1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Jun '14 13:01
    IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.

    You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a creature but knowing all along you could aim your morality along the lines of what you think a real god would be like, and that would NOT include human attributes, the attributes now stuck to the bible god and the god of Islam and Judaism and all the rest.

    We would say, a real god would NEVER say one sex is superior to the other, for instance so there would NEVER be verses in the new bible that would say men are worth 50 shekels but a woman 30.

    There would NEVER be verses saying to kill in this god's name.

    There would NEVER be verses saying you can kill your children if they are bad.

    There would NEVER be verses saying you must die if you leave our religion.

    There would NEVER be verses saying you are born into sin.

    The verses in THIS bible would all be positive, aimed at lifting the spirits of mankind.

    Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jun '14 13:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The verses in THIS bible would all be positive, aimed at lifting the spirits of mankind.
    Only a god imagined by man would have characteristics that stroke mans ego.
    A real god would have a whole universe and billions of years to play around in, and wouldn't give much thought to insignificant human beings.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 13:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Only a god imagined by man would have characteristics that stroke mans ego.
    A real god would have a whole universe and billions of years to play around in, and wouldn't give much thought to insignificant human beings.
    I disagree. If a "real god" went to the trouble of creating sentient beings that can feel pain, love, sadness and joy, I think we'd be pretty significant to that god. Human beings may be "insignificant" in terms of actual size and how much of the universe we inhabit, but are pretty special in every other way.
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    21 Jun '14 14:12
    Originally posted by vivify
    I disagree. If a "real god" went to the trouble of creating sentient beings that can feel pain, love, sadness and joy, I think we'd be pretty significant to that god. Human beings may be "insignificant" in terms of actual size and how much of the universe we inhabit, but are pretty special in every other way.
    It'd probably be more concerned about the mechanism by which all creatures evolve - than any creatures which result from it. Indeed wrt to their environment and the problems they have to face one could argue that *every* creature is pretty special in every other way than their size in relation to the universe. You're just concentrating on the traits which you find impressive (which is to be expected because you are yourself a human)

    Anyway, I disagree with you, and agree with Twhitehead.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jun '14 14:14
    Originally posted by vivify
    I disagree. If a "real god" went to the trouble of creating sentient beings that can feel pain, love, sadness and joy, I think we'd be pretty significant to that god. Human beings may be "insignificant" in terms of actual size and how much of the universe we inhabit, but are pretty special in every other way.
    We only seem special because of our big egos.
    1. Animals also have feelings, yet you seem to totally ignore them. If you took humans out of the picture, would it immediately follow that since God went to the trouble of creating mice that can feel pain, then surely it must be pretty significant to that God.
    2. What makes you think this god specifically made humans? Maybe we a just a by product of some other scheme. That you think he went to great trouble is presupposing we are special - your ego talking again.
    3. What makes you think we are the only sentient beings to exist in the universe?
    Similarly, what makes you think we are not a precursor to some being that will be far more special than us? Maybe we will evolve into something of far greater intelligence, or maybe we will invent computers with far greater intelligence (I personally suspect the latter). Maybe that is what god had in mind all along, and you are not more special than a rat.
    4. Being special, does not mean said god would want what is in our interests. We may be toys to amuse him. In fact, simply looking around should convince you of the fact that if this god did take an interest in creating specifically us, then he clearly wanted the suffering etc that comes with it. In fact much of religion is about trying to explain this away as being the influence of either punishment, or some other entity with some interest in us (but again, not coinciding with our interests).
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    21 Jun '14 14:181 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.

    You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a ...[text shortened]... med at lifting the spirits of mankind.

    Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?
    Get serious. Your premise is flawed.

    If there was a god EXACTLY like you describe, you'd then be in here exclaiming how ridiculous it is to believe in THAT god.

    Since religion has been banned from the Science forum on the basis of "ignorance", I wonder if atheism can be banned from the Spirituality forum on the basis of "ignorance".

    Nah, probably not. The bitching and wailing would be too much to bear.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jun '14 14:25
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Since religion has been banned from the Science forum on the basis of "ignorance",
    Not true. Religion gets removed from the science forum on the basis that it isn't science.
    RJHinds should be removed from the science forum on the basis that he is a troll.
    We welcome ignorant people in the science forum who wish to discuss science. There have been theists in that forum who have asked science questions and they get answers. There have also been atheists such as I, who being ignorant of certain science matter, ask questions on that forum and I recieve answers. Nobody ever gets rejected on the basis of ignorance.
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 14:47
    Originally posted by Agerg
    It'd probably be more concerned about the mechanism by which all creatures evolve - than any creatures which result from it. Indeed wrt to their environment and the problems they have to face one could argue that *every* creature is pretty special in every other way than their size in relation to the universe. You're just concentrating on the traits which you ...[text shortened]... ted because you are yourself a human)

    Anyway, I disagree with you, and agree with Twhitehead.
    What you're describing is a being with intelligence enough to ponder concepts like mechanisms of evolution. The only other beings like that (that we know of) are humans. That said, why wouldn't such a being be more concerned with the only creatures capable of that type thought, which by your description, is the same type of the thought displayed by the deity?
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 14:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We only seem special because of our big egos.
    1. Animals also have feelings, yet you seem to totally ignore them. If you took humans out of the picture, would it immediately follow that since God went to the trouble of creating mice that can feel pain, then surely it must be pretty significant to that God.
    2. What makes you think this god specifically m ...[text shortened]... t, or some other entity with some interest in us (but again, not coinciding with our interests).
    This is going by the type of god described in the OP, which would have a "bible" that is "positive". Given that, it only makes sense that such a god would be interested in us. Right?

    Even given your example, mice would also be significant to that deity, since within this possibly infinite universe, objects that can display any kind of emotion, are incredibly rare, or even possibly non-existence anywhere else but earth.
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 15:031 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Get serious. Your premise is flawed.

    If there was a god EXACTLY like you describe, you'd then be in here exclaiming how ridiculous it is to believe in THAT god.

    Since religion has been banned from the Science forum on the basis of "ignorance", I wonder if atheism can be banned from the Spirituality forum on the basis of "ignorance".

    Nah, probably not. The bitching and wailing would be too much to bear.
    Your statement isn't true. First of all, a kind and benevolent god like the one in the OP, would be a concept that's much more popular with atheists. This is because such a god would have a beneficial effect on society, rather than a negative one (wars, homophobia, science denial, etc.).

    So even if Sonhouse didn't believe in this god, I doubt he'd go to the trouble of complaining and debating against it, because the religion described in the OP is still beneficial. Proof of this is in the fact that Sonhouse doesn't slam religions like Buddhism, which stress positivity.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    21 Jun '14 15:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.

    You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a ...[text shortened]... med at lifting the spirits of mankind.

    Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?
    The real God is loving and forgiving, but also believes in justice and that unrepentant sinners must be punished.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jun '14 15:07
    Originally posted by vivify
    This is going by the type of god described in the OP, which would have a "bible" that is "positive". Given that, it only makes sense that such a god would be interested in us. Right?
    Which is why I was criticising the OP.

    Even given your example, mice would also be significant to that deity, since within this possibly infinite universe, objects that can display any kind of emotion, are incredibly rare, or even possibly non-existence anywhere else but earth.
    Again, that was my point, yet you made no mention of mice, you only seemed to be concerned about humans. Maybe the Bible is cleverly designed to make the life of pigs better.
    I think the Hindu religion was started by a god with an interest in cows.
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 15:20
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Which is why I was criticising the OP.

    [b]Even given your example, mice would also be significant to that deity, since within this possibly infinite universe, objects that can display any kind of emotion, are incredibly rare, or even possibly non-existence anywhere else but earth.

    Again, that was my point, yet you made no mention of mice, you only ...[text shortened]... life of pigs better.
    I think the Hindu religion was started by a god with an interest in cows.[/b]
    I mentioned humans, because as far as we know, humans display a wider range of emotions, social complexity and physical achievement than any other organism. That's beside point, anyway. Even if humans didn't exist, any object that displays sentience, let alone a range of emotions, would certainly be of interest to a god like the one you described, that can ponder things such as evolutionary mechanisms.
  14. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    21 Jun '14 15:23
    P.S., twhitehead: I was once rude to you on a different thread (I think it was the one where I gave an update on being prayed for). That was because I perceived you as troll. I have since seen many posts by you, and you've proven to be the opposite. You are a thoughtful and exceedingly intelligent poster. Even if you were a troll, I still shouldn't have been so rude.

    I apologize.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    21 Jun '14 15:52
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not true. Religion gets removed from the science forum on the basis that it isn't science.
    RJHinds should be removed from the science forum on the basis that he is a troll.
    We welcome ignorant people in the science forum who wish to discuss science. There have been theists in that forum who have asked science questions and they get answers. There have a ...[text shortened]... stions on that forum and I recieve answers. Nobody ever gets rejected on the basis of ignorance.
    In the Science Forum, I was trying to point out that the theory of evolution was not science. I was pointing out that the theory of creation made more sense and has more scientific evidence for it being true than the fairy tale of evolution.

    Creation is a supernatural miracle of God and does not qualify under the humanistic definition of science. However, the theory of evolution does not qualify as science either for it is no more that a fairy tale that is made to seem possible by adding billions of years of time. The evolutionists claim that anything can happen naturally, if there is enough time. How can that be science when it can't be checked on?

    Evolutionists will not allow another theory like Intelligent Design, which promises not to mention religion, into the science classroom. The Evolutionists are jealous and protect their religious fairy tale with great vigor now that they have convinced so many with their propaganda doctrines that it belongs as a part of science.

    Evolution is based on stupidity and ignorance, not intelligence. Therefore, Intelligent Design cannot be allowed in the science classroom in any form whatsoever, because the students might start thinking for themselves instead of believing the evolution propaganda.
Back to Top