student - 15 July 2012 09:36 PM

Assuming god is fiction, will I not need some confidence to start with a fiction and claim that fiction is true?

That is not confidence, it is delusion.

You asked who said any of the gods claimed by are pantheons are superior and said that religious gods are a spoiled and sociopathic child. Some describe god as creator, all knowing, savior, redeemer, raising others from the dead, raising self from the dead, feeding thousands, walking on water, calming storms, turning water to wine, etc. Religious gods have been around thousands of years. During these years, who has been superior enough to end the spoiled and psychopathic existence?

student

The men and women who started The Enlightenment.

You asked who said self confidence has anything to do with man creating a god. Write4U writes about a chimpanzee protesting the supreme being of the weather while the others cowered from the fury. Which was self confident (if not arrogant) and which were not? Assuming god is fiction, will I not need some confidence to start with a fiction and claim that fiction is true?

No. I asked “Who said self confidence has anything to do with it or even needs to?”

You asked who said any of the gods claimed by are pantheons are superior and said that religious gods are a spoiled and sociopathic child.

No. What I said was “Who said any of the gods claimed by are pantheons are superior? The gods of all of our religions which have a belief in gods all have the manners and morals of a spoiled and sociopathic child!” Can you possibly directly answer those two questions without resorting to an unfocused distortion of what is being asked and loaded questions?

To paraphrase, you seem to think the blog’s real question is why did people create a god with (the written about) god like features. If I paraphrased incorrectly, feel free to correct.

Actually, to be more clear, since the original poster said “I’m an ex-Catholic agnostic, so I don’t believe any of this stuff is real anyway”, to help introduce my own point of view from the stance of never having been a believer or religious, it would help to follow my own understanding if I changed the questions around to how I thought they should be formulated. Secondly, the god-like features in the quote I put there, was to set up everything I said after that, being about features that not only do we experience, like love and fidelity, but how men from that era might have thought a supreme being would operate with the same features. So you were more or less on the point :D

Why does the self confidence needed to create a god end up with a god that is so superior that man is left as nothing but a beggar from man’s own creation?

Like Equal opportunity Curmugeon said, self-confidence doesn’t have much to do with the need to create a god. Could you clarify what you meant by that statement? Then you said, to paraphrase you myself, in creating a superior god, we have by default put ourselves in a position of inferiority, as beggars, if I got that correctly. It would make sense that we are inferior, in the same way that a child is toward a parent, no? Although I think the right way is not to beg, but to ask…politely? I don’t know how to pray lol

Who knows exactly how individuals expressed themselves when attempting proper worship, especially towards gods, or a god, when people thought they were directly involved with human affairs. One must have been worried he or she was worshiping correctly. I think that is apparent in the way people worshiped gods in public as a society. But at the individual level, I’m sure everyone had their own version when praying for good fortune. And then obviously, having avoided any major misfortune, the result can most easily be attributed to their degree of worship.

Write4U – Post#89:

Interesting post, I enjoyed it much and agree with everything! The only thing I suppose that got me thinking differently is when you dared to say (how dare you! Hehe :D) that the concept of god has been around from before man even emerged as the dominant species. Could it be possible that the chimp was merely waving his stick at the thunder, as nothing more than pure bravery, while not bothering to care exactly what was producing it?

Wouldn’t it be fascinating instead, that one of our first “boosts” in intellectual capabilities, the first of our thought processes to develop after we branched off into our own evolutionary direction, was to start off by developing the concept of causality (our first attempt in this case, being a misunderstanding though!). So basically, I guess what I’m asking is (I confuse myself sometimes), could those thoughts be the first ones that newly, intelligently emerging, dominant species develop, as opposed to being shared with non-dominant species?

As for the link between god and the violent elements of nature, no reasonable person still thinks the elements are directly controlled by the gods. It seems more popular this day and age to attribute god to what happens to those unfortunate people affected by natural disasters. Could this new, vaguely indirect, version of “godly intervention” be a good example of a sort of remnant of early cognition? A modern day twist of an ancient misconception that persisted through time? One that is “up to date” with modern science? Which is what I was saying before about how complex this god idea has become. *sigh* What a mess =P

DarronS:

You mentioned delusion. No argument about the delusion. Does delusion and confidence always have to be exclusive of each other?

You mentioned the Enlightenment. No doubt these people added to the discussion.

Seems god’s existence is a prerequisite to the blog’s title question.

Few question science’s failure to prove god’s existence. Does atheism claim science proves god’s non existence?

Few question theism requires at least some faith. Does atheism claim no faith is required?

student

Imaginos
Wouldn’t it be fascinating instead, that one of our first “boosts” in intellectual capabilities, the first of our thought processes to develop after we branched off into our own evolutionary direction, was to start off by developing the concept of causality (our first attempt in this case, being a misunderstanding though!). So basically, I guess what I’m asking is (I confuse myself sometimes), could those thoughts be the first ones that newly, intelligently emerging, dominant species develop, as opposed to being shared with non-dominant species?

From a biological point I don’t think so. Almost all highly evolved species have senses designed to observe the environment for possible danger or opportunity from other “beings” being present. There is nothing special about that ability. The process of analysing our environment is evolutionary and for billions of years, a sound (any sound) means something about that other being’s intentions. The recognition of shapes giving a lot of information about how big it is and recognize if it has aggressive behavior.
To the Alpha, there was a “being” throwing stuff at him and his family. He stood there to protect His kind against that enemy. This is powerful symbolic language. But it assumes the presence of another thing.

As for the link between god and the violent elements of nature, no reasonable person still thinks the elements are directly controlled by the gods. It seems more popular this day and age to attribute god to what happens to those unfortunate people affected by natural disasters. Could this new, vaguely indirect, version of “godly intervention” be a good example of a sort of remnant of early cognition? A modern day twist of an ancient misconception that persisted through time? One that is “up to date” with modern science? Which is what I was saying before about how complex this god idea has become. *sigh* What a mess =P

It is true that these abilities for abstract thought are very high in humans, by I am not willing to concede the unlikelyhood of other highly sophisticated intelligence on this planet.
God’s qualities are those qualities which cannot be defined by science. Fortunately, science also is the critical analysis of the metaphysical aspects of the universal wholeness. Science keeps us honest and can prove that something is not supernatural but can be explained in natural terms. That thunder, lightning, rain storms, and every natural event caused by local weather conditions, and other universally natural causalities are a natural part of the universe.. Our reality is a manifestation of mathematical certainties. But our imagination is illusionary.

Thus the concept of god as a physical presence has begun to shrink and today is really a philosophical (Of the Mind) abstraction of ultimate causality. But that’s where it ends.
If today I were to propose everyone should believe in an abstract, alien presence, which loved and enslaved humans for their own good, I doubt I would find many followers..

We have refined thinking in abstract terms very highly. It is truly amazing and has resulted in the most fantastic human expressions. If this is god, god is a collective.
Then we considere the cataclysmic events on earth, mindlessly exterminating half of all life on earth (the great extinction). If this also god, god is dual in nature and has attained a Supernatural “zero state perfection”.
I am happy to report that Science calls this a Natural “zero state perfection”.... 

student - 17 July 2012 08:42 PM

DarronS:

You mentioned delusion. No argument about the delusion. Does delusion and confidence always have to be exclusive of each other?

Of course not. Deluded people are often quite confident of their ideas. See the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

You mentioned the Enlightenment. No doubt these people added to the discussion.

Ya think? All they did was risk their lives to lay the foundation which allowed us to move beyond the church’s control.

Seems god’s existence is a prerequisite to the blog’s title question.

Go back and read the original post. You need to think about this some more.

Few question science’s failure to prove god’s existence. Does atheism claim science proves god’s non existence?

Atheism makes no such claim. Once again, you are failing to understand the subject. You need to separate atheists from atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods. Atheists have all sorts of beliefs and opinions. Some of us think Rock ‘n’ Roll died in 1979, others think Tears for Fears was a pretty good band.

Few question theism requires at least some faith. Does atheism claim no faith is required?

Most atheists think faith is a moral failure, not a strength. Not only is faith not required, faith is bad. As David Hume put it, “A wise man apportions his belief to the evidence.”

Edit: corrected a typo

Imaginos:

I seemed to ignore your response. My mistake for over looking you.

You asked for clarification on the self confidence in claiming truth from a fiction. Assuming facts objectively contradict the fiction, seems to take confidence to ignore the facts while proclaiming contrary claims. If you were asking about the begging, many who claim god exists are looking to (their made up) god to grant (at god’s discretion) the claimant salvation. Hope this was close to clarifying. Your parent child analogy fit right in.

DarronS:

You mentioned atheists v. atheism. Sounds like trying to understand atheists is like trying to corral cats. Such attempts could take you all over.

You mentioned to go back to the original post. You are correct. The original post asks what the bible says or alternatively for a logical answer. The original post started the logic by warning about answers that would implicate a needy god.

What does a parent say if the child asks why did the parent have kid(s)?

student

student - 18 July 2012 08:09 AM

DarronS:

You mentioned atheists v. atheism. Sounds like trying to understand atheists is like trying to corral cats. Such attempts could take you all over.

Yup. Just browse the old threads and you’ll see that the only thing many of us have in common is our non-belief in a supernatural deity. Search for posts by Bryan and George and you’ll see what I mean.

You mentioned to go back to the original post. You are correct. The original post asks what the bible says or alternatively for a logical answer. The original post started the logic by warning about answers that would implicate a needy god.

That pretty well summarizes my opinion about the god presented in the Bible. I find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

What does a parent say if the child asks why did the parent have kid(s)?

student

Because it is a built-in biological urge. That and sex is fun.

Bryan is a theist, Darron. 

Thanks for the correction George.

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise. Incredible seems too timid. Would impossible be the more accurate descriptive?

I wasn’t headed into the physical aspects of kid production. Your direction is good for now and probably has more truth (and amusement).

student

student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise. Incredible seems too timid. Would impossible be the more accurate descriptive?

I wasn’t headed into the physical aspects of kid production. Your direction is good for now and probably has more truth (and amusement).

student

Nope, I meant incredible. This is from the Dictionary app on my computer:

incredible |inˈkredəbəl|
adjective
1 impossible to believe: an almost incredible tale of triumph and tragedy.
2 difficult to believe; extraordinary: the noise from the crowd was incredible.
• informal amazingly good or beautiful: I was mesmerized: she looked so incredible.
DERIVATIVES
incredibility |-ˌkredəˈbilitē|noun
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin incredibilis, from in- ‘not’+ credibilis (see credible) .
usage: Incredible means ‘unbelievable’ or ‘not convincing’ and can be applied to a situation, statement, policy, or threat to a person: I find this testimony incredible.

As for children, without the overwhelming urge to reproduce our species would die out. It’s basic evolutionary theory. Survival of the horny.

student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him.html

Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 08:38 AM

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

And a rain dance brings rains. Grow up.

Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 08:38 AM

student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him.html

That statement is true if and only if the god you worship actually exists. Show me the proof of that god’s existence and I will consider it. Until then you are simply wasting electrons with your posts.