Why we accepted god

[Nanonetics]

One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live.

They ask him: “Who you?”
He: “I King.”
They: “Your name King?”
He: “No; my name John.”
They: “Why call self King if name John?”
He: “I special person, agent of God.”
They: “You look different but not special; who God?”
He: “God creator of world.”
They: “Where God?; How create world?”
He: “God everywhere; God all-powerful.”
They: “How we see God?”
He: “Can’t see God.”
They: “You speak crazy.”
He: “No; I special; I show you.”

Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear.

They: “You clever man-who-tricks.”
He: “I special; I King.”
They: “You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks.”
He: “I King; my word law.”
They: “What law? -- special word?”
He: “Yes; my word law-you must obey.”
They: “Ah! You mean order-word!”
He: “Yes; I King; I make law.”
They: “No; you speak order-word?”
He: “Yes; I special.”
They: “What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?”
He: “You not understand.”
They: “No.”

Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a “special status” and that his words are different from the words of anyone else-so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere...
For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2.

They: “Who you?”
He: “I King.”
They: “Your name King?”
He: “No, my name John.”
They: “Why call self King if name John?”
He: “I special person, agent of God.”
They: “You look different; what God?”
He: “God creator of world.”
They: Where God?; How create world?”
He “God everywhere; God all-powerful.”
They: “Show special?”

Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear.

They: “You King, agent of God.”
He: “Yes, my word law.”
They: “What law?”
He: “Law special word of God through me; you must obey.”

Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John-they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their “King” and his word as “law.”

Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth...

- Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)

 

[usp8riot]

The tree of lies, and might I add, ignorance, is believing there was no inducer of the movement of the universe. Like a spinning top, but yet some not only debate the topic when someone claims something spun the top, but debate their integrity. And to believe in no God when they are serving God and not even know it, ironic isn't it? You are serving God by testing the faith of others. In a universe made by God, you have no choice but to serve God whether you think it or not. But when the believers serve God, they will be rewarded as they reaped and so the same for the disbelievers. All rewarded for the good or bad they have caused. So many test givers and so few who wish to accept the test.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Nanonetics, that was good, and most likely true. Religion is for the gullible, or the corrupt.

 

[(Q)]

But when the believers serve God, they will be rewarded as they reaped and so the same for the disbelievers. All rewarded for the good or bad they have caused. So many test givers and so few who wish to accept the test.

The reward/punishment system is childish and ineffective.

If men can figure that out, why can't your god?

 

[usp8riot]

The reward/punishment system is childish and ineffective.

Yes, we are all part of a childish and ineffective system then. What a flop life is then. That when we work for someone, they reward us with money or an exchange of goods for what we've done for them. And when someone murders or a danger to society, they are sent away from society for a specified time. Childish and ineffective isn't it? So what is a better way?

 

[(Q)]

Yes, it is childish and ineffective. Certainly, there are better ways to run a society, none of which have had the chance to prove themselves. The first step is to eradicate religion. We'll go nowhere until that is done.

 

[usp8riot]

That is all part of the balance of life. That is the way of the universe. There is no other way and if God sees it best, then it is best. It is constant exchange. So you say we shouldn't exchange at all? Just as atoms exchange neutrons, collision forces exchange energy, people exchange knowledge/wealth/services, when one needs something it lacks and steps up to recieve it, it is exchanged for another. It is the way the universe works, can't change it. It is the balance. None too little or none too much. It must be that way. Everything must be balanced on that fine line. Just as you lack knowledge, you search for it from another who has what you are looking for. And hopefully, one who lacks it, you share with another who needs it. If you may need money, you work for someone who exchanges money/goods for your services. And if someone needs money, and you need a good or service they have, you give them money for the goods or their service. Childish and ineffective huh? Don't you see the irony and what you are calling your own deeds?

 

[mallory]

irradicate religon? then take away america. In god we trust on the dollar bill in ur pocket, has it melted u yet? and as for naonetics, how arrogant a view that the simpletons of ur skit followed him on sight alone, how narrow a thought, well it is your story. anytime God is involved it is rarely visual, but to someone who doesnt have the ability to connect to their inner being it would be redundant for the traveler to even stop, wait that was the result of the first tribe he approached. Elijah, the firery prophet, never saw god but enlisted him daily without ever opening his mouth. You speak threw your heart when it comes to god. If the story were true, the man, if god was with him, deemed it unessecary to speak his mission cuz the people would have seen him beeming and knew that god was with him, again without a word. in the book of exodus where moses descends mt sinai. his wife could tell by his brow that god was with him.

 

[(Q)]

That is all part of the balance of life. That is the way of the universe. There is no other way and if God sees it best, then it is best.

Does he see it best when 17,000 innocent children die of starvation every day?

It is constant exchange. So you say we shouldn't exchange at all? Just as atoms exchange neutrons, collision forces exchange energy, people exchange knowledge/wealth/services, when one needs something it lacks and steps up to recieve it, it is exchanged for another. It is the way the universe works, can't change it. It is the balance. None too little or none too much. It must be that way. Everything must be balanced on that fine line. Just as you lack knowledge, you search for it from another who has what you are looking for. And hopefully, one who lacks it, you share with another who needs it. If you may need money, you work for someone who exchanges money/goods for your services. And if someone needs money, and you need a good or service they have, you give them money for the goods or their service. Childish and ineffective huh? Don't you see the irony and what you are calling your own deeds?

You speak of things that occur in reality, what does reality have to do with gods? Those who fantasize about gods have been running our societies based on their fantasies, that must stop.

 

[Bowser]

"Does he see it best when 17,000 innocent children die of starvation every day?"

That would be the responsibility of people. Not Gods.

"You speak of things that occur in reality, what does reality have to do with gods? Those who fantasize about gods have been running our societies based on their fantasies, that must stop."

Why? How much better has a secular society such as North Korea or China performed in contrast to those that have freedom of religion?

 

[glaucon]

"Does he see it best when 17,000 innocent children die of starvation every day?"

That would be the responsibility of people. Not Gods.

Correct; as all activity is a result of people. Nevertheless, you miss the point. Those who support the idea of a benign deity must account for that being's inability to play an active role in the lives of its believers.

"You speak of things that occur in reality, what does reality have to do with gods? Those who fantasize about gods have been running our societies based on their fantasies, that must stop."

Why? How much better has a secular society such as North Korea or China performed in contrast to those that have freedom of religion?

Because idealism based on extra-human ethics is counter-productive. Secular society has performed much better than religious societies because they are free: religion is by necessity an enslavement of the mind.

 

[Bowser]

" Those who support the idea of a benign deity must account for that being's inability to play an active role in the lives of its believers.

Free Will then? Benign deity suggests to me a passive God.

"Because idealism based on extra-human ethics is counter-productive. Secular society has performed much better than religious societies because they are free: religion is by necessity an enslavement of the mind."

Idealism exists. You cannot remove it from society, otherwise, society could not exist. Even a secular society must identify with absolutes. The concept of God is more diverse and more liberal than any idea a secular society could offer. I'm not suggesting that the God concept cannot be exploited, but it does offer itself to individual interpretation and individual beliefs. The law of man is much less forgiving. I might be wrong, but extreme secularism is no better than extreme theism.

Enslavement of the mind... Shoot, what is the point unless you are replacing one concept with another. In a secular society you would find yourself worshiping less personal things, all of them external and material.

 

[(Q)]

That would be the responsibility of people. Not Gods.

Hence the need to erradicate religion as soon as possible, so that people can take responsibility for mankind rather than hoping a god will get around to it.

Why? How much better has a secular society such as North Korea or China performed in contrast to those that have freedom of religion?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Communism isn't freedom to do anything. And since I spent the better part of a year in the Soviet Union, I can tell you that people practice their religion, regardless of what the state imposes.

 

[glaucon]

" Those who support the idea of a benign deity must account for that being's inability to play an active role in the lives of its believers.

Free Will then? Benign deity suggests to me a passive God.

Not sure how you're introducing free willl here....
Assuming you believe in an omniscient and/or omnipotent deity, then how do you reconcile such a power idling away as its worshippers suffer?? Passivity is a greater cause of harm than any act whatsoever.

"Because idealism based on extra-human ethics is counter-productive. Secular society has performed much better than religious societies because they are free: religion is by necessity an enslavement of the mind."

Idealism exists. You cannot remove it from society, otherwise, society could not exist. Even a secular society must identify with absolutes.

It exists solely in the minds of those who create it. Sure one can identify an absolute, perhaps even strive to attain it, but an intelligent mind does so fully knowing that it is just that: an ideal, not a real thing.


Enslavement of the mind... Shoot, what is the point unless you are replacing one concept with another. In a secular society you would find yourself worshiping less personal things, all of them external and material.

The point is exactly that one chooses one's concept, and can choose to discard it as well. Less personal? Things we deal with, enjoy or make use of on a daily basis as opposed to a mythical, invisible, passive fantasy???
Please.

 

[usp8riot]

Those who support the idea of a benign deity must account for that being's inability to play an active role in the lives of its believers.

First off, that's a different reality. I don't account for my God playing an active role in the lives of His believers. There is no 'magic' in believing, if that's what you think, not in my reality. You don't just believe and suddenly you're immortal or live longer than anyone. Having a God, or atleast to me and His rules I see, just means I have rules. And if I follow those rules, I am more than likely going to have a more peaceful, fulfilled, satisfied, and purposeful life. You may get your info from holy texts, I get mine from reality, I call it as I see it. Those that have rules to do good to others, it comes around, and others do good to them. Simple science and psychology. That is the reward for believing in God and following His rules, for here on earth anyway. And not all 17,000 children believe in God, everyone knows this. And not all believers in God will be saved from death, everyone knows this, in fact, none I know. Believers and non-believers alike, this is reality, the point shouldn't even have to be argued. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you won't die. And reality has everything to do with God when He is the God of reality.

 

[glaucon]

Firstly, let me say that I appreciate your reasonable words. They are all too rare within these Religion threads. I'm glad to see your disdain for 'magic' and your appreciation of science. Nonetheless, given what you've said, and given my experience, it is indeed possible to lead a peaceful life, according to an ethical system, without the need to appeal to an imaginary being for a sanction of those rules. The notion that there is a conditional relationship (...if I follow god's rules, i am more than likely to....) between behaviour and reward is warning enough that the goal, if achieved, would be a hollow one. Kindness, good behaviour towards man, etc., is its own reward. Our reality is ours to explore and understand; thousands of years of human experience has provided sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no god like being. Reality is . To artificially adjoin constructions simply to mollify our fears, or to direct behaviour, is illogical, childish and weak.

 

[usp8riot]

Thanks for the kind words Glaucon but as much as I love science and a perfectionist at heart, to let no theory go untested, that is the step I have to make to believe in God. And others like myself really value their word, and won't accept or speak of something as true when they are not sure. My words mean a lot to me as it does a lot of you. And it's hard to condone something as true if you do not see 100% scientific proof for it. I guess that's where belief comes in. I can't help but looking up at the stars at night, staring into the galaxy, to be awed by what I see. To think this all gave birth to me and all of us, it is my father, in a sense. I am a product of the universe, it is my birther, my father, it gave me life. It gave me my body, my ability to convert energy from the materials of the earth, giving me the ability to comprehend and I see that as God, or part of Him anyhow. I'm not foolish enough to believe that everything I see is all that is. It is just all that we need to see to function as intended. If I put myself in my former atheist mindset, yes, it's hard to comprehend how what we see out there as intelligent but to me now, it's very easy to comprehend that we are an intelligent by-product of an intelligent entity.

 

[(Q)]

usp8riot

What you've done is admitted that your belief in god is a fantasy generated from your imagination and that you willfully generated it because you want to believe in a god.

No different than most other theists.

 

[Confutatis]

Hence the need to erradicate religion as soon as possible, so that people can take responsibility for mankind rather than hoping a god will get around to it.

It's quite amazing how people misrepresent religion out of ignorance. If you look at the historical record as well as the world around you, it's actually the people who believe in God who are moved to do something about improving the world. For the most part, it is religious people who are in the field helping the poor, healing the sick, comforting the miserable.

Communism isn't freedom to do anything.

Neither is capitalism. It astonishes me that a person who has to go through 12 years of compulsory education and some 40 years of forced employment thinks himself free.

 

[(Q)]

It's quite amazing how people misrepresent religion out of ignorance. If you look at the historical record as well as the world around you, it's actually the people who believe in God who are moved to do something about improving the world. For the most part, it is religious people who are in the field helping the poor, healing the sick, comforting the miserable.

There are a tremendous amount of historical records that don't bode well with religion, for the most part. And I'm sure that helping the poor, etc does not require the need to believe in gods. We would most likely find that there is a proportional amount of non-believers to believers as there are people helping.

Neither is capitalism. It astonishes me that a person who has to go through 12 years of compulsory education and some 40 years of forced employment thinks himself free.

Who says one is forced to work for 40 years?