Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Alf · 09-05-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirge

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternallyI

I was wondering how and why did the question: Is there a God?, first come into the mind of humans? Was it in response to someone saying: "There is a God."? And if so, where did that person come up with it?

It seems that even the creatures that men have invented(in their minds) are based upon some strange combination of created matter that, in the natural world, no one has actually seen (unicorns, mermaids, fairies, etc.). Is God simply a name that we have given to explain human consciousness, or is there actually a God that is known through this consciousness and is the reason that we possess it(consciousness)?

It seems to me that in light of this mystery, religion does the best in explaining it; and that Christianity does so quite adequately. And if Christianity does have an explanation, why is it discounted as foolishness? Isn't it proper that God should give an explanation of creation to the creatures that are, for some reason, aware that they have a consciousness? Why is Christianity rejected simply because it does have answers? For my experience has been that if a non-Christian asks for a reason for something that is experienced in the world, or a question concerning the Christian faith, they reject the answer by claiming that the basis(the belief that there is a God) is questionable? Why in the heck would someone even ask the question, if they can't arrive at any understanding apart from the basic belief? And if they do temporarily accept the belief for arguments sake(I'm still suspicious that this is even possible in regards to the question of God), why at the point of explanation do they retreat to the rejection of the idea that they claim to have accepted for the sake of the argument?

Many human beings do see God, during NDEs. This has caused a German Philosopher, forget his name offhand, to theorize that people during the stone age, coming back from near death, reported a being of light welcoming them into the next life (just like today). In his opinion, this is the earliest concept of God, and thus religion. So the concept of God wouldn't be so much a belief, as a personal experience.

It is well known that you experience funny things when your brain is about to break down and your cognitive and perceptual organ is about to cease to function. Other animals probably have the same experience but unlike humans they cannot talk about it to their fellow animals. Consequently, religion is a product of language. When a species evolve a language the religion will follow shortly after as a by-product of speech.

How about that for an explanation?

Alf

frikkie 5000 · 09-06-2007, 03:45 AM

I personally think that language has a finger in the pie. Without blabbering on too much about constructionism, language and the accompanying signifiers allowed us to link objects to each other, in a way that would allow us to think beyond our immediate reality. This also then led us to various phenomena we could not connect with a cause ( most probably because of scientific ignorance), for example the cause of rain.

It's quite telling if you take into account that the earliest forms of religion where anthropomorphic representations of natural forces.

angelo · 09-06-2007, 04:21 AM

It started by the worship of ancient man's ancestors. The next step to nature worship was easy. Later it developed into deity worship. The gods have been with us from the earliest history of mankind. The funny thing is that now in the 21st century, more than 70% of the worlds population still cling to these ancient gods of antiquity.

Gawen · 09-06-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

The authors of the NT all have Mog in their names. Matthew ben Mog, Mark ben Mog, etc.

Is that a mog as in the mog in the movie spaceballs? The guy who was half man half dog and was his own best friend?

If you've never seen spaceballs you've missed something in your life. PS: Watch star wars first and then spaceballs.

Alf

I saw Spaceballs when it came out and I have a DVD a well. A classic. Almost up there with Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail.

Atheos · 09-06-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Is that a mog as in the mog in the movie spaceballs? The guy who was half man half dog and was his own best friend?

If you've never seen spaceballs you've missed something in your life. PS: Watch star wars first and then spaceballs.

Alf

I saw Spaceballs when it came out and I have a DVD a well. A classic. Almost up there with Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail.

<tapping foot with arms folded> Okay guys, am I going to have to bust your chops for derailing?

Gawen, you especially should know better. You could at least have given "Life of Brian" top billing. Sheesh.

Meanwhile, back on the topic, EternallyI wrote the following in the OP:

Quote:

It seems that even the creatures that men have invented(in their minds) are based upon some strange combination of created matter that, in the natural world, no one has actually seen (unicorns, mermaids, fairies, etc.). Is God simply a name that we have given to explain human consciousness, or is there actually a God that is known through this consciousness and is the reason that we possess it(consciousness)?

You might as well go ahead and toss "God" in there with all those other creatures that men have invented (in their minds). People had actually seen powerful men (and/or women). From from observing everything from a simple tribal leader to rulers of vast empires people had plenty of inspiration from which to draw an "ultimate" ruler.

I have no clue why religion offers any sort of advantage in explaining "consciousness" over the simple and natural explanation that organisms that have evolved sufficient brain capacity have the capability to be conscious. This does not appear to include most varieties of plant life and it is doubtful that it includes single celled animal life. It does appear to include most (if not all) mammals.

The questions religion offers far outweigh any supposed answers it gives. It does not make the least bit of sense that a "god" vast enough to have been responsible for creating this incredibly vast universe could be bothered by any of the behavior of individuals of our insignifigant species on this tiny planet orbiting a 3rd rate star on the fringes of a spiral arm of this particular galaxy. Even more so why such a god would find it necessary to sacrifice himself to himself in order to get over whatever it is that bothers him about how we go about living our lives. Talk about codependency issues. Dayum!

Alf · 09-06-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

I saw Spaceballs when it came out and I have a DVD a well. A classic. Almost up there with Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail.

<tapping foot with arms folded> Okay guys, am I going to have to bust your chops for derailing?

Gawen, you especially should know better. You could at least have given "Life of Brian" top billing. Sheesh.

Meanwhile, back on the topic, EternallyI wrote the following in the OP:

Quote:

It seems that even the creatures that men have invented(in their minds) are based upon some strange combination of created matter that, in the natural world, no one has actually seen (unicorns, mermaids, fairies, etc.). Is God simply a name that we have given to explain human consciousness, or is there actually a God that is known through this consciousness and is the reason that we possess it(consciousness)?

You might as well go ahead and toss "God" in there with all those other creatures that men have invented (in their minds). People had actually seen powerful men (and/or women). From from observing everything from a simple tribal leader to rulers of vast empires people had plenty of inspiration from which to draw an "ultimate" ruler.

I have no clue why religion offers any sort of advantage in explaining "consciousness" over the simple and natural explanation that organisms that have evolved sufficient brain capacity have the capability to be conscious. This does not appear to include most varieties of plant life and it is doubtful that it includes single celled animal life. It does appear to include most (if not all) mammals.

The questions religion offers far outweigh any supposed answers it gives. It does not make the least bit of sense that a "god" vast enough to have been responsible for creating this incredibly vast universe could be bothered by any of the behavior of individuals of our insignifigant species on this tiny planet orbiting a 3rd rate star on the fringes of a spiral arm of this particular galaxy. Even more so why such a god would find it necessary to sacrifice himself to himself in order to get over whatever it is that bothers him about how we go about living our lives. Talk about codependency issues. Dayum!

You forgot to mention his appearant obsession with what we do with our genitals and a appearant fetish for having us remove our foreskins. Guess that only adds to it though and makes the point blatantly obvious.

Alf

aa5874 · 09-06-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternallyI

I was wondering how and why did the question: Is there a God?, first come into the mind of humans? Was it in response to someone saying: "There is a God."? And if so, where did that person come up with it?

This is a speculative view.

First of all, there have been thousands of Gods that have been fabricated. At one time, when humans were basically animals, that is they were illiterate, wore no clothes, and did not even know how to use a club, every little clan or pack of these 'human animals' evolved and manufactured ideas about the afterlife.

The leader of the pack of 'animals' determined the Gods to be worshipped, those who do not follow the rules are killled. Then when the leader of the pack dies or another leader takes over, this new leader can manufacture new rules and different Gods.

Until one day, almost universally, lots of leaders realise that manufacturing Gods can make the manufacturers very very rich and powerful. King Henry VIII of England was one of those manufacturers, he made himself the head of the Church of England and killed followers of the Church of Rome.

Now, happily, the manufacturing of Gods are on the decline, it has been a long time since a major God has been fabricated, and those we have now are on the verge of being obsolete.

The Gods we have now only help dead people

Alf · 09-06-2007, 07:00 AM

Regarding god vs unicorns etc.

Unicorns is generally believed not to exist and yet we picture them. Of course, this is not so mysterious. They look like a horse with a horn. We have seen horses and we have seen other animals with horns and so in ancient times people believed there might be horses with horns - i.e. unicorns.

Similarly for pegasi. We know about horses and we know about animals with wings and cominging these two gets you horse with wings - pegasi.

By combining or extrapolating you can make up a whole horde of things that doesn't exist. Gods is as such simply an extrapolations. We know about strong men, well then there is possibly some man-like being who is stronger than anyone else in the universe - a god of strength.

What makes gods different from the other regular combinations and extrapolations is that they went through a second form of evolution also in that they were made abstract and immaterial. We can thank plato and his ilk for much of that in that he inspired jewish religion to make yahweh more abstract and then christians and muslims inherited this abstract god concept. Having god abstract makes the whole concept more iffy and harder to contradict and when the contradictions did show up the christians had this answer about god moving in myserious ways which was a final answer in that it ended all discussion.

However, it is a mistake if you then start by this abstract god and ask when people first asked if there was such a god. The first god invented was not abstract but was very concrete and human-like anthropomorphization of forces of nature etc. Human like not necessarily in the sense that he looked like a human. Yahweh was at times portrayed as a dragon in the OT or as a flaming bush but human like in that it had a personality, had will and intent and had a special interest in humans on earth - usually a special interest in whatever tribe the believer belonged to.

In modern times the fact that the deity who has created the whole universe has a special interest in whatever tribe the believer belonged to should be a big hint that the whole concept is bogus from start but it seems that most theists in the world still haven't figured that out yet.

Alf

angelo · 09-07-2007, 02:47 AM

The idea of god being human like should have given the dumbest of theologians that this god idea was a human invention. Alf you're 100% right.
The burning bush did look spectacular in the ''ten commandments'' though, best work Charlton Heston did.

ThorsHammer · 09-07-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternallyI

Quote:

Originally Posted by whichphilosophy

At least the term God came from interpretation of what is the ultimate cause of existence today. Subjectively some believe the cause is non live while others see the cause as possessing consciousness. God is then an interpretation of that.

Does God exist apart from human counsciousness?

No. God is a human construct - an outdated concept that should be eliminated.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2007, 03:45 AM	#72
frikkie 5000 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Pretoria, south africa Posts: 12	I personally think that language has a finger in the pie. Without blabbering on too much about constructionism, language and the accompanying signifiers allowed us to link objects to each other, in a way that would allow us to think beyond our immediate reality. This also then led us to various phenomena we could not connect with a cause ( most probably because of scientific ignorance), for example the cause of rain. It's quite telling if you take into account that the earliest forms of religion where anthropomorphic representations of natural forces.

09-06-2007, 04:21 AM	#73
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	It started by the worship of ancient man's ancestors. The next step to nature worship was easy. Later it developed into deity worship. The gods have been with us from the earliest history of mankind. The funny thing is that now in the 21st century, more than 70% of the worlds population still cling to these ancient gods of antiquity.

09-06-2007, 07:00 AM	#78
Alf Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 3,189	Regarding god vs unicorns etc. Unicorns is generally believed not to exist and yet we picture them. Of course, this is not so mysterious. They look like a horse with a horn. We have seen horses and we have seen other animals with horns and so in ancient times people believed there might be horses with horns - i.e. unicorns. Similarly for pegasi. We know about horses and we know about animals with wings and cominging these two gets you horse with wings - pegasi. By combining or extrapolating you can make up a whole horde of things that doesn't exist. Gods is as such simply an extrapolations. We know about strong men, well then there is possibly some man-like being who is stronger than anyone else in the universe - a god of strength. What makes gods different from the other regular combinations and extrapolations is that they went through a second form of evolution also in that they were made abstract and immaterial. We can thank plato and his ilk for much of that in that he inspired jewish religion to make yahweh more abstract and then christians and muslims inherited this abstract god concept. Having god abstract makes the whole concept more iffy and harder to contradict and when the contradictions did show up the christians had this answer about god moving in myserious ways which was a final answer in that it ended all discussion. However, it is a mistake if you then start by this abstract god and ask when people first asked if there was such a god. The first god invented was not abstract but was very concrete and human-like anthropomorphization of forces of nature etc. Human like not necessarily in the sense that he looked like a human. Yahweh was at times portrayed as a dragon in the OT or as a flaming bush but human like in that it had a personality, had will and intent and had a special interest in humans on earth - usually a special interest in whatever tribe the believer belonged to. In modern times the fact that the deity who has created the whole universe has a special interest in whatever tribe the believer belonged to should be a big hint that the whole concept is bogus from start but it seems that most theists in the world still haven't figured that out yet. Alf

09-07-2007, 02:47 AM	#79
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	The idea of god being human like should have given the dumbest of theologians that this god idea was a human invention. Alf you're 100% right. The burning bush did look spectacular in the ''ten commandments'' though, best work Charlton Heston did.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.