerhungry and whatnot. I would also agree with some other points you made, concerning religion as a tool for control, or as means of justifying personal actions etc.

For example:

Then I guess they would just focus on what they want (which is what many people do in the name of religion anyway) and cause more problems in the world.

Back to the first post again:

This is a site that argues about the existence of God, among others things, as it should. But the human brain hasn't developed to the point where we can truly understand God.

Moses. Confucius. Siddhartha Gautama (Budda). Jesus of Nazareth. Migammed. Patanjai. Baha'u'llah. Jala al-Din Rumi, Paramahansa Yoganda, Joseph Smith These are all Messengers from God. But many of us has been told that only one of these is the right one. Choose the "wrong" one, and you'll go to Hell.

So which one is it? It's all of them

Why is it needful to see all these divergent religions as one, or as different facets of believe, or rather our inability to fully understand god. I would omit the last part of that statement, as you said, we are unable to understand god, so in fact, we are quite unable to understand religion in a way. It would be preposterous to say that every religion is true in its own way, in fact, we do not know it.

Also, "It's all of them" can not really be true, since we do not know for which purpose those religions were created, as lightgigantic pointed out, people use religion for their own purposes, so, is it too far fetched to say that some religions were made up by people to further their own ambitions? After all, it is a way to power, theocraties were not that uncommon and as long as their is not much scientific/cultural progress they are quite efficient.
So, just giving all of them the same worth, like you did with that statement, does not seem very just. Some things have to be viewed more critical, but all in all the basic ideas are quite good.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

Generally god asks us that we control our senses and teaches us how to keep our pants on - if we cannot obey that simple request it is unlikely we will be instructed in anything higher ”


Well, I am quite sure god never asked anything from me.

Isn't free will glorious? Even god is an option (at least in the material world)

Of course, you might be referring to scipture here, but then I have to ask which one would be the correct word of god(s), after all, there are myriads of religious beliefs and scripture, what makes one more reliable than another?

Well any fruit is a good option in the absence of fruit. But if you have a range of choices it is unlikely that one would opt for a dried raisin instead of a big ripe mango - in other words the right scripture for you depends on your level of inteligence - but any religion is better than no religion

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Generally one goes to hell by activities and one's activities are shaped by one's mind - ”



This does not seem to be true, note, I am using christian theology now, maybe you refer to another belief and hell, there are enough around. Anyway, I assume by activities you mean something like murder, robbery, sodomy and such. Fair enough, I can see why the belief in a hell is usefull when telling people about a god that punishes evil persons, that makes him popular after all. But, also believing in other gods would condemn you to hell (at least in some religions), that, by itself is no activity, just a process of thought. So, someone who never heard of the right god and its teachings, who instead believes in a pantheon for example, would be condemned to hell just because he perceived things different, not by any malevolent action, right?

If one does not have a proper notion of god it will be impossible to develop sincere attraction to him, and will fill the void with whateevr the material world has to offer, which tends to be predictable (money, sex and false prestige)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

I guess it indicates that people in general have no idea what god wants - the responsibility falls on the shoulders of religious leaders (ie it raises the question who is a qualified or unqualified religious leader)
”



With this I have to agree, it seems that religion offers power for those who participate in it and advance in its hierarchy, even though those people are utterly unqualified, powerhungry and whatnot. I would also agree with some other points you made, concerning religion as a tool for control, or as means of justifying personal actions etc.

For example:

“ Then I guess they would just focus on what they want (which is what many people do in the name of religion anyway) and cause more problems in the world. ”

Without the distinction between "advanced" and "neophyte" how would knowledge be transmitted?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Evolution started with very simple organisms with lots of room to make things more complex. Making things more complex is often labeled by people as 'improvement'.

Once life has become more complex there is also more opportunity to become more simple.

That's the current state of evolution. A trend towards more complexity. And simultaneously a trend towards less complexity.

 

[Dreamwalker]

Well any fruit is a good option in the absence of fruit. But if you have a range of choices it is unlikely that one would opt for a dried raisin instead of a big ripe mango - in other words the right scripture for you depends on your level of inteligence - but any religion is better than no religion

So the word of god is subjective? Very interesting.

And believing in a lie would be better than believing in nothing at all.

Somehow I fail to see the reasons and uses for something like that. Also, you seem to dislike the material world, but it is all we know and can experience, I could just as easily say that you fill the gaps of your material life with imaginary things like stories, phantasies and gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

So the word of god is subjective? Very interesting.

No more than the subjectivity of a variety of educational facilties (some bogus and some beneficial, admittedly) ranging from kindergarten to harvard

And believing in a lie would be better than believing in nothing at all.

What are we talking about here - that money will make you happy? Or that casual sex leads to fulfillment? Or does it have nothing to do with billboards and something to do with religion?

Somehow I fail to see the reasons and uses for something like that. Also, you seem to dislike the material world, but it is all we know and can experience,

So if your conclusion is that real things are better than unreal things (whichis something I agree with) you will now have to establish how that bears a relationship to god

I could just as easily say that you fill the gaps of your material life with imaginary things like stories, phantasies and gods.

lol - and I could say the same thing about your material life - th e totems and rituals are unlimited

 

[alain]

Nice post ggazoo

When you think about it, does it really matter what God wants anyway? I mean, obviously we should try to make God happy, if his happiness does indeed rely on us - but not if this requires immoral deeds or making others unhappy

 

[Dreamwalker]

What are we talking about here - that money will make you happy? Or that casual sex leads to fulfillment? Or does it have nothing to do with billboards and something to do with religion?

I was referring to:

but any religion is better than no religion

Also, you are complaining about generalisation concerning your statements

Perhaps according to your mind - interesting how you can say that without even knowing what scripture I have in mind [...]

yet you assume that I value money, status and the like, without knowing me. I do not like rituals, traditions, money and status of any kind. I find most things in our present culture quite ridiculous. So please, do not judge me by some stereotypical western airhead ideal.

 

[lightgigantic]

yet you assume that I value money, status and the like, without knowing me. I do not like rituals, traditions, money and status of any kind. I find most things in our present culture quite ridiculous. So please, do not judge me by some stereotypical western airhead ideal.

You have just described your status

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Improvement through evolution is somewhat subjective I would say. After all, improvement needs a certain standard to begin with, but such a standard obviuosly needs to be created, by us that is, for I do not see such a standard given by nature itself. I would rather say evolution is all about change and adaption, whereas both could be seen as improvements if one takes a subjective point of view.

.

So when the eye is said to have 'improved' compared to what it would have been in it's beginning, this is a subjective view? Hardly.

So the fact the human brain is now larger compared with primitive forms of man/primate brain, giving a clear advantage, the improvement seen is 'subjective'? Hardly.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So when the eye is said to have 'improved' compared to what it would have been in it's beginning, this is a subjective view? Hardly.

So the fact the human brain is now larger compared with primitive forms of man/primate brain, giving a clear advantage, the improvement seen is 'subjective'? Hardly.

It's maybe hard to wrap your head around novel ideas, but in the 20th century the idea that evolution was about progress rapidly lost favour among scientists. An idea originating in the 19th century. No longer man was seen as the culmination of the evolutionary process. Just another side branch of the evolutionary bush. Eyes not jusy have gotten more complicated. They also have gotten less complicated. Brains not only have gotten more complicated. They also have gotten less complicated. Humans are merely another species. Show some humiliation please. The world doesn't turn around us. The Sun doesn't turn around the earth.

WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTURY!!!

Hoorah!

 

[Dreamwalker]

So when the eye is said to have 'improved' compared to what it would have been in it's beginning, this is a subjective view? Hardly.

So the fact the human brain is now larger compared with primitive forms of man/primate brain, giving a clear advantage, the improvement seen is 'subjective'? Hardly.

Yes, improvement is subjective, there are organisms on this planet which have not changed in millions of years, are they inferior in some way? Because that is what improvement implies, that some things are better than others. Yet those organisms/animals still have no problem living in this world and are quite successful.
Having a bigger brain is just a way to compensate for something, enabling us to live better/safer and whatnot, other life-forms manage as much without a brain at all. Just having something, or being able to do something that others don't have/can't do, does not mean we are better, we just perceive it to be so.

You have just described your status

No, I just patially told you my mindset, for a description of my status I would have to imply where that places me in society, or how others regard me for the things I do, say and think and how I relate to others.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Yes, improvement is subjective, there are organisms on this planet which have not changed in millions of years, are they inferior in some way? Because that is what improvement implies, that some things are better than others. Yet those organisms/animals still have no problem living in this world and are quite successful.
Having a bigger brain is just a way to compensate for something, enabling us to live better/safer and whatnot, other life-forms manage as much without a brain at all. Just having something, or being able to do something that others don't have/can't do, does not mean we are better, we just perceive it to be so.

.

I'm not talking about 'other organsims' I am talking about humans.

You maintain that our 'improvement' in terms of our brain and physcial characteristics is subjective? Well let's say that my subjective opinion is that we are not more intelligent, not more dexterous than chimps, does that make my view correct, being as there is no objective truth to this question. No it does not. We are improved, we can adapt to any environment on the planet due to our intelligence and ability to problem solve. Chimps cannot problem solve. They could not build a house boat and survive a flood.

We are 'better' than chimps this is not subjective it is fact.

We humans have the ability to destroy every living thing on the planet which other species has this ability?

IMO genetic variation is rather more deliberate than random and as it cannot be proven otherwise.............I'll not be sucked in to the blind faith required to believe it is merely random.

 

[swivel]

If god wants us to behave, we should be able to do that without allegience to him, or blind faith.

If he doesn't care how we behave, as long as we worship him... I don't see how he is a thing worthy of worship.

If he grants eternal damnation for making mistakes that are only a result of the drives he imparted us with, I don't see how he is worthy of worship.

If he grants imortal salvation to people for simply accepting that his son was who someone else said he was, I don't see how he is worthy of worship.


So the way I see it, we can be good people for the sake of being good (which is truly noble), and if a Just God exists, he won't damn us for eternity for being decent to each other.

Or

We can worship an evil thing that demands sacrafices, obeying bizarre rules of behavior that have nothing to do with ethics, a thing that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent creatures, that wins allegience through bribery and fear.


This is why I am such a confident and calm atheist. Even if I am wrong about god's existence, I am correct in not worshipping him. The ultimate sacrafice would be to live a good life, not give into the pressures of a fascist, mean, and dirty religion, and burn for all eternity for my efforts. In fact... doesn't that sound a lot like Jesus' life? Do everything correctly and then be tormented for it? What a much more noble existence than this one of bribery and fear. Of being good for reward.


Edit: ToR, when you say that we have the power of killing everything on this planet, please understand that you are completely wrong. I don't know if you mean this as hyperbole, or what... but all the nukes and explosives in the world would not make a dent into the population of life on the planet. If you are being funny, then forgive me. If you weren't, then please don't spread lies and misinformation.

 

[Dreamwalker]

We humans have the ability to destroy every living thing on the planet which other species has this ability?

Sorry, but I do not have the capability of seeing this as an improvement, apart from it being a gross overstatement of our abilities. And as I said, having certain abilities or a bigger brain or the capability to destroy some parts of the world, do not make one improved, merely different. I am not better than a chimpanse, just as I am in no way better than an amoeba.

 

[S.A.M.]

1. Who and what is God?

What does it matter? It is unnecessary to define God.

2. What does God want, and why?

Nothing. God wants nothing. All want/desire is human.
All our actions are directed toward self-gratification, whether in life or what we perceive as reward after life.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I am not better than a chimpanse, just as I am in no way better than an amoeba.

Ok then if you insist, I agree, YOU are no better than an amoeba, your problem solving and ability to think independantly are no different at all.

I am more sophisticated than a chimp and an amoeba however.

 

[Nickelodeon]

I am more sophisticated than a chimp and an amoeba however.

This is one of the problems I have with religion, it puts man aside from all other creatures as if somehow we are superior to them. We are animals, just like the rest of the animal kingdom. We are important, yes, to ourselves, but in the grand scheme of things we are not.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I am more arrogant than a chimp and an amoeba however.

I corrected your sentence.