"God Is Not Great"

[Colston]

So you don't believe in purpose or an afterlife but you believe there is a creator who ordered the universe...somewhat contradictory no? Is it just 'ordered' for a laugh, just to give God something to do?

I don't believe it is possible to understand 'God...' whatever that might be. You are confusing man made religious concepts with spirituality. I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.

I was advised to... 'be quick to see where religious people are right; make use of what they offer' and it has been sound advice. Religious traditions have spent a lot of time over centuries contemplating these questions, and dogma aside, have come up with a useful and practical set of 'life principles' that help you through the journey of life.

Arrogance is dismissng this wisdom. Hitchens is a prime example of a man so wound up with his own self-importance and bound by the prison of reason that he can't see or hear. Let him who has eyes see and those who have ears hear...

We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be grateful.

The only problem being that all these principles predated Religion. Theology has explained nothing in 2000 years that Science hasn't explained in 300. Everything you mentioned about human nature has evolutionary antecedents.

It is telling that you treat words like 'reason' and 'empiricism' as insults.

I think that 'reason' and 'empiricism' have stilted people's thinking capacities... science has explained some of the physical phenomenon out there. Some.

It has no explanation for most of what constitutes our mind. It has no explanation for interpersonal phenomenon. It is as ignorant as the Church has been for most of its existence.

Most modern day athiests highlight a couple of scriptures they disagree with or that are out of kilter with modern day trends and puke about it with little thought or any real argument.

Explain what you mean by interpersonal phenomena.

The problem for me anyway isn't the scripture itself, that was the argument because mandy was suggesting we use scripture as a rule book for living. The problem for me is the idea of faith or worship without evidence.

I mean what goes on between people... in the space between. When we are communicating... the subtle unsaid things that can't be measured empirically. What is in the 'black box' of fired and unfired neurons in our brains?

What explains why some courses of actions that involve interpersonal interactions produce one set of outcomes and why some others?

Social psychology has attempted to answer these questions and is moving in a radical way towards transpersonal and spiritual answers to these questions. Looking back to the wisdom of the ages as modern scientific method has failed to provide any sufficient explanations.

[til661]

I mean what goes on between people... in the space between. When we are communicating... the subtle unsaid things that can't be measured empirically. What is in the 'black box' of fired and unfired neurons in our brains?

What explains why some courses of actions that involve interpersonal interactions produce one set of outcomes and why some others?

Social psychology has attempted to answer these questions and is moving in a radical way towards transpersonal and spiritual answers to these questions. Looking back to the wisdom of the ages as modern scientific method has failed to provide any sufficient explanations.

Reference?

[nekokate]

Apart from gravity is 'real...'

There are lots of things that are real and not all of them tick the boxes that empirical science suggests you need to tick in order to be reason-able. Popper and his ilk have a lot of people trapped in their minds...

Well, gravity is real, isn't it? Why laugh? We see its effects with our own eyes and we accept it as a definite. The existence of God is not a definite - infact the very word "faith" means to believe in something, or accept it without question. Perhaps there is a God, and either way I have no problem with people worshipping one. My point is merely that if God is real, why do we need to worship Him?

You said "I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not." and I took that to be a reference to religion, since this thread is about religion. I take exception to the thought that if one does not "cooperate with" a particular religion, or belief system (ie. follow it, worship within it) they open themselves to the possibility of some kind of harm (be it something as vague as Karmic strife or something as specific as going to Hell) and so they should live their life a certain way "just incase".

I doubt you specifically believe that, but your words reminded me of my objection to that sort of mindset, so I talked about it.

I had not attacked anyone's athiesm or suggested that any athiest wasn't a good person. Why do you feel so?

In that case why do you feel a religious/spiritual compulsion? If you are good, and I am good, but you worship something and I don't, does that make you a better person? And if not, then why do you bother if both our lots will amount to the same in the end? Unless of course you do believe that by worshipping something you are making sure of some kind of privileged treatment in any ensuing afterlife.

Afterall, isn't that why people of any chosen religion choose to worship? Because they feel that by doing so they are going to be in receipt of some heavenly pass-key that others will not have? My argument against people with those concepts (and I'm not suggesting you feel that way, I'm just putting ideas out there) is that if God really is this wonderful, kind creator, then He's not going to burn you for eternity just because you didn't get on your knees every single day to tell him how great He is.

What do you think about that?

[faceless]

In controversial metaphysical contexts, Kirlian photography, Kirlian energy, and so on, are sometimes referred to as just "Kirlian." Kirlian made controversial claims that his method showed proof of supernatural auras, said to resemble a rough outline of the object like a colorful halo. One of the more striking aspects of Kirlian photography is its reputed ability to illuminate the acupuncture points of the human body[citation needed]. An experiment advanced as evidence of energy fields generated by living entities involves taking Kirlian contact photographs of a picked leaf at set periods, its gradual withering being said to correspond with a decline in the strength of the aura. Scientifically, it is considered more likely that as the leaf loses moisture it becomes less electrically conductive, causing a gradual weakening of the electrical field at the drier edges of the leaf.

I thought I'd just sling this in - if everything has an 'aura' then that could explain some inter-personal phenomena, in that while we are not physically conscious of them (usually) our sub-conscious may be, and is attracted or repelled by it for no logical reason.

[Mandy]

How about the thought that following a religion gives some kind of comfort, like being in a larger family, or social group (I won't say "gang" since that has negative connotations).

How about the thought that following a religion's code increases the chance of a happy life ?

[til661]

How about the thought that following a religion gives some kind of comfort, like being in a larger family, or social group (I won't say "gang" since that has negative connotations).

How about the thought that following a religion's code increases the chance of a happy life ?

You could argue the same about any other group. Could the same argument not be used for nationalism? It makes you part of a larger group and it gives many people a sense of identity. Both have the same problem though, for it to work you need everyone to believe the same religion or to be part of the same nation, otherwise it ends up being an identity which is built on opposition to others identity and leads to the sort of problems we see every day.

[Mandy]

How about the thought that following a religion gives some kind of comfort, like being in a larger family, or social group (I won't say "gang" since that has negative connotations).

How about the thought that following a religion's code increases the chance of a happy life ?

You could argue the same about any other group. Could the same argument not be used for nationalism? It makes you part of a larger group and it gives many people a sense of identity. Both have the same problem though, for it to work you need everyone to believe the same religion or to be part of the same nation, otherwise it ends up being an identity which is built on opposition to others identity and leads to the sort of problems we see every day.

Yes, the same argument could be used for nationalism, Some people may follow both religion and nationalism, or one of them

I believe in society. Your "individualistic" approach reminds me of Maggie Thatcher's suggestion that there is no such thing as society.
As a socialist, I believe in a common good, a collective, or whatever you want to call it. As such, I do NOT believe all "groups" are bad.

[Colston]

Well, gravity is real, isn't it? Why laugh? We see its effects with our own eyes and we accept it as a definite.

That's it... exactly. There is more to this existence than what we can see, feel, hear and see or smell. Science rose and attacked closed-minded religious dogmas and doctrines and has become as close-minded itself. I find that funny.

My point is merely that if God is real, why do we need to worship Him?

Why so? I find that one really hard. I've sat through some religious type discussion and teachings on this subject. I can't get past the image of royalty in the comings and goings of human beings in which the language of the Bible is couched when refering to the majesty of God and the need to worship. It makes me cringe. Why should I genuflect? The nearest I can get to a reason for doing so... is that God made me or at least was the cause of my existence (no idea on the cause and effect, but say I assume that God whatever that might be is the first cause...) and for that I should be grateful. There are also issues around our inperfection as human beigns comapred to God's perfection. I really struggle with that too. Anyhow I do very little worshipping. A lot of praying... but very little worshipping and very little time spent with other believers as they tend to meet in a worship situation.

You said "I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not." and I took that to be a reference to religion, since this thread is about religion. I take exception to the thought that if one does not "cooperate with" a particular religion, or belief system (ie. follow it, worship within it) they open themselves to the possibility of some kind of harm (be it something as vague as Karmic strife or something as specific as going to Hell) and so they should live their life a certain way "just incase".

I think the order is a lot older than any dogma or tradition. I think however that almost all religions and traditions have a good handle on living by principles that promote harmonious living and I mean by that living in harmony with self, with others and the natural world.

I think some people get angry at religious people for pointing things out that are already there because they don't want to not do some things or take the consequences for doing so. I'll do what I want how I want and sod the consequences... when the pastor then sits you down and suggests you are unhappy or ill or lost as a result of your actions you squeal and blame the pastor or call him names, as if the pastor were responsible for the ills.

I had not attacked anyone's athiesm or suggested that any athiest wasn't a good person. Why do you feel so?

In that case why do you feel a religious/spiritual compulsion? If you are good, and I am good, but you worship something and I don't, does that make you a better person? And if not, then why do you bother if both our lots will amount to the same in the end? Unless of course you do believe that by worshipping something you are making sure of some kind of privileged treatment in any ensuing afterlife.

Afterall, isn't that why people of any chosen religion choose to worship? Because they feel that by doing so they are going to be in receipt of some heavenly pass-key that others will not have? My argument against people with those concepts (and I'm not suggesting you feel that way, I'm just putting ideas out there) is that if God really is this wonderful, kind creator, then He's not going to burn you for eternity just because you didn't get on your knees every single day to tell him how great He is.

What do you think about that?

Again.. I'm not attacking your position... my signature is from a well known athiest Jean-Paul Sartre... I look to all points of view to make sense of life and the world for me.

I wonder why you feel attacked when you weren't? A lot of the athiests who come to public attention seem to be really angry about people who choose to believe in God. Why so?

[Colston]

I mean what goes on between people... in the space between. When we are communicating... the subtle unsaid things that can't be measured empirically. What is in the 'black box' of fired and unfired neurons in our brains?

What explains why some courses of actions that involve interpersonal interactions produce one set of outcomes and why some others?

Social psychology has attempted to answer these questions and is moving in a radical way towards transpersonal and spiritual answers to these questions. Looking back to the wisdom of the ages as modern scientific method has failed to provide any sufficient explanations.

Reference?

Any critical social psychology book...

Henriques et al (1984) Changing the subject
Rose (1990) Governing the soul

[web]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology[/web]

[web]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber[/web]

[Colston]

In controversial metaphysical contexts, Kirlian photography, Kirlian energy, and so on, are sometimes referred to as just "Kirlian." Kirlian made controversial claims that his method showed proof of supernatural auras, said to resemble a rough outline of the object like a colorful halo. One of the more striking aspects of Kirlian photography is its reputed ability to illuminate the acupuncture points of the human body[citation needed]. An experiment advanced as evidence of energy fields generated by living entities involves taking Kirlian contact photographs of a picked leaf at set periods, its gradual withering being said to correspond with a decline in the strength of the aura. Scientifically, it is considered more likely that as the leaf loses moisture it becomes less electrically conductive, causing a gradual weakening of the electrical field at the drier edges of the leaf.

I thought I'd just sling this in - if everything has an 'aura' then that could explain some inter-personal phenomena, in that while we are not physically conscious of them (usually) our sub-conscious may be, and is attracted or repelled by it for no logical reason.

Ken Wilber's integral theory is very interesting...

[web]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory[/web]

[nekokate]

I wonder why you feel attacked when you weren't? A lot of the athiests who come to public attention seem to be really angry about people who choose to believe in God. Why so?

Hang on just a second. I never said I felt attacked, and I don't feel attacked. We're just bouncing ideas off each other, aren't we?

Why do you feel that I feel attacked? lol!

I note also that you didn't tell me what you thought of my position :p

[til661]

Yes, the same argument could be used for nationalism, Some people may follow both religion and nationalism, or one of them

I believe in society. Your "individualistic" approach reminds me of Maggie Thatcher's suggestion that there is no such thing as society.
As a socialist, I believe in a common good, a collective, or whatever you want to call it. As such, I do NOT believe all "groups" are bad.

And how do you propose to convince everyone, enforced indoctrination?

[Mandy]

Yes, the same argument could be used for nationalism, Some people may follow both religion and nationalism, or one of them

I believe in society. Your "individualistic" approach reminds me of Maggie Thatcher's suggestion that there is no such thing as society.
As a socialist, I believe in a common good, a collective, or whatever you want to call it. As such, I do NOT believe all "groups" are bad.

And how do you propose to convince everyone, enforced indoctrination?

!?!?!??!? I have no interest in convincing everyone. I never said there can only be 1 society or 1 religion or 1 nationality in the world.

People are free to follow what they like .. I just believe that being individualistic reduces your chances of "success" and happiness.

We have gone through Maggie's and Blair's capitalism which promotes individual benefit, and to hell with the environmental effects, or the effects on others, as long as the "individual" (or corporation) makes a profit. Though even a corporation is a "group".

[til661]

You advocated that we should use religion as part of societal morality. How do you do this without everyone believing it?

[Colston]

I wonder why you feel attacked when you weren't? A lot of the athiests who come to public attention seem to be really angry about people who choose to believe in God. Why so?

Hang on just a second. I never said I felt attacked, and I don't feel attacked. We're just bouncing ideas off each other, aren't we?

Why do you feel that I feel attacked? lol!

I misconstrued how you felt. My apologies.

I note also that you didn't tell me what you thought of my position :p

Okay... here goes.

Afterall, isn't that why people of any chosen religion choose to worship? Because they feel that by doing so they are going to be in receipt of some heavenly pass-key that others will not have?

That might be some people's reason for believing I guess. Some Christian doctrines (JW's for instance) promise an exclusive afterlife free from the fires of hell for doing X, Y and Z.

A literal reading of the new Testament suggests that all you need to do is believe in Jesus and that gets you in regardless of any behaviour or any other obstacle as you become the righteousness of Christ by believing... that doctrine is Pauline though. I get so much more inspiration from the four gospels and some of the non canonical gospels such as Thomas.

I think a lot of people myself included find help and comfort from taking guidance for living this life in the here-and-now...

My argument against people with those concepts (and I'm not suggesting you feel that way, I'm just putting ideas out there) is that if God really is this wonderful, kind creator, then He's not going to burn you for eternity just because you didn't get on your knees every single day to tell him how great He is.

What do you think about that?

It comes back to the just how big and magnificent is God...

I went to Rome a month or so ago for the first time and visited the Vatican and St Peter's church is the most amazingly beautiful man made structure I have ever seen. Awe inspiring and no doubt produced from being awe inspired by the magnificence of God as the people who built it understood God.

I think worship is inspired by awe and love not fear.

There are some really dumb Christians who try and frighten people into believing by threatening people with hell fire...

In Paul's epistle to the Romans his version of the gospel provokes a reaction of disbelief. It is almost too good to be true news... he doesn't threaten but promises salvation through grace. In fact the reaction that he plays out in the letter is one of... well if that is so why don't we do what we want anyway as God is so gracious.