Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

by Greatest I am Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4

I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.

That myth I think was written of the following reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes

Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.

I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.

That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.

Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.

The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc

Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?

Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:20 pm

Bellatori wrote:
"There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God"
If that were actually true then Tesco would be selling religion at its exit counters along with insurance and broadband... oh and at a discount compared to other religion suppliers I have no doubt. I'm going to Tesco tomorrow so I'll check it out.

Every little helps. So how many Tesco clubcard points does the purchase of redemption and eternal life give me? I might be able to afford a new 50in plasma tv??

by Tosh Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:37 pm

JP, Thanks for your reply, tell me if I am picking you up wrong, you seem to be saying your knowledge of god's existence comes from both scripture and personal experience ?

This being the case, do you accept there are some who consider neither to be evidence, the reason being both are untestable, if one cannot test the evidence then there is no proof.

by Norm Deplume Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:37 pm

JP Cusick wrote:

There is a problem with referring to God as the "real God" as if some Gods are not real, and I have searched for ways to get around that distinction but I find no such way.

You persistently say that your god is not the same as the traditional Christian version, so why not give your chap a name and use that rather than ambiguous terms like "real God".
I suggest Trevor, but go ahead and choose one for yourself as long as it is not already in use.

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:44 pm

I've got one for you JP, how about the unreal sky man.

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:59 pm

stu wrote:JP,one does get rather bored with repeating oneself as you must do, earth created 3-5billion years ago, who was there to see it? HOW OLD is the bible? hand written by man? when did man first appear on earth? thou shalt not bear false witness JP so no lies please. many thanks in advance.

I repeat because you fail to get it.

And I have no idea as to how old the Bible is, but the original book of the Bible - the J source - is said to be either 7th or 9th century BCE, but that means just the written text as we know it today. And yes it was written by Man, but evidence suggest that this "J source" was a female author. Of course it is believed to be divine revelation given to man by God.

The more controversial Genesis 1 - 2:4a was written later by the P source (Priestly Source) which came later in the 5th century BCE, and taken from the old Babylonian religion.

As to when "man" first appeared on earth then I have no idea. And I do believe the science of old cave people but some say the older people were not really homo sapiens as we are today.

The Bible or other scriptures do not really give us dates, and science gives us too many theories to be certain - IMO.

Like a Star @ heaven

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:11 pm

Tosh wrote:JP, Thanks for your reply, tell me if I am picking you up wrong, you seem to be saying your knowledge of god's existence comes from both scripture and personal experience ?

This being the case, do you accept there are some who consider neither to be evidence, the reason being both are untestable, if one cannot test the evidence then there is no proof.

Yes that is all correct, but I do not ask anyone to believe me as their evidence.

Other people can read the scriptures for their self, and they can do their own research, and use their own experiences.

Then you each and all would have your own knowledge and experience and evidence in your own right.

You can test your self just I too must test myself and my own findings.

You can test for your self to gain your own proof, as you do not need to test me, but you can test my presentations.

==============================================

Norm Deplume wrote:You persistently say that your god is not the same as the traditional Christian version, so why not give your chap a name and use that rather than ambiguous terms like "real God".

Well there is this thing that tells me not to use that name in vain, much like not casting pearls before those who will trample them.

The correct name would be Yahweh Elohim, which means Father of the Gods, or male creator of the multitude of creatures.

So talking to the average human who are super uninformed then the inaccurate word of "God" or "real God" is a must for me.

What a Face

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:22 pm

Tosh wrote:JP, Thanks for your reply, tell me if I am picking you up wrong, you seem to be saying your knowledge of god's existence comes from both scripture and personal experience ?

This being the case, do you accept there are some who consider neither to be evidence, the reason being both are untestable, if one cannot test the evidence then there is no proof.

Hi Tosh, I have repeatedly put that very point to JP, but he just repeats the claim that he has empirical evidence, despite my attempts to explain to him that subjective experience/evidence that has not been empirically and objectively tested remains highly subjective and virtually worthless as evidence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:23 pm

stu wrote:I've got one for you JP, how about the unreal sky man.

Brian?

I think it has a certain ring to it....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:31 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
stu wrote:JP,one does get rather bored with repeating oneself as you must do, earth created 3-5billion years ago, who was there to see it? HOW OLD is the bible? hand written by man? when did man first appear on earth? thou shalt not bear false witness JP so no lies please. many thanks in advance.
I repeat because you fail to get it.

And I have no idea as to how old the Bible is, but the original book of the Bible - the J source - is said to be either 7th or 9th century BCE, but that means just the written text as we know it today. And yes it was written by Man, but evidence suggest that this "J source" was a female author. Of course it is believed to be divine revelation given to man by God.

The more controversial Genesis 1 - 2:4a was written later by the P source (Priestly Source) which came later in the 5th century BCE, and taken from the old Babylonian religion.

As to when "man" first appeared on earth then I have no idea. And I do believe the science of old cave people but some say the older people were not really homo sapiens as we are today.

The Bible or other scriptures do not really give us dates, and science gives us too many theories to be certain - IMO.

Humans have existed in their current form for at least 100000 years, according to modern anthropologists, and they don't rely on ancient texts, or gut feelings, or deeply held beliefs. They use the best most robust system humans have ever created to verify evidence and gain knowledge, scientific empiricism, it's innumerable successes speak for themselves.

In that time humans have also created innumerable gods and religions, yours is just a paltry 2000 years old. Which puts it's claims into perspective, especially when you consider that a lot of it was plagiarised from earlier religions. It's claims for creation were based on a 6 day creation, left out evolution, made no mention of the millions of years the dinosaurs ruled the world for, and had it all happening around 6000 years ago. Roughly when the ancient Sumerians were inventing glue.

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:32 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Other people can read the scriptures for their self, and they can do their own research, and use their own experiences.

We already have. That's why we're atheists. If there was actual evidence, if there was actual proof of this "God," then we wouldn't be atheists. It's not as if we're simply being obstinate or defiant. Most atheists began their journey seeking God and the years passed with nothing happening. No "religious experiences," no epiphanies, no sudden new outlook on the world, no new revelations, no feelings of warmth and love coming from the Great Beyond, no signs and portents. There was just ... nothing. The same "nothing" that existed before the journey began. Thus we slowly but inevitably turned away from these god concepts, and now that we have, looking back on it, we would never go back. To us, returning to beliefs in deities would be like a drug addict who worked hard to get clean and then decided to return to drug use.

JP Cusick wrote:The correct name would be Yahweh Elohim, which means Father of the Gods, or male creator of the multitude of creatures.

But that's the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God that sits at the head of the Christian religion, a very specific God. Why would you pluck the Christian God from among a multitude of gods and claim this one is the "real god" when quite clearly he is not? Yahweh Elohim is the desert tribal god of the Hebrews and the god currently worshiped by the majority of Westerners. That, to my eyes, suggests that cultural bias has as much to do with your worship practices as any inherent "truth." Why not pick Ganesh or Shiva or Krishna? Why not one of the pagan gods like the 12 Greek and Roman gods? Why not Gaia, the mother goddess of the earth?

There are so many to choose from! Quite a few of them come with their own scriptures, too, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the wealth of Greek and Roman mythology, the Vedas of the Hindu faith, the Zoroastrian books, the works of Confucius, on and on.

But you chose Yehweh, which heavily implies that all of the other religions, gods, and scriptures are completely false. You have chosen your god based on where you were born and raised, based on the culture that surrounded you as you grew up. It makes no sense why else a person would choose to worship such a bloodthirsty tribal god like Yahweh that once described how the charred flesh of a blood sacrifice was pleasing to his nostrils.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:18 am

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:Other people can read the scriptures for their self, and they can do their own research, and use their own experiences.
We already have. That's why we're atheists. If there was actual evidence, if there was actual proof of this "God," then we wouldn't be atheists. It's not as if we're simply being obstinate or defiant. Most atheists began their journey seeking God and the years passed with nothing happening. No "religious experiences," no epiphanies, no sudden new outlook on the world, no new revelations, no feelings of warmth and love coming from the Great Beyond, no signs and portents. There was just ... nothing. The same "nothing" that existed before the journey began. Thus we slowly but inevitably turned away from these god concepts, and now that we have, looking back on it, we would never go back. To us, returning to beliefs in deities would be like a drug addict who worked hard to get clean and then decided to return to drug use.

What I find is that most such people as you describe are living very pampered lives all safe and secure where they do not make any waves and they behave like passive sheep waiting for a shepherd which never comes. It is all vain.

I like what Mother Teresa said - If you want to be a Missionary then move your feet.

Or Gandhi who said - We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.

The idea that so many people are waiting for God to come talk to them, as if God is to bow down to the do-nothing sheep, and yet they never come out of their vain pretensions.

It is up to us to go find God by actively doing our own part in the process.

Going to church is nothing, saying prayers is nothing, being blessed or "saved" or baptized or having a miracle is all nothing.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:The correct name would be Yahweh Elohim, which means Father of the Gods, or male creator of the multitude of creatures.
But that's the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God that sits at the head of the Christian religion, a very specific God. Why would you pluck the Christian God from among a multitude of gods and claim this one is the "real god" when quite clearly he is not? Yahweh Elohim is the desert tribal god of the Hebrews and the god currently worshiped by the majority of Westerners.

No, it is not.

The Christian God is named Jesus - as if anyone in the entire world does not know that - REALLY.

The name that I gave is used by no one, but still misused (in parts) by a few.

And I do like and use all the other names for God. Just as Krishna is a different version of the name Christ, and Allah is the Aramaic version of Elohim, and all the other names fit in too.

Idea

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:02 am

JP Cusick wrote:What I find is that most such people as you describe are living very pampered lives all safe and secure where they do not make any waves and they behave like passive sheep waiting for a shepherd which never comes. It is all vain.

Heh, believe me, my life wasn't pampered and it certainly isn't secure -- not even as we speak. I suppose the things I've seen and experienced caused me to question the existence of God, especially a kind and loving God.

World War II is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about. Europeans had their cities bombed into oblivion. It wasn't until the 1980's when Berlin finally finished rebuilding after 3 years of Allied bombing. All the cities of Europe suffered such a fate. That's not even mentioning the Holocaust and the murder and rape of civilians by both the Nazis AND the Soviets. No surprise, then, that Europe is a highly secular society, and I believe much of the reason for their secularization (if there is such a word) is because of what those people saw and experienced during the war. Many, many, many people came to question the existence of God when such utter horror, barbarity, and slaughter was allowed to take place despite the tens of millions of prayers being uttered every day of the war.

But America didn't suffer the horrors of WWII. Our women and children were left untouched, our cities still stood, America was never invaded, its economy was the mightiest in the world, and America came out of the war the only major nation left unmolested by the Axis. One of the lesser known results of this good fortune, however, is that America was never able to let go of its primitive superstitions. Europe had those beliefs bombed, murdered, and raped out of their society but because America didn't experience such atrocity, its citizens still embrace God and has an unusual amount of religiosity compared to other industrialized nations -- studies have shown that America has a religiosity more in line with a Third World nation rather than the most powerful and richest First World nation.

Often it is those who have seen things no one should have to see who dismiss God as a pile of nonsense. So ... while other nations from Holland to Japan are moving forward in progressive and humanitarian ways, America still lingers in a God-infested past. Ergo, we are the only nation that does not have a nationalized health care system. We are the only industrialized nation that allows nearly carte blanche ownership of guns. We are the only industrialized nation that still debates over whether evolution is true and the only industrialized nation that even considers teaching Intelligent Design in a science classroom. We are the only industrialized nation that tries to shun contraception and which thinks "abstinance only" programs actually work. We are the only industrialized nation that has a shoddy social safety net for the disabled and the elderly. I mean, seriously, this list goes on and on.

America is falling behind and falling apart because we are failing to change and adapt to new ways of doing things. And guess what, Mr. Cusick. Yeah ... ALL of it is because of those on the political right, most of whom are very religious! Gee, imagine that. Our religiosity is destroying us and instead of doing something about it, instead of changing, we just pray and hope that God blessing the USA will be enough.

What utter rubbish.

JP Cusick wrote:The Christian God is named Jesus - as if anyone in the entire world does not know that - REALLY.

Really? Because I don't hear people saying, "Jesus bless America" nor do I see "In Jesus We Trust" on our money. The Pledge of Allegiance does not say "... and to the republic for which is stands, one nation under Jesus, indivisible ..."

People aren't saying that Jesus created the universe nor do they argue that liberals took Jesus out of our schools. Those who believe in the Bible aren't saying that Jesus created Adam and Eve. The 10 Commandments, which many Christians revere, isn't referring to Jesus when it says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Besides, where did Jesus come from, if not God? Wasn't Jesus the son of God? Most Christians believe so. Some even believe God and Jesus are actually one and the same (which is why we atheists laugh at the idea that God sacrificed himself to himself).

In the USA, I see a lot of God's influence but very little of Jesus's influence. That is partly the reason why I wrote what I did above. The Christians in this country are all for charity, but not government assistance ... well, I could go on all day about the idiocy of God-worshiping right-wingers in America. Suffice it to say that they do NOT worship Jesus regardless of how many times they say his name. In a nation in love with money, status, and bling, America is the antithesis of Jesus's teachings -- especially when one considers that Jesus was decidedly liberal AND socialist.

Americans really worship Mammon even if they don't realize it. Americans worship greed and material wealth personified in the deity known as Mammon. While they may not pray to Mammon or utter his name during church services, their actions -- especially right-wingers -- are completely in line with Mammon.

by polyglide Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:11 am

Shirina, I am far older than you,have experiences that you would never encounter, I am well aware of all the unfairness in the world having seen much of it and also the evil.

As I have explained in a previous post, you cannot blame God for all the worlds ills.

Man was told not to have anything to do with the spirit world as to do so would have serious consequences for mankind, as would being involved in false religions,

The only way in which the evil spirits could affect mankind was if they actually invited them in.

Through several means mankind from almost day one has indulged in events that has allowed the spirits to become involved in the life of humans and the world as a whole and you need look no further for the root of all our problems.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:38 pm

polyglide wrote:Shirina, I am far older than you,have experiences that you would never encounter, I am well aware of all the unfairness in the world having seen much of it and also the evil.

As I have explained in a previous post, you cannot blame God for all the worlds ills.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm sorry but that is palpably false, I don't believe a god exists as there is no credible evidence, however if you're claiming to be a chirstian then your god has always been touted as having both omniscience and omnipotence, so it absolutely is culpable for everything that occurs if that's true, that's the nature of omnipotence and omniscience.
Man was told not to have anything to do with the spirit world as to do so would have serious consequences for mankind, as would being involved in false religions, The only way in which the evil spirits could affect mankind was if they actually invited them in. Through several means mankind from almost day one has indulged in events that has allowed the spirits to become involved in the life of humans and the world as a whole and you need look no further for the root of all our problems.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:This is pure fantasy I'm sorry

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:49 pm

polyglide you say you cannot blame god for all the worlds ill's, but then on the other hand please do not praise him for all that happens in the world that is good pleeeaaasssseee.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

stu wrote:polyglide you say you cannot blame god for all the worlds ill's, but then on the other hand please do not praise him for all that happens in the world that is good pleeeaaasssseee.

It's simple subjective cherry picking of the evidence stu, one can prove any point if you ignore all contrary evidence, and let's not forget they presuppose the result anyway so the evidence is irrelevant. Indeed I do wonder why they bother to go to the trouble, instead of just playing the faith card.

by Tosh Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:58 pm

If everything counts as evidence for God's existence and nothing counts as evidence against, the hypothesis is empty of any scientific content and nothing but a bare assertion.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:30 pm

Shirina wrote:World War II is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about. Europeans had their cities bombed into oblivion. It wasn't until the 1980's when Berlin finally finished rebuilding after 3 years of Allied bombing. All the cities of Europe suffered such a fate. That's not even mentioning the Holocaust and the murder and rape of civilians by both the Nazis AND the Soviets. No surprise, then, that Europe is a highly secular society, and I believe much of the reason for their secularization (if there is such a word) is because of what those people saw and experienced during the war. Many, many, many people came to question the existence of God when such utter horror, barbarity, and slaughter was allowed to take place despite the tens of millions of prayers being uttered every day of the war.

But America didn't suffer the horrors of WWII. Our women and children were left untouched, our cities still stood, America was never invaded, its economy was the mightiest in the world, and America came out of the war the only major nation left unmolested by the Axis. One of the lesser known results of this good fortune, however, is that America was never able to let go of its primitive superstitions. Europe had those beliefs bombed, murdered, and raped out of their society but because America didn't experience such atrocity, its citizens still embrace God and has an unusual amount of religiosity compared to other industrialized nations -- studies have shown that America has a religiosity more in line with a Third World nation rather than the most powerful and richest First World nation.

How is it that you fail to make the super-simple distinction, that God was on the side of the Allies, and God was against the Germans and Japanese.

More correctly is to say that the Allies were on God's side, while the Axis powers were not on the side of God.

Or even more precisely the Allies were fighting for a righteous cause, while the Nazis and friends were fighting for evil and barbaric causes.

You dare to say that the Nazi Germans did not get their prayers answered - and yet apparently you can not figure out WHY.

The Nazis could have ended that war anytime if they had just defied their Dictator and surrendered, but instead they clung to their prayers of a violent victory to be given to them in spite of their cause being evil.

You think that the Godless heathen of Europe is some how superior or better then the religious America - well no.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:The Christian God is named Jesus - as if anyone in the entire world does not know that - REALLY.
Really? Because I don't hear people saying, "Jesus bless America" nor do I see "In Jesus We Trust" on our money. The Pledge of Allegiance does not say "... and to the republic for which is stands, one nation under Jesus, indivisible ..."

That is because the USA is not a Christian Country, as the USA was intended to be religiously neutral.

The USA uses the generic form of "God" so that all religions are included under that name.

Shirina wrote: The Christians in this country are all for charity, but not government assistance ...

That is a power struggle between religion and gov.

They both want control over the people.

Shirina wrote:Americans really worship Mammon even if they don't realize it. Americans worship greed and material wealth personified in the deity known as Mammon. While they may not pray to Mammon or utter his name during church services, their actions -- especially right-wingers -- are completely in line with Mammon.

I agree that virtually everyone has a worship of mammon attitude, but I find that to be superimposed onto the population by our evil system of Capitalism and by the political democracy.

Karl Marx wrote about the evils of Capitalism, and now that is all coming true.

And Marx was not giving any religious prophesy as Marx gave a simple scientific explanation of how rampant greed and exploitation just naturally leads to self destruction of the society.

Idea

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:34 pm

Tosh wrote:If everything counts as evidence for God's existence and nothing counts as evidence against, the hypothesis is empty of any scientific content and nothing but a bare assertion.

And that makes sense to you.

All the evidence points to God - so disregard the evidence.

No scientific content there. - Sarcasm FYI.

deadhorse

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:48 pm

Exactly Sheldon and Tosh, JP IS NOW SAYING GOD WAS ON OUR SIDE IN THE WAR. Remind you of anybody Sheldon? JP the war was won by sheer luck, if a certain decision was not made on a particular day we would have lost it and been ruled by the germans now ok.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:58 pm

stu wrote:Exactly Sheldon and Tosh, JP IS NOW SAYING GOD WAS ON OUR SIDE IN THE WAR. Remind you of anybody Sheldon? JP the war was won by sheer luck, if a certain decision was not made on a particular day we would have lost it and been ruled by the germans now ok.

You giving credit to luck which is just another name for God.

Luck is just some unseen power or force that just happens without any human explanation.

That is what is meant by being spiritually blind.

God saves our side and you see sheer luck.

Evil or Very Mad

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:00 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
How is it that you fail to make the super-simple distinction, that God was on the side of the Allies, and God was against the Germans and Japanese.

More correctly is to say that the Allies were on God's side, while the Axis powers were not on the side of God.

I think that Tiw (or Mars) was on both sides. That is more likely for a god of war.

It's odd to think that the Soviets (nominally, at least, atheists) could be on the side of any god.

[Language note; your English is not improving "more correctly is..." is decidedly non-standard. Try "it is more correct to say..." or "more correctly, the Allies...". I imagine you will claim to know this, but on the evidence of your posts, I will not believe it.]

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:12 pm

Other way round JP, YOU PRAISE GOD FOR IT ,when it is sheer LUCK!!

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:15 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:I think that Tiw (or Mars) was on both sides. That is more likely for a god of war.

It's odd to think that the Soviets (nominally, at least, atheists) could be on the side of any god.

I can agree that "Mars" the God-of-war was indeed on both sides - oh yes.

But the higher Gods of truth and justice were more on-one-side than on the other side.

As to the Soviets then I see it as wrong to call them as Atheist just because they had an Atheist form of government.

Certainly the Russian people are very religious people, and it is to their credit.

There is also an old saying which goes like this = "There are no Atheist in a foxhole."

Idea

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:28 pm

Tosh wrote:If everything counts as evidence for God's existence and nothing counts as evidence against, the hypothesis is empty of any scientific content and nothing but a bare assertion.

A very concise and accurate assessment of JP Cusick's and Polyglide's posts. Neither of them seem to grasp the significance to empiricism of premising something that's impossible to falsify.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:56 pm

ther's no atheists in a foxhole JP, NO WE ARE WAITING OUTSIDE FOR YOU TO COME OUT, IT'S MATING SEASON?

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:03 pm

JP Cusick wrote:How is it that you fail to make the super-simple distinction, that God was on the side of the Allies, and God was against the Germans and Japanese.

What did God, do, exactly, to help the Allies? From where I sit, God did absolutely nothing. The reason I say this is because the war had to be fought for damn near 10 years (if you start from Japan's invasion of Manchuria), costing the lives of hundreds of millions, displacing hundreds of millions more, and leaving most of the world a pile of rubble. If God was truly on the Allied side, Hitler would have been clobbered by Poland and sent packing. Japan would have had their arses handed to them by China. There, end of the war. But no ... God apparently LET the war go on and on and on and did not intervene in either the war OR the Holocaust. If God was on the Allied side, he was just an observer, a cheerleader waving his Allied pom-poms rooting for the righteous side.

Nor can you claim that an Allied victory was the result of God. No, it was the result of 18 and 19 year-old boys who had the courage -- unfathomable courage -- to fight against Nazi tyranny and Japanese brutality. They won that war, not some absent God. Perhaps if there had been some true miracles that shortened the war, but alas, no. The war had to be fought right up until Russian troops waved a Soviet flag above the Reichstag and until Japan was nuked and the surrender signed in Tokyo Bay.

JP Cusick wrote:You dare to say that the Nazi Germans did not get their prayers answered - and yet apparently you can not figure out WHY.

I never said that the Nazis didn't have their prayers answered, though I suppose a few of them prayed. I said that tens of millions of prayers supposedly floated up to God every day of that war. Holocaust victims, civilian refugees, soldiers about to go into battle, Jews hiding in cubby holes and secret compartments in the floor, the citizens of Leningrad who were starving and freezing at a rate of 10,000 per day, etc. They are the ones I was talking about, and no miracles happened -- not once did God deign to descend and put an end to it.

JP Cusick wrote:You think that the Godless heathen of Europe is some how superior or better then the religious America - well no.

Actually, in every measurable way, it is. The only thing America is best at these days is we have the largest military, the best universities, and the most productive workers (mainly because we have the least amount of time off than every other nation except China). We don't even have the highest standard of living any more. Those "Godless Europeans" have the top 10 slots. America is 11th. Europeans also take the top 10 in life expectancy, lowest violent crime rate, lowest teen pregnancy rate, highest education levels, highest happiness quotent, best health care systems, highest freedom index, you name it ... America is not on the list anymore. In fact, Canada recently usurped America for the highest per capita income.

JP Cusick wrote:That is because the USA is not a Christian Country, as the USA was intended to be religiously neutral.

Intended to be, yes. But the fact that every president but one was a Christian Protestant shows that it isn't. The only one that wasn't was John F. Kennedy who was Catholic. And he was assassinated. Neutral

If America was religiously neutral in regards to politics, an atheist should be able to win a major election, barring any other factor. But that will never happen.

Plus, all 32 of those state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage would never have been passed ... and if they had been anyway, they would have been immediately challenged and repealed.

JP Cusick wrote:And Marx was not giving any religious prophesy as Marx gave a simple scientific explanation of how rampant greed and exploitation just naturally leads to self destruction of the society.

We can agree on that much, at least.

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:28 pm

JP Cusick wrote:You giving credit to luck which is just another name for God.

Luck is just some unseen power or force that just happens without any human explanation.

Maybe to the superstitious who still see signs and portents in clouds and tea leafs.

But luck is NOT another name for God. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Luck is not directed. It is essentially random, and while a lucky outcome can be influenced, it cannot be directed. In other words, praying for luck is an oxymoron. Saying luck is the same as God is also saying that the results of luck were intended to occur; luck has a plan, an intention, a predestined outcome. Moreover, claiming luck and god are the same is also saying that bad luck is a divine punishment and good luck is a divine reward ... and I've already posted about the dangers of that kind of attitude.

For instance, back before the Roosevelt administration, we didn't have a social safety net ... at all. If you were poor, elderly, orphaned, or disabled, you had to live in a poorhouse which was little more than a concentration camp without the starvation and industrialized murder. The conditions there were harsh, unpleasant, and dictatorial. The reason for the harshness is two-fold. First is because government wanted to make poorhouses so awful that anyone who could work WOULD work just to get out of the poorhouse. Secondly, and this is the topical reason, it was because people believed that poverty and disability were the result of moral bankruptcy. If you were poor or disabled, it was because you were immoral, you weren't right with God and therefore you deserved to be treated like a prisoner.

Just another example of how the divine punishment and reward system results in extremely bad decisions.

JP Cusick wrote:God saves our side and you see sheer luck.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was sheer luck. The results of WWII were not randomly decided by the roll of dice. No, our side won because of the courage, determination, and tenacity of the Allied side. We won because Hitler was stupid enough to try to take on the whole world. We won because our side had a far larger industrial base - and America and the Russians (beyond the Urals) were untouchable. Our side won because we could produce ships faster than Nazi U-boats could sink them. We won because our side had better planning. We won because Hitler refused to listen to his generals. We won primarily due to the Royal Air Force and the British intelligence apparatus at Bletchley Park. This is yet another list I could spend all day writing.

But 'God' is not on this list ... because to give credit to God is doing a disservice, nay, giving insult to all of the brave men and women who gave their lives to win that war. What did God do again? Oh right, nothing.

JP Cusick wrote:Certainly the Russian people are very religious people, and it is to their credit.

Hmm ... for a religious people, they certainly didn't show any mercy when the Red Army crossed into Germany. What, with all the raping and looting and shooting civilians, definitely not very Christian-like of them. There's an amusing story of a Russian soldier who had spent his entire life living in a yurt on the Russian steppes. When his unit entered Berlin, he saw a light bulb for the first time, so he looted it and took it home with him, thinking it would light up his yurt. Just a little WWII trivia for you.

JP Cusick wrote:There is also an old saying which goes like this = "There are no Atheist in a foxhole."

Not only is it an old saying, it is inaccurate, as well. History is a passion of mine, and WWII is my expertise. I have interviewed and seen interviews of many WWII veterans, trying to document their stories before there aren't any vets left (only 10% of them are still alive). You would be floored to know how many times a combat vet said that they lost their faith in God after seeing the carnage on the battlefield.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:44 pm

Shirina wrote:But luck is NOT another name for God. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Luck is not directed. It is essentially random, and while a lucky outcome can be influenced, it cannot be directed. In other words, praying for luck is an oxymoron. Saying luck is the same as God is also saying that the results of luck were intended to occur; luck has a plan, an intention, a predestined outcome. Moreover, claiming luck and god are the same is also saying that bad luck is a divine punishment and good luck is a divine reward ... and I've already posted about the dangers of that kind of attitude.

I see that I needed to be more clear with some adjectives attached.

The name or word of "Luck" is a weak and shallow name for God given by foolish and unsophisticated people who do not know any better.

I did not mean to say that "luck" was some accurate synonym for God which it is not.

And it is one of the big reasons why Atheism is weak, because they lean onto such weak things as luck.

God by other names will still work, but does not work so well.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:God saves our side and you see sheer luck.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was sheer luck. The results of WWII were not randomly decided by the roll of dice.

I did not say it to you, as I said that to a different person on this thread.

So I did not put those words into the mouth of that one person who did say it.

Sheesh!

headbang

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:54 pm

Shirina you have just posted two great posts, which I would have been able to do prior to my illness. Alas now I just have to look on. Your knowledge of your own politics helps of course and you say you study history especially the second world war, that puts you in a great position whilst talking/replying to JP.

by Heretic Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:06 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I see that I needed to be more clear with some adjectives attached.

The only interface we have with you are the words that you type and if you are not using them properly that is a real problem. It is a problem for you because you are not saying what you think you are saying and it is a problem for everyone else for exactly the same reason

JP Cusick wrote:The name or word of "Luck" is a weak and shallow name for God given by foolish and unsophisticated people who do not know any better.

Luck is a name given by those that misunderstand probability to random events.

JP Cusick wrote:I did not mean to say that "luck" was some accurate synonym for God which it is not.

I'm glad that I understand something that you are saying.

JP Cusick wrote:And it is one of the big reasons why Atheism is weak, because they lean onto such weak things as luck.

Atheism has no relationship with probability, random events or chance and so again I am at a loss. Perhaps you have not said what you meant to say. Perhaps you don't know how to say what you want to say or maybe what you want to say is based on a misunderstanding. We are not an unreasonable crowd and we will be quite willing to help you express yourself clearly.

JP Cusick wrote:God by other names will still work, but does not work so well.

Huh? I cannot make sense of that at all.

Heretic

by Tosh Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:13 pm

Evening JP,

Yes that is all correct, but I do not ask anyone to believe me as their evidence.
Other people can read the scriptures for their self, and they can do their own research, and use their own experiences.Then you each and all would have your own knowledge and experience and evidence in your own right. You can test your self just I too must test myself and my own findings.

I am not suggesting you are the evidence, you are suggesting the bible and your personal experiences are evidence and indeed knowledge of god's existence. I may be wrong but you seem to think evidence and knowledge do not have to be universally established by independent testing, it is more of a personal perception.
Surely you must accept this has not been the case since the enlightenment, for anything to count as evidence it must be testable and falsifiable, or anything is evidence of anything, and there is no objective knowledge, which as I said earlier is a form of solipsism.

And that makes sense to you. All the evidence points to God - so disregard the evidence. No scientific content there. - Sarcasm FYI.

I am disregarding what you believe to be evidence, evidence must be tested using the scientific method, a method devised to limit subjective assumptions and personal inference.

Your god hypothesis is empty of evidence, you are claiming everything is evidence of god's existence and nothing can count as evidence god does not exist, therefore there is nothing to test, and in the scientific sense this is a bare assertion.

by Tosh Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:21 pm

I have no problems with faith, if people want to believe God exists then that is fine by me, where I do take umbrage is when theists start to use terms like evidence, proof and knowledge in relation to God's existence, it merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of the meaning of the words, evidence, proof and knowledge. An hypothesis is not knowledge, untestable claims are not evidence or proof of knowledge.

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:34 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I did not mean to say that "luck" was some accurate synonym for God which it is not.

I never meant to suggest that Luck and God were the same entity. I should have been more clear, as well.

However, your words imply (if not directly state) that somehow god is the architect of luck. In other words, what seems like luck to us is actually the influence of god. BUT ... if that is the case, then my original argument still stands.

If that is NOT what you're saying, then we end up back to the implication that Luck and God are actually the same entity, which you have categorically said isn't the case.

So unless there is a third option that I'm not seeing ... well, nothing has changed regarding my primary point of contention.

JP Cusick wrote:I did not say it to you, as I said that to a different person on this thread.

My apologies, then, for misinterpreting you.

However, you were quoting me at the time, so ... it seemed as if you were talking to me.

JP Cusick wrote:And it is one of the big reasons why Atheism is weak, because they lean onto such weak things as luck.

Once again, you have it backwards. Here is why:

What is "prayer," exactly? Why do people pray? It is out of weakness. There are many things in life that we can't control nor do we have much, if any, influence upon them. We can't really control the weather, the other drivers on the road, or if we get cancer and whether we survive it. Some things can be influenced but not controlled.

Prayer is simply a defense mechanism for those who can't accept the fact that some things are out of our hands. Prayer gives the illusion of control via proxy by beseaching an all-powerful deity that may or may not control the situation in the way we want. Thus we pray for dear old Aunt Gladys to overcome her cancer because we can't control whether Gladys survives or not. Prayer gives us the false feeling that we've done something, that we're not just sitting around waiting for a random outcome.

The delusion, illusion, and artificial nature of hope and control derived through prayer is far weaker than the ability to accept that which we cannot control and deal with whatever cards we were dealt.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:35 pm

Exactly Tosh, I really do not believe that JP reads his posts before he posts them, if he did then I am sure that he would hopefully realise what utter tripe he is putting out for us to read.

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:39 pm

stu wrote:Shirina you have just posted two great posts, which I would have been able to do prior to my illness. Alas now I just have to look on. Your knowledge of your own politics helps of course and you say you study history especially the second world war, that puts you in a great position whilst talking/replying to JP.

Why, thank you, stu. Very Happy

I know what you mean about "prior to my illness" as I'm the same way. I have a neurological condition that limits just how much I can type, and the medicine I take can cause me to scramble words, omit words, and make egregious spelling errors. I have to proof read very carefully before I hit the "send" button ... and even then I don't always catch all of my mistakes. Before I was hit with this illness, I was extremely precise and rarely spelled a word wrong. Now ... meh ... between the pain and the medication, I've gotten a bit lazier.

by Tosh Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:39 pm

Evening Doc,

A very concise and accurate assessment of JP Cusick's and Polyglide's posts. Neither of them seem to grasp the significance to empiricism of premising something that's impossible to falsify.

I like Carl Sagan's analogy:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:41 pm

*Pokes Tosh*

by Tosh Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:43 pm

Evening Shirina,

Hope life is cool, don't want to make a big fuss, you know what Ivan is like.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:55 pm

JP wrote:What you are referring to is called self-esteem.

But more precisely is a reference to your own lack of self-esteem.

And I truly mean no disrespect by that, as it is a defect very common in most people of today.

I have worked hard for me to have very healthy self-esteem (note - the high self esteem is not healthy either) and that is why I can trust my own conscience and my own judgement and intellect.

JP, Asimov's quote was not about self-esteem. It's about one of the downside's to democracy. It means that your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge (which it isn't but it seems that way). People who know nothing about science are trying to make legislation in your nutty country to make creationism part of the science curriculum. That is an example of someone's ignorance being equal to other's knowledge.

You (and polyglide) are not knowledgeable enough in the sciences to argue sensibly about the subject. You will not ever concede that neurology, a science about the function of the brain, can easily explain your delusion, your hallucinations, your wishful thinking and your self-denial in the face of opposing hard evidence. You will never ever accept solid evidence. You will always think 'well what if this or what if that?' trying to squeeze your round belief through the square peg of knowledge and truth. Believing that you know the truth does not mean you actually do. Millions of people believing in the same thing does not make it true either.

Personal perception and subjective conclusions are not necessarily true or truth either. When you stick your hand in the fire, you get burned. That's a fact. God, Jesus, Shiva, Ganesh, Thor, Loki, Mithral are figments of human imagination. If you cannot see that the current Christian religion is just a mish mash of previous religions and legends, then there is no help for you. You will have to wander the desert of ignorance unless you grow a brain and figure it out for yourself. Many atheists have been where you are. You hold onto your belief because you think that staunch loyalty to your god will ensure your place in heaven. It's really the only reason you believe, because you actually fear death and the 'not being'.

We're all going down for the dirt nap eventually, JP. What matters is what you do with this life. Stop wasting it on useless and unfounded superstitions.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:58 pm

:bounce:

Can you poke someone on public forum in front of god and everyone.....????

:afraid:

by Sponsored content