Are we Ready To Drop God?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire That alters the matter not one iota. Is that all you can say?

The Matrix is meant to be an alegory for Jesus which is EXACTLY why I stated BEFORE neo shows up. I guess I've read more of the books on it than you have. The years in between when Morpheous gets unplugged and the first film are pretty interesting.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: jd420 LSD, psilocybin, DMT, ibogaine... ...if we presume (rather than taking the usual agnosticism) that no divine presence is actual... the receptor set is still there. Ream hard enough on direct serotonin/dopamine/norepinephrine receptor agonism in the right balance, people are damn well going to have a religious experience... God or no God.

beautiful.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Chimowowo Well, yours. If all it takes is to want to be with God when you die, and you will be, then what happens if you want to be with God when you die, but you don't believe in God or The Bible, or in organized Religion? In otherwords, if all it takes is the want, then is the want alone enough? The obvious answer is no...you have to really believe. Well then it's not the want that is enough, it's the belief.

But why would you want to be with a God you despise? My God IS the God of the Bible. See my point? People want to go to the Kingdom of Heaven but they don't want to have to deal with its King. They want to go to a heaven of their own creation so that a god of their imagination can say well done for being you. Doesn't work like that.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric The Matrix is meant to be an alegory for Jesus which is EXACTLY why I stated BEFORE neo shows up. I guess I've read more of the books on it than you have. The years in between when Morpheous gets unplugged and the first film are pretty interesting.

I haven't read any of that stuff. I've only seen the movies and the Animatrix. I wasn't even aware that books existed, although it makes sense.

[Cephus]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I doubt I can make you understand it. Heck. Even I can't fathom it, and I'm actually trying.

Maybe the reason you can't fathom it is because it's silly and irrational.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We appear to be wired for God. That is, whether or not there is a creator or a spirit realm, we appear to be neurologically predisposed to sense those things.

We're not wired for God, we're wired to seek out answers to questions that we uncover. We're also very creative. When we cannot find the answers to questions, we simply invent a solution, which is where God came from. We invented deities to explain things that were, at the time, unexplainable. Unfortunately, far too many people have never turned from those simplistic invented explanations when we did, indeed, discover the truth. That's why religion continues today, not because we're wired for it, but because it's a heck of a lot easier to believe something comforting than it is to deal with reality.

[Chimowowo]

Quote by: phoenix_fire But why would you want to be with a God you despise? My God IS the God of the Bible. See my point? People want to go to the Kingdom of Heaven but they don't want to have to deal with its King. They want to go to a heaven of their own creation so that a god of their imagination can say well done for being you. Doesn't work like that.

Most atheists don't despise God. We simply don't believe he exists. Do you despise unicorns? Do you despise lepricahns? Not believing is in no way, equal to despising it. However, most atheists, do despise religion though. They do despise christians themselves. My point was though, that wanting to be with God is not enough. Someone who doesn't believe in unicorns, can want to be with them. Someone who does not believe in leprecahns, can want to see them. But if you don't believe, but want to be with God, will you be? Honestly I don't see why anyone would want to be with such an irrational, unjust, and tempermental God though.

I must ask you, are you a good Christian, because you don't want to go to hell?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Then what deity would you want to be with? One out of your own imagination, created from your own judgment of right and wrong?

If we are talking about avoiding eternal torture, I would not be too picky. The one you imagine, as monstrous as he is, would still be superior to eternal torture.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Please elaborate, as this makes no sense to me. If there is no "divine presence", which is my stance, then how can you propose that we have the capacity to sense that which doesn't exist?

You dream.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: phoenix_fire But why would you want to be with a God you despise? My God IS the God of the Bible. See my point? People want to go to the Kingdom of Heaven but they don't want to have to deal with its King. They want to go to a heaven of their own creation so that a god of their imagination can say well done for being you. Doesn't work like that.

You imagine it doesn't work like that.

Regardless, I would rather be with your god of torture than be on the receiving end of that torture for eternity.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Cephus We're not wired for God, we're wired to seek out answers to questions that we uncover. We're also very creative. When we cannot find the answers to questions, we simply invent a solution, which is where God came from. We invented deities to explain things that were, at the time, unexplainable. Unfortunately, far too many people have never turned from those simplistic invented explanations when we did, indeed, discover the truth. That's why religion continues today, not because we're wired for it, but because it's a heck of a lot easier to believe something comforting than it is to deal with reality.

If materialism is correct, then we are wired to have NDEs and OBEs and peak experiences. These things happen accross all cultures, with a great deal of similiarity between them.

[CoffeeSaint]

I think society is ready to live without god. Honestly, I think we've always been ready; I'm not sure how believing in god has helped people at all. If one already believes in god then the utility of that belief is already proven, but imagining a society, or an individual, which does not have that belief, what would be the benefit? When pamphleteers have come to my door, their pitch usually seems to be that they are offering answers to the mysteries of life, and hope for a solution to the larger problems of society. If I were to take them up on their offer, and accept the church's explanation, perhaps it would make me feel better (not that I feel badly, but let's imagine).

But otherwise, what are the positive results? Rather than trying to find a solution to society's problems that stems from an examination of those problems, I would have to accept that the only possible solution is to convert all people and make them follow the tenets of my new faith; this does not reflect the realities of human nature, since most religions seem to require that we deny our nature in some way, usually in terms of refusing the physical in order to be more spiritual. Because this is a denial of human nature, I cannot see it as a long term solution; even in societies where faith has been effectively universal, human nature still keeps people doing things that are proscribed by the religious taboos. Conversion of unbelievers is not a path to social improvement.

It is the same with the answers to life's mysteries: if I am given a pat answer, I will no longer feel a need to seek the answers for myself. I will instead have to ponder a whole new set of mysteries, since the dogma that I have now accepted, not being my own creation, will not perfectly fit my personal experiences and worldview, it will bring me as many new questions as it did old answers. Instead of wondering why there is evil in the world, I will now wonder how long it is until Judgement Day, and whether god will accept or reject me -- and so on.

Giving someone the answers never helps them. The answers will not be satisfactory when they have not been generated by the person asking the questions. Giving a person answers limits that person's growth, and strongly implies that the person is not capable of finding his or her own answers -- and that's the reason that religious proselytizers are often seen as arrogant: not only do they claim the answers, but they imply that any non-believer is incapable of finding truth for himself.

Let me ask this: if the truth of god is so undeniable, so omnipresent, why should anyone have to be converted to it? Shouldn't we be able to come to it ourselves?

Humans have always been capable of finding their own truth. We should be allowed to do so, and then we will rise to the occasion. So no, we don't need god. If we no longer had him, people would be better off.

[Jack]

You dream.

Yes, I do. But in the case of dreams, NDEs and the rest, I've never heard of anyone imagining anything that wasn't already known to them. Our brains are marvelous mechanisms, able to take all the input they receive every day and recombine it into fantastic dreams and imaginings. I don't see anything divine about it, nor do I perceive any divinity about any aspect of life.

[Athena]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Hello, I'm an aethist and I was wondering what this world would be without the idae of god but keeping the same morals that judaism and Christianity preach. Does anyone think we're ready to drop this allmighty power from crushing us? I say we aren't ready. I dont' think the majority would view things through a lense of logic and sense. But we could always fix that by schooling them in morals and what's right and wrong. (wasn't that the parents job?). So are we ready?

We opened free public education to transmit a culture essential to liberty. Parents can not teach what they do not know, and the US was being flooded with immigrants from all over the world. The world was autocratic, and religion definitely repressed people. The US was a New Social Order and freedoms not known around the world. The sole purpose of public education was to prepare our young for good citizenship, and it was known by teaching the children the parents would learn.

The God issus is so annoying! Our forefathers were not only Protestant, but were protesting Protestantism as well! They had a burning passion to know truth, and they turned to science and nature, not holy books. We must recapture this. Let the God issue be. Do as the deist did, assume there is a God, but question if any holy book is the authority on God. We do not have good reason to believe holy books are good sources of authority on anything but morality, and when it comes to morality, they all say thing.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood Yes, I do. But in the case of dreams, NDEs and the rest, I've never heard of anyone imagining anything that wasn't already known to them. Our brains are marvelous mechanisms, able to take all the input they receive every day and recombine it into fantastic dreams and imaginings. I don't see anything divine about it, nor do I perceive any divinity about any aspect of life.

It is all divine. The moment the energy of that divinity stops, the whole universe disappears. Why not relax and accept everything is a manifestion of the divine. Than we can move on to more meaningful discussions, such as the nature of the divine. The only way to know the nature of the divine, is to study nature, right?

[Athena]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I think society is ready to live without god. Honestly, I think we've always been ready; I'm not sure how believing in god has helped people at all. If one already believes in god then the utility of that belief is already proven, but imagining a society, or an individual, which does not have that belief, what would be the benefit? When pamphleteers have come to my door, their pitch usually seems to be that they are offering answers to the mysteries of life, and hope for a solution to the larger problems of society. If I were to take them up on their offer, and accept the church's explanation, perhaps it would make me feel better (not that I feel badly, but let's imagine). But otherwise, what are the positive results? Rather than trying to find a solution to society's problems that stems from an examination of those problems, I would have to accept that the only possible solution is to convert all people and make them follow the tenets of my new faith; this does not reflect the realities of human nature, since most religions seem to require that we deny our nature in some way, usually in terms of refusing the physical in order to be more spiritual. Because this is a denial of human nature, I cannot see it as a long term solution; even in societies where faith has been effectively universal, human nature still keeps people doing things that are proscribed by the religious taboos. Conversion of unbelievers is not a path to social improvement. It is the same with the answers to life's mysteries: if I am given a pat answer, I will no longer feel a need to seek the answers for myself. I will instead have to ponder a whole new set of mysteries, since the dogma that I have now accepted, not being my own creation, will not perfectly fit my personal experiences and worldview, it will bring me as many new questions as it did old answers. Instead of wondering why there is evil in the world, I will now wonder how long it is until Judgement Day, and whether god will accept or reject me -- and so on. Giving someone the answers never helps them. The answers will not be satisfactory when they have not been generated by the person asking the questions. Giving a person answers limits that person's growth, and strongly implies that the person is not capable of finding his or her own answers -- and that's the reason that religious proselytizers are often seen as arrogant: not only do they claim the answers, but they imply that any non-believer is incapable of finding truth for himself. Let me ask this: if the truth of god is so undeniable, so omnipresent, why should anyone have to be converted to it? Shouldn't we be able to come to it ourselves? Humans have always been capable of finding their own truth. We should be allowed to do so, and then we will rise to the occasion. So no, we don't need god. If we no longer had him, people would be better off.

The original,and sole purpose, of public education in the US and England, was preparing the young for good citizenship. German, started education for technology for military and industrial purpose. The philosophy behind their education is everyone is born with a blank brain, and anything can be written on it, providing the right technic is used. England, and to an important degree, the US did not like this idea of blank brain equality, and education for technology. Democracy is an ideology that must be learned, and the US has always been largely autocratic, not having secular education for democracy until 1840's.

In 1958 Eisenhower was motivated by military men to replace our liberal education with the German model of education for technology, and as Germany did, we stopped transmitting a culture and left moral training to the church. Now we have the military technology to destroy the world and not the wisdom to use it. Again, Christianity has become the destructive force that it was in Europe, from which the US had separated itself!!!

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Cephus Maybe the reason you can't fathom it is because it's silly and irrational.

The pain of torture? C'mon, Cephus, are you actually reading what these posts refer to? Don't make silly and irrelevant comments.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Chimowowo Most atheists don't despise God. We simply don't believe he exists. Do you despise unicorns? Do you despise lepricahns? Not believing is in no way, equal to despising it. However, most atheists, do despise religion though. They do despise christians themselves. My point was though, that wanting to be with God is not enough. Someone who doesn't believe in unicorns, can want to be with them. Someone who does not believe in leprecahns, can want to see them. But if you don't believe, but want to be with God, will you be? Honestly I don't see why anyone would want to be with such an irrational, unjust, and tempermental God though. I must ask you, are you a good Christian, because you don't want to go to hell?

I know a lot of atheists that despise God. They think that if He really exists, He is cruel and unjust and heartless, and choose to pretend He's not there rather then do Him the favor of acknowledging Him. Sure they can present all sorts of facts and explanations that they think might in some way disindicate His existence. But in truth, they simply can't accept that reality could be ruled by Someone they find to be so evil.

I don't think He's evil. I think He is good and pure and just and loving. I am a Christian because I know God and I love Him enough to give up everything for Him. I seek His presence and His face. I am not a Christian just to avoid fire and brimstone. I am a Christian to avoid ever having to be apart from God. Since I consider the latter to be the true definition and horror of Hell, then I suppose your statement might be considered correct.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You imagine it doesn't work like that. Regardless, I would rather be with your god of torture than be on the receiving end of that torture for eternity.

That is cold. And He is not a deity of torture.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Isherwood Yes, I do. But in the case of dreams, NDEs and the rest, I've never heard of anyone imagining anything that wasn't already known to them. Our brains are marvelous mechanisms, able to take all the input they receive every day and recombine it into fantastic dreams and imaginings. I don't see anything divine about it, nor do I perceive any divinity about any aspect of life.

The problem alot of us run into as human beings trying to discuss all these ideas is the words we're forced to used. divine for isherwood seems to have a supernatural implication, because the word divine has been the intellectual property of only one of humanity's institutions, organized religion. therefore for a long time human thought could not say something was divine without consulting the rules of their church first.
to say that something is divine is not to imply that the false mythical metaphysics of the past are true; it simply means it can inspire. atheists and the like do not use these words because of the cultural and social implications that they imply, and they do need to draw the line somewhere so that they're still atheists. The fact is that our brains are definitely marvelous mechanisms, and if you don't call it divine, you just call them amazing or awesome or powerful, I think you're trying to communicate the same idea as religious people, just with different words.

Quote by: phoenix_fire That is cold. And He is not a deity of torture.

you would do well to read your own signature, phoenix