News The God Debate

[Muzikluvr]

I came across the full quote by chance the other day. I thought it made a good point. I often post a quote over chat, so I posted that one. Later, I decided I'd like to discuss it and many other questions I have about God and religion, so I started this thread.

 

[Hashi]

God is defined by religion

Says who?

There are religions that have no god. There are ideas of God that have no religion. I've already posted about both those things, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Some people define God by religion. Not all. Probably not the majority of people.

No, you're right, it won't likely happen because people just morph their God to match their updated beliefs; which protects those social norms that are already in place

Some people morph their God to match their updated beliefs. Not all... I'm just repeating myself in this thread over and over again.

I honestly think you're still over-generalising. I admire and respect how open you are to other viewpoints about this. I'm struggling with how you seem to then continue in the same way regardless.

Who are these "people" who morph their God to match their updated beliefes? Please, please, think about this. Are they Buddhists? People in the UK? Rastarians? Quakers? People in Indonesia? Please - think before you say "religion", "God", "people" or anything else. Please.

 

[Tinyflame]

I agree with @Hashi . Very broad generalizations. Even believing in God I don't find myself thinking or responding the way it's said in this thread people would think I would, or think it infers I 'therefore believe such-and-such' or 'would-do-such-and-such'. (? :confused: )

I think actually money, or hence power, controls much in the world, JMHO.

 

[Tinyflame]

What I guess I mean is, I find it fractured logic to say religion makes good people do bad things. Why blame religion, or by extrapolation 'God'? If I choose to do something bad, I choose it. Period.

Similarly, I do not feel like a 'sheep'. If anything, I find that, whatever one wants to call it- belief, religion, church- that it is more like they describe 'good therapy' to be: supportive, yet with responsibility- personal accountabilty, learning to go gently with everyone, even myself (the difficult part). Questioning, and looking at things from many angles. But not being pessimistic or all-or-nothing thinking, either. Learning how most everything (unless it is abuse, etc) is not just black-or-white. Even defining 'abuse'.

 

[Muzikluvr]

@Hashi you are only distracting us from the questions at hand. I have already admitted my faults, and they are posted for others to read. Please stop taking pot shots at my posts like I've asserted some kind of authority over the material. I am discussing God, religion, and society... and also, I'm giving a view of my atheist perspective.

Shall I learn every religion, all the history on each of them, what their contributions to the world have been, and what their crimes against humanity have been before speaking out against the dangers of embracing a deity whose communication is limited to certain people, thousands of years ago, and whom has not spoken to anyone since? How many masters must I consider serving before I denounce the idea of any of them?

How about we rule out the discussion of all religions which do not include a deity? The title of the thread is "The God Debate" after all. If the religion has no god, then should it be included here anyway?

We have already established that I am discussing Christianity, my brand of it - is it my fault that there are as many Christian doctrines as their are towns in the world? I can't possibly keep up with all the varieties of Christian belief. It is, actually, one of the issues I've noted about Christianity... it morphs to please it's recipients. With it, it's God morphs. You are free to contribute information on other religions, other gods, other Christian perspectives. I am not limiting the thread, but by my ignorance of the other religions and by the lack of other contributors regarding them - you being one of them.

Similarly, I do not feel like a 'sheep'.

You may not feel like one, but in the Christian church you are referred to as a member of the flock, and Jesus is your shepherd.[DOUBLEPOST=1400534729][/DOUBLEPOST]My concern is that, using a deity to express the laws of the land creates a reverence which precludes most people from questioning it, or attempting to change it or simply contributing wisdom which may contradict it or appear irreverent. Religion has encompassed many great social guides to our behavior, but just as many terrible ones. I believe that if a deity weren't attached to these guides then society would respond quicker to new information and new understanding that would enhance our society.

Christopher Hitchens writes "Once the decision is taken to do without awe and reverence, if only for a moment, the Mother Teresa phenomenon assumes the proportions of the ordinary and even the political."

 

[Muzikluvr]

What I guess I mean is, I find it fractured logic to say religion makes good people do bad things. Why blame religion, or by extrapolation 'God'? If I choose to do something bad, I choose it. Period.

Why did the Muslims fly 2 planes full of people into the Twin Towers, a 3rd plane into the Pentagon, and crash land a 4th plane meant for the White House? Why?

I don't blame God for it, since I believe he is a creation of mankind, used to unite people... He is not real. How could I blame him for anything?

When it is in His name that groups of people do cruel things to one another, justified by their religious beliefs, believing that they are doing good things by excluding or punishing sinners, then "good people" do bad things because of religion.

 

[Muzikluvr]

I should have opened with this video.

Why Religion is Immoral by Christopher Hitchens

If religion is made up to control society, who are you praying to and what answers are you getting?

Might you be answering yourself? And, might you find that you come up with some pretty good responses, when you're willing to take credit for them? Why would anyone feel comforted by believing that a higher power is in their minds, constantly; overseeing, and capable of commenting on events? Or if not there constantly, that one could, within their own minds, communicate with this higher power and receive comfort and advice from them.

One might say, "Well, I feel the strength of a higher power." or "I express gratitude to a higher power" and these things are comforting... unless there is no higher power and you are only taking care of yourself and giving the credit to an imaginary being. Is the advice you get then, so comforting? Is the forgiveness and encouragement you receive, still comforting?

How many of us struggle to comfort ourselves because we hate ourselves so much? And, yet... here we are, receiving comfort in our own minds, and giving the credit of it to an imaginary being.

 

[anthony]

What if God is female, or no gender? Or both?

 

[The Albatross]

How pray tell would that have been accomplished in a world predating nation/states? What unifying principles could there have been that transcended tribe? Sorry I find the idea that "if a deity weren't attached to these guides [religion] then society would respond quicker to new information and new understanding."

Expound on that if you please how you arrived at this conclusion.[DOUBLEPOST=1400539258,1400539111][/DOUBLEPOST]For the record, Christopher Hitchens had esophageal cancer and recanted his position. I know this because I am familiar with his position on other issues. Link (but probably not the best source, just what I could find at the moment as I'm dealing by phone with scheduling issues): http://www.revelation.co/2011/12/16...did-hitchens-become-christian-before-he-died/

 

[The Albatross]

Regarding "sheep" In biblical times Jesus spoke in metaphors for deeper truths, story telling and a way of relating deeper concepts to those [uneducated] who cared to hear him. There is a difference as Junebug obliquely mentions however, between being a sheep as a member of a fellowship and congregation with Jesus as the shepherd, and the context with which you used it. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was a metaphor the people of the times could relate to and understand.

Personally I am not bothered by being one of His sheep as it is the lesson of my holy book to be set apart and cared for by my triune God. The Godhead, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, when used outside of context, by a nonbeliever it can be interpreted in a negative context. Like calling somebody the "n" word, or in political circles calling people "sheeple". Just sayin'.

 

[The Albatross]

Chris Hitchens, a very rational man, didn't hold prayer people in contempt. How does his position support your argument. There is more I could dig up if you'd like me too, but google is your friend. Please note that in this particular video he still doesn't accept or refute the religious.

For the record I quite admired Chris Hitchens and have been a reader of his for over a decade... more like 15 years. For reasons though, other than his position on the existence of God/god.

 

[The Albatross]

God is defined by religion. When you speak of Him, you speak of the one you still believe in.

God is defined by two books, holy book and by nature. I did a study of this early on about 5 years ago. The observable (revelation) and the divine revelation (via holy book be it Bible, Torah, Koran or what have you). The two are not exclusive. Nor are they interpretive except with respect to personal perception. They are observable. Perceptual biases or lack of belief in some but not all cases are a cause of this. The Bible clearly states though, that not all are called.

We, believers, are aliens in a foreign land. For instance. My home is not here, my home is after my body dies. I don't have a problem with this. Can I be wrong? Surely.

But if I have lived my life in accord with basic discipline and spiritual principles as well as the refinement of my own base nature or character... again I say what of it?