Quote - But it was too late, by the time this first philosopher could conceive of these notions of the structure of the Universe and how he might be connected or disconnected (sin) from all the other creatures who didn't seem to have his worries his prefrontal lobe was developed. He realized that eating the magic mushrooms had changed his people forever. Even those born who had never eaten the forbidden fruit were born different from the animals of the world. Where once they had roamed with all creatures in the garden now they could only see themselves as separate. They were now humans.

I always thought the garden was a metaphor for the animal kingdom.  Also, as an early important use of language, the powers given to language is fascinating.  It's telling that Adam did not get to  name himself, but was instructed to name the animals when given dominion over them.

We've become seperate from the animals, but haven't united amongst ourselves.  I believe that some form of common belief system may be necessary to leaving the planet, if not necessary to being allowed to leave the planet.  Deep space technology just isn't useful in warfare, and that's what drives research spending.

Perhaps the turning away from psychedelics coincides with the development of the bicameral mind.  Using cranial capacity to determine that the brain has not changed in 50,000 years seems a bit suspect.  For example, autism rates are on the rise.  Is that being reflected in cranial changes?

I hate to sound all Trekkie, but it seems that the most likely reason for an advanced civilation to take notice of us is simply that we are closer to becoming a potential threat.  We are a race that has spent the better part of its existence perfecting killing, and now here we are trying to unravel the dimensions of space, making black holes in laboratories and hoping to seed ourselves throughout the galaxy.  I'd want to pay attention to something like that happening in my cosmic backyard.

insulted...insulting

lol i am well aware of my limitations.  actually, i have the notion that i am far less competent than the incompetent doofus i know i am.

i mean, it really boggles my mind to realize how misinformed and opinionated i am.  i'm like vapor, i am so inconsequential.  so i remain uninsulted and don't mind the occasional puppy popping up.  it's all in a days existence.

as for how threatening a species we are, i don't really buy it.  i think that the violence we have among ourselves is an essential (if horrible) consequence of the structure of the organism we make up.  different ideas clash sometimes violently.  people fight over resouces they could just as easily obtain switching to other sources.  but none of us can contemplate the whole picture, so we find ourselves desparate and behave ghoulisly as if that's our only possible route.  the violence is useful in the evolution and maintenence of the larger organism, or it would not exist.  part of the conflict is, after all, in the very peaceful person refusing to see the value in the existence of the violent person, and the other way around. we ask ourselves, how can someone oppose our belief system (as a nation) when surely they must know that we are right and they are wrong?  they must be monsters, or manipulated for evil gains.  the people dying for their causes must surely be insane, whereas the ones dying for our causes are heroic.

now, if these attitudes were not useful for the further growth of the society, they would die out.  but they haven't.  they won't.  and we will continue soulfully killing into our future.

there are surely some alien races whose development did not go this route, possibly learning how to implement change in their members with the thoroughness and speed that our societies do with war and other violence.  but have no doubt that there are those just like us out there too.

after all, canada could attack the u.s. any time.  we don't have a problem with them do we?

hopefully we'll be as nutty as we are when we leave here, because therein lies our evolution.

Quote - I always thought the garden was a metaphor for the animal kingdom.  Also, as an early important use of language, the powers given to language is fascinating.  It's telling that Adam did not get to  name himself, but was instructed to name the animals when given dominion over them.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was god."

There may have been animals running around but until someone named them they didn't exist.

I know, sounds crazy, but we don't have to theorize about 4000 years ago there are enough present day examples. 

Germs didn't exist until someone began speaking about them. Aliens that don't believe in Jesus didn't exist until several people decided to go on for several pages about them. One might not believe that these aliens exist but they certainly exist as the subject of this thread and that's only due to the creative nature of the word.

Quote -  We've become seperate from the animals, but haven't united amongst ourselves.  I believe that some form of common belief system may be necessary to leaving the planet

 Au contraire, we are very united, once again, around words, specifically the language we speak. This one aspect is what has let us build a civilization. 

Quote - Perhaps the turning away from psychedelics coincides with the development of the bicameral mind.  Using cranial capacity to determine that the brain has not changed in 50,000 years seems a bit suspect.  For example, autism rates are on the rise.  Is that being reflected in cranial changes?

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Terence MacKenna's concept (that I played with earlier) was that the human brain's development was influenced by low doses of psychedelic plants over many generations. I'm not sure how the autism rate plays in this subject. It may, I just don't know much about autism. 

Quote - I hate to sound all Trekkie, but

Oh, c'mon, take a look at where you are. We're disembodied voices in a cybernetic labyrinth the size of the planet discussing the religious beliefs of aliens and the possible consequences (or lack of) based on whether we believe in them or not. 

Maybe there are no aliens.Perhaps alien is just the wrong word and until we get the word right we won't be able to really see them and know that they exist. 

GAAAAHH! No posts for three days then BoOM. I though maybe this thread had finally died. You woke me up from a deep sleep. grin

Quote - "In the beginning was the word and the word was god."

 

I always thought that one was in serious need of correction. Whomever wrote it had an ambitious idea but just totally missed the base on a couple points.

"In the beginning there was nothing and the nothing became energy and some of the energy became matter."

Much better.

And on a completely obscure tiny blue planet 13-some billion years later in an equally unnoticeable and insignificant common galaxy, an intelligent species invented gods to allay their knowledge of their utter insignificance und unimportance; to elevate themselves to something higher than their reality allowed.

And aside from all the scholarly historical curiosities, that's pretty much everything anyone needs to know about religion. ;-)

Heretic!

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.

So Long And Thanks for All the Fish - Douglas Adams.

Quote - Heretic!

My hugely religious Southern Baptist ex-boss used to call me Heathen. :D

Nope, nope, you are not a heathen. Blasphemous heretic is you.

I, on the other hand, am an apostate.

And I'm a Godless Commie Bastard.  :biggrin:

Quote - > Quote - "In the beginning was the word and the word was god."

 

I always thought that one was in serious need of correction. Whomever wrote it had an ambitious idea but just totally missed the base on a couple points.

"In the beginning there was nothing and the nothing became energy and some of the energy became matter."

Isn't that pretty much the current scientific theory?

Quote -  

Isn't that pretty much the current scientific theory?

More or less.

Although Einstein's E=mc2 proved that energy has mass and that energy and matter are just different states of the same thing. And quantum mechanics proves that energy can spontaneously burst into existence from literally nothing.

Most of the energy remained as energy, but a small percentage of it it formed matter which makes up the universe. No God required - physics can do everything we see all on its own. :D

Quote - > Quote -  

Isn't that pretty much the current scientific theory?

 

More or less.

Although Einstein's E=mc2 proved that energy has mass and that energy and matter are just different states of the same thing. And quantum mechanics proves that energy can spontaneously burst into existence from literally nothing.

Most of the energy remained as energy, but a small percentage of it it formed matter which makes up the universe. No God required - physics can do everything we see all on its own. :D

I see. Well, people are always asking where God came from, so now I'm asking... where did this energy come from? Did it just blink into existence?

Aaaand we're back to my cellular automaton theory.

This is the central conflict, in which I see no reason for conflict. This is confusing. Bear with me.

Imagine the universe is actually an incredibly large "computing device". "God" is some programmer who set it up. Or not. But it is a construct - it was created - and then .... set in motion! Shocking.

Since then it's just been running.

I have a similar but childishly trivial version I've been building myself. I have a little world (very little) in which every point has a state. Each point in the world follows an incredibly simple rule that determines it's next state, given the previous state of that point and a small number of points around it. (Think "Conway's game of life" on steroids.)

I choose the rule. I choose the initial state (often just one or two dots of energy). From there, an entire universe of stuff explodes. This all happens on my screen in a few seconds. I'm not making this up.

Depending on how I set up the rule for the "next state" calculation, I get very different results. But, fascinatingly, in a vast number of cases, something like "life" appears. There are small "creatures" (patterns) that appear, move, grow, shrink, encounter each other, and I'm not making this up - they reproduce, grow, multiply, until they fill the universe. Except that the universe can't support an infinite number so when there are too many some die. I swear I'm not making this up.

I built this program 10 years ago. I call it Animotes.

I think it is a very strong possibility that the entire universe we live in is a cellular automaton - a "matrix" of numerical values following some very simple, but carefully chosen rules.

This explains, also, why the incredibly balanced laws of the universe are what they are - how they appear to be chosen "just so". Indeed - they were. As were thousands of other iterations with different laws, and the ones that didn't work so well were discarded.

So - God is a software engineer messing around with an incredibly powerful computer. He's watching, but not doing much more than "poking" it occasionally and being totally fascinated by what he built.

And then he's thinking to himself - where did I come from. Maybe I'm in a simulation as well, built by an even more powerful being in an ever more complicated universe than mine.

And he's wondering - where did he come from. And thinking that...

It's turtles all the way down. (look it up)

Quote -  

I see. Well, people are always asking where God came from, so now I'm asking... where did this energy come from? Did it just blink into existence?

Being that I'm not a quantum physicist I can't answer that, but it would seem that that's pretty much exactly what happened at some point. Possibly not energy per se, but rather energy in the form of subatomic particles.

Now I suspect you're not particularly interested in learning about that, considering how you phrased your question, but if you are there are loads and loads of sites on the internet dealing with it, including loads of videos of lectures by physicists discussing it all. Here's a good place to start though: CERN.

Physics seeks to answer these hard questions and corrects itself often, but slowly they've been nailing it down. They have observed energy changing into matter, and matter converts to energy all the time as a natural process. They test all their theories using the latest equipment and have a real good base for most of what they currently believe.

The religious people are satisfied with believing God was just "always". Just forever, no beginning, no end, he just simply exists and always has. No intention of changing that belief either, because the religious texts say that's just the way it is.

I think I prefer the thinking of the scientists, who are genuinely seeking "truth", as opposed to the religious people who really aren't concerned about the truth of creation and our existence, especially when it flies completely in the face of everything they want to believe.

Quote - > Quote -  

I see. Well, people are always asking where God came from, so now I'm asking... where did this energy come from? Did it just blink into existence?

Physics seeks to answer these hard questions and corrects itself often, but slowly they've been nailing it down. They have observed energy changing into matter, and matter converts to energy all the time as a natural process. They test all their theories using the latest equipment and have a real good base for most of what they currently believe.

The religious people are satisfied with believing God was just "always". Just forever, no beginning, no end, he just simply exists and always has. No intention of changing that belief either, because the religious texts say that's just the way it is.

I think I prefer the thinking of the scientists, who are genuinely seeking "truth", as opposed to the religious people who really aren't concerned about the truth of creation and our existence, especially when it flies completely in the face of everything they want to believe.

Because in the end, it really doesn't matter, perhaps? If there is a God, we will find out eventually. If there isn't, we won't.

Quote - Because in the end, it really doesn't matter, perhaps? If there is a God, we will find out eventually. If there isn't, we won't.

I'm not really understanding your purpose. Do you have a point you were wanting to make?

If there was a god, he would want people to think and learn, not only about him but about everything. I'm pretty sure there are even a number of statements to that effect in the Bible.

Ultimately it comes down to either there is a God or there isn't. It's intelligent design or just happen stance. Aliens are either created or creators. If they are creators I think that saying, "Too many cooks in the kitchen" comes into play.

For me, is it easier or more logical to believe that there is a central force or figure behind the curtain making all of this happen and stay together, or are we just lucky that the atoms flying about seem not to destroy us?

Quote - > Quote - Because in the end, it really doesn't matter, perhaps? If there is a God, we will find out eventually. If there isn't, we won't.

I'm not really understanding your purpose. Do you have a point you were wanting to make?

If there was a god, he would want people to think and learn, not only about him but about everything. I'm pretty sure there are even a number of statements to that effect in the Bible.

I've never quite understood how it is that someone who professes to have no belief in God knows so confidently what He would want.  And in my Bible, at least, there are a number of times Gods puts restrictions on what Man should or shouldn't know or do. In fact, I seem to remember something in Genesis about Forbidden fruit.

Quote -  

I've never quite understood how it is that someone who professes to have no belief in God knows so confidently what He would want.  And in my Bible, at least, there are a number of times Gods puts restrictions on what Man should or shouldn't know or do. In fact, I seem to remember something in Genesis about Forbidden fruit.

You're right, it's idle speculation. I know no more of what God wants than I know of what the Easter Bunny wants. I would figure the Easter Bunny would want carrots and not to end up as someone's hassenpfeffer, but my ability to speculate on the desires of fantasy creatures only goes so far.

But never assume that the lack of belief in god is synonymous with ignorance of the subject. I grew up literally pelted with religion and was forced to go through the motions routinely. Insofar as the fundamentals of Christianity is concerned, I know quite a bit, not just as a result of my forced education, but also because as I got older I became more interested in it. Not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of curiosity, to better know its history and evolution.

So don't assume that all non-believers are also ignorant as to the content of the Bible. There ARE those of us who have made a conscious and educated decision to brush it off as fiction, based on having learned about it, not simply ignored it. I don't disbelieve because I want to, I disbelieve because I HAVE to, because believing makes no sense.

 Quote: "I seem to remember something in Genesis about Forbidden fruit."

I tried to cover that back on page 10 with a bit of whimsy and Terence MacKenna.

Most of the guide books to better living that were written more than few thousand years ago were meant to be very much grounded in reality. And as human behavior goes, many people still find some good guidelines. 

Reading the other posts in this thread, I know everyone is clear where these guidelines have been abused over the centuries, and where a lack of the facts have doomed some to be the ideological prisoners of the best science that the 3rd Century had to offer. 

Sure, there's a big difference between the timeline of the Big Bang and a seven day week of Creation. And a lot of people argue that one must have one or the other. 

I believe that seven days wasn't a literal seven days but I don't think its about the Big Bang at all. I believe its more about our own creative human abilities to identify, judge, and make distinctions and that the early shamans were trying to quantify these abilities into a set of actions that would reap the desired result. And they were all trying to do it without Stephen Hawking or a National Geographic special anywhere in sight. It's been rough and religion has been its own worst enemy at times but I think it has over the long haul made Hawking and the Society possible. 

To me, it seems like its taken a long time to build this tower of babel and we're lucky to live in a time that knows about quarks and black holes. Where Bill can develop his Animotes (very cool btw) and we discuss all this stuff around the world without going kookoo. 

To be sure, in some places today and a thousand years ago we would all have to killed for thinking.

Yes, Bill, I'm trackin' ya, "You can't fool me, its turtles all the way down." ; )

Quote - > Quote -  

I've never quite understood how it is that someone who professes to have no belief in God knows so confidently what He would want.  And in my Bible, at least, there are a number of times Gods puts restrictions on what Man should or shouldn't know or do. In fact, I seem to remember something in Genesis about Forbidden fruit.

 

You're right, it's idle speculation. I know no more of what God wants than I know of what the Easter Bunny wants. I would figure the Easter Bunny would want carrots and not to end up as someone's hassenpfeffer, but my ability to speculate on the desires of fantasy creatures only goes so far.

But never assume that the lack of belief in god is synonymous with ignorance of the subject. I grew up literally pelted with religion and was forced to go through the motions routinely. Insofar as the fundamentals of Christianity is concerned, I know quite a bit, not just as a result of my forced education, but also because as I got older I became more interested in it. Not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of curiosity, to better know its history and evolution.

So don't assume that all non-believers are also ignorant as to the content of the Bible. There ARE those of us who have made a conscious and educated decision to brush it off as fiction, based on having learned about it, not simply ignored it. I don't disbelieve because I want to, I disbelieve because I HAVE to, because believing makes no sense.

I never said you were ignorant of the subject of God, just what he would want. 

I once read a book on physics. It doesn't make me a physicist. :biggrin:

One of the religious Myths is that "God create Man in His own image".

It should be obvious that what really happened is "Men created God in their own image".

Quote - One of the religious Myths is that "God create Man in His own image".

It should be obvious that what really happened is "Men created God in their own image".

Thank you.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Quote - One of the religious Myths is that "God create Man in His own image".

It should be obvious that what really happened is "Men created God in their own image".

This rather limits the definition of god to the current favourites.  Many of the Egyptian gods had human bodies, but animal heads.  Apparently, anthropomorphised gods have stood the test of time better than humans with bird or goat heads.

Quote - This rather limits the definition of god to the current favourites.  Many of the Egyptian gods had human bodies, but animal heads.  Apparently, anthropomorphised gods have stood the test of time better than humans with bird or goat heads.

Considering he was obviously referring to the Bible in Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.", your example doesn't work.

nruddock was specifically referring to the god of the Old Testament, so whatever the Egyptians had going on isn't even relevant to this part of the discussion. And considering the thread title and topic, I'd say we've overall been dealing primarily with the Christian god this whole time. Or at least the God of the Old Testament, aka, God, Yahweh, Allah.

The Egyptians got it right at least though. If you're going to live in a fantasy world, might as well go all out and at least have interesting and varied gods to hang with. :D

Quote - ... was specifically referring to the god of the Old Testament, so whatever the Egyptians had going on isn't even relevant to this part of the discussion.

Only kind of. The principle generalises to all notions of a god or gods.

People have always used god(s) as placeholders for things they are otherwise unable to fully explain, comprehend, or control; hence even the earliest gods were anthropomorphic. Only later did anthropotheism appear, followed by theomorphism.
The zoomorphic gods of the Egyptian and other similar early cultures are what became the basis for demons and devils in later ones.

It's not an attempt to live in a fantasy. Imagine the desire to describe an inexplicable experience and resorting to the metaphors available in that time and base them all on the best technical knowledge your ancestors could pass down to you. 

If we lost this perch at the top of the tower we now enjoy how long would it be before our grandchildren (or theirs) began to believe in some inverted science mixed with a ritual of religion and movie references? : )

And to stay on topic:

Aliens traveling so far to find us might want to shop around a little before adopting the beliefs of the creatures who couldn't leave their own planet. If there is a desire to actually sell them on the ideas of Christianity you better choose the salesman wisely.

Without sounding xenophobic, all the religions are pretty much for humans only. It is more likely that if they are made of something that is intelligent enough to get here they might be more likely to start converting us to their way of thinking. Perhaps that is better that than converting us to food. 

"Save, savior": You've got to be lost in the mechanics of the non-phenomenal world to be saved and delivered into enlightenment. As our Aliens aren't defined here we don't know if they fall into the pre-existing condition that is inherent to this philosophy. 

Also, remember the image of the first god was wheat. But its difficult to imagine what wheat or the sun is thinking. It makes sense that we moved to a metaphor that was more relatable. 

Quote - It's not an attempt to live in a fantasy. Imagine the desire to describe an inexplicable experience and resorting to the metaphors available in that time and base them all on the best technical knowledge your ancestors could pass down to you. 

Well yes, this is very true. I'm kicking myself right now for not having gone in that direction by now because I've long said that same thing in many hundreds of discussions over the years.

People created gods and magic and all kinds of metaphysical superstition to explain that which their limited knowledge simply couldn't touch.

But also, humans have always needed some vastly superior and omnipotent and omniscient entity or entities to ask for help from when things got tough, such as during droughts or plagues.

And equally, we've always needed some powerful entity to blame, or to have to appease in order to set things right again.

For example, death can be a terrible and frightening thing for some people if the knowledge is that if one dies and that's it, end of story. But death can be a joyous thing, something to almost look forward to, if there's a god and a heaven, a place where everything is perfect and none of the problems of the mortal world are included, and life  and health are eternal.

So some gods were created by man to explain the mysteries of the world, to help when times were bad through prayer and sacrifice, and to supply a glorious reward after a life of tribulation.

And of course, other gods were created for very specific reasons, who had their own departments to manage in their dealings with humans, but I'm focusing largely on the god of the Bible here, and similar monotheistic religions.

Quote: "And equally, we've always needed some powerful entity to blame, or to have to appease in order to set things right again."

While I think we have their hard work to thank for some basic principles that have withstood the test of Time, their method by definition wasn't so methodical. 

For example, when it came to "set things right again" who came up with sacrifice?

Someone convinced the others that God worked on some sort of monetary system based on blood. And if the result wasn't achieved then you just didn't offer enough blood or the right kind of blood. Proof that the Shame-man shouldn't be allowed back at the all-you-can-eat peyote buffet.

Imagine the laugh the Aliens will have when they hear us explain all that we know about Quantum Physics. (In my version the Aliens can laugh but mostly expressed through a series of farts and tap dancing) thanks be to Kurt

Quote - Quote: "And equally, we've always needed some powerful entity to blame, or to have to appease in order to set things right again."

While I think we have their hard work to thank for some basic principles that have withstood the test of Time, their method by definition wasn't so methodical. 

For example, when it came to "set things right again" who came up with sacrifice?

Someone convinced the others that God worked on some sort of monetary system based on blood. And if the result wasn't achieved then you just didn't offer enough blood or the right kind of blood. Proof that the Shame-man shouldn't be allowed back at the all-you-can-eat peyote buffet.

Imagine the laugh the Aliens will have when they hear us explain all that we know about Quantum Physics. (In my version the Aliens can laugh but mostly expressed through a series of farts and tap dancing) thanks be to Kurt

The idea of sacrifice isn't based on the idea of blood, whether it's the right kind or not. It's based on the idea of giving something of value. And God isn't the only deity that "demanded" it. but you're right. after all the whole idea of worship and sacrifice is based on the idea of you paying for something that is provided for you by your god.

By the by, I'm stepping out of this thread  now, primarily because it's become tedious. and just a tad offensive. i don't really have a problem with anyone not believing in God or religion of any kind. I'm not a religious person myself, although I do believe in a higher Universal power or entity that I call "God".

Occasionally, though I do fall prey and get sucked into threads like this one. It's not the debate which I find offensive as much as it is the attitude of the people  who bandy about words like "fantasy" and "delusions", indicating that the someone is of an inferior intelligence for holding such beliefs. I choose to leave now before someone says something for which I probably won't be able to restrain my answer.

Have fun, keep it civil and stop the baiting.

Quote - Occasionally, though I do fall prey and get sucked into threads like this one. It's not the debate which I find offensive as much as it is the attitude of the people  who bandy about words like "fantasy" and "delusions", indicating that the someone is of an inferior intelligence for holding such beliefs. I choose to leave now before someone says something for which I probably won't be able to restrain my answer.

Have fun, keep it civil and stop the baiting.

Well I guess you probably won't read this then, but it's simply a matter of calling it what it is, or at least what it seems.

A psychologist would say a schizophrenic person is suffering from delusions, and with good cause. However, to the schizophrenic, his delusions can be very very real. To him they are completely real and believable, especially if he's not in treatment and trying to make a conscious effort to tell himself they're not real.

But I guess when it comes to God it's a different story? In spite of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that God exists, people still hear him, see him, experience him, worship him , talk to him, kill for him, give him money... and the list goes on and on.

In spite of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that God exists, and an enormous amount of reason to believe that God doesn't exist, people dedicate their lives to serving him because to them he is very real

How is this any different from the schizophrenic's delusions?

I'm not trying to be offensive, but in a discussion such as this, there are some things that have to be said straight up because that's the only way to make the point.

People who believe in God are certainly not of lower intelligence by the way, and many are of the highest intelligence, so don't think for a minute I'm implying that they're not as smart as non-believers.

my view differs in that there's no evidence for/against any god's existence, hence it's irrelevant to the nature of the universe, as mentioned by hawking.  he's gotta be right at least once in a while.  one can't prove gods exist, nor can one disprove they exist. this allows us to concentrate on things with evidence to interpret.  they must have interpreted the origin of the universe incorrectly, and if we point that out, it's a civil discussion rather than being excommunicated or declared an apostate to the dogma of physics.

It was fun for a while, I haven't jumped into one of these kinds of threads for a long time. If I've offended anyone it wasn't my intention. I was going for the fun exchange of ideas.

However, I can see that its likely to take a more serious turn if the focus becomes trying to define an ultimate omnipotent being in charge of running the universe. Even with the best knowledge science has to offer I can only imagine that it can't take into account all the data there is to consider, not only because it is vast and un-reachable but that we don't as yet have all the scales by which to measure it. 

A 100 years ago some people really really believed in the science of Ether (not the alcohol based substance)as a massless medium that bound the void of the universe together, eventually discarded as a theory that had no weight. Time passes and the footprints of neutrinos start to lead the conversation back to what sounds a lot like ether.

The Force, midichlorians, the Great Magnet, whatever you call it, reams of forests printed  with  scientific data are offered as a sacrifice to appease He Who Pays the Bills not to withdraw funding. That is little consolation when each of us ride the giant wave of existence and struggle to keep our balance on a daily basis. It seems only natural that each person sometime in their life is going to try and make a direct call to The Source without having to pass through the belly of a scientist. 

and for the record I love science. 

I believe it may have been Noam Chomsky who said that God/religion is a useful device for short circuiting endless questioning. The example given was a child who ask why A is. Told that A is because of B, the child then asks why B is and so on, until the adult gives up and says ‘Just Because.’ God, serves to keep us from asking endless questions about the nature of existence and allows people to get back to leading their lives. Someone else, it may have been Dag Hammarskjold, said that people are born with a God shaped hole in their hearts that needs to be filled. I’ve seen some speculation that humans may have a genetic predisposition towards religious belief, which says the same thing essentially, in a much less poetic way. At its most basic level, I think that religion simply provides comfort for self-aware beings who know that their existence – as they know it – will end. Of course, none of this says anything about whether or not God actually exists.

The staggering array of religious belief that people subscribe to may be a refutation of God’s existence i.e. he can’t possible be all of those contradictory things. OTOH, by definition, maybe he could be if he wanted to. More likely, as Sam suggests, God would be beyond any human attempt at comprehension. If God is benign or beneficent, or at least not malicious, he would be hard pressed IMO, to impart anything of greater value to us beyond the Golden Rule of loving and caring for each other. Most of the rest of the trappings of religion seem to me to be too conveniently arranged to foster and maintain a particular social order, e.g. many religions seem to be patriarchal and male dominated.

Not all religions are hostile to inquiry and some even evolve their beliefs. A large segment of American Christianity went from supporting slavery to embracing, based on ‘Biblical truth,’ racial equality. If I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church for instance, has no problem with evolution per se. Of course, they probably have long memories of getting burned by the whole Galileo thing. Both science and religion are, ideally, self-correcting. Science simply deals with easier questions. At the same time, there is a literalist strain of religiosity which is resistant to any questioning. I would describe those beliefs as being monolithic in that if you question one tenet, then all the others are open to question as well, and potentially the whole structure collapses. If you read Bob Altemeyer’s work, The Authoritarians, he suggests that certain personality types are naturally attracted to such belief systems.

For me, any religion worth its salt has to answer the classic and fundamental question of why a truly benevolent God allows terrible things to happen to the most innocent of his children. And no fudging about free will. There are certain things a loving parent doesn’t allow to happen to their children if they can prevent it. So God is either 1. A slacker, 2. A sadist, or 3. Nonexistent. I prefer to believe that God has his own limitations, perhaps self-imposed, and can’t help us out of every jam. That seems like a contradiction of the very definition of God as omnipotent, but it would explain a lot – and, I would argue that you really aren’t all powerful if you don’t have the power to limit yourself – which can become circular I suppose ÷) Still, I think that we would be better served by doing more to get our own act together, rather than depending on God to come riding to the rescue. He probably has his own problems to deal with.

Quote -
For me, any religion worth its salt has to answer the classic and fundamental question of why a truly benevolent God allows terrible things to happen to the most innocent of his children. And no fudging about free will. There are certain things a loving parent doesn’t allow to happen to their children if they can prevent it. So God is either 1. A slacker, 2. A sadist, or 3. Nonexistent. I prefer to believe that God has his own limitations, perhaps self-imposed, and can’t help us out of every jam. That seems like a contradiction of the very definition of God as omnipotent, but it would explain a lot – and, I would argue that you really aren’t all powerful if you don’t have the power to limit yourself – which can become circular I suppose ÷) Still, I think that we would be better served by doing more to get our own act together, rather than depending on God to come riding to the rescue. He probably has his own problems to deal with.

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment (pun very much intended)...

I posted earlier that any attempts to understand God's motivations, intentions or even nature of being would be futile.  Imagine an ant trying to understand a human, for example.

Who knows whether or not God lets these happen for the overall good of humanity?  Or that - if heaven exists - the people who suffer go there straight away as reward for their terrible suffering on earth?  Or some other, unfathomable reason?  My cats must think I'm a sadist at times, when they get stuffed in a box and taken to a strange place to be stabbed with metal spikes by a guy in a white coat.

And maybe - just maybe - the Free Will argument is valid, after all.  God gives us life, the world and everything in it.  Gives us the tools to deal with most things (intelligence and a reasonably adaptable body) then lets us make the best of what we have.

Would we, as a species, learn anything if God rescued us from every self imposed disaster?  Even natural disasters may be factored in, if the ultimate good of the species is the consideration, rather than the material well being of individuals.  Maybe we just think too small.

Of course, as an Atheist, I don't believe in a God of any description but I believe the points above to be valid in the case of a real, existent, deity.

Indeed Sam, those are very valid points, especially from an atheistic or perhaps even an agnostic viewpoint. I however, am taking religion, at least New Testament Christianity, at it’s Word. If God is indeed our benevolent Heavenly Father, and if we are indeed created in his image, then I find it difficult to believe that our definition of love is that fundamentally different from his. There are certain things that love does not permit, even ‘tough love’ in the service of life lessons, or ‘don’t worry, you’ll be rewarded in eternity,’ looking down the road love. I fully accept the possibility of God being any or none of those. Free will? You may let the wastrel who squandered his inheritance live in a cold water flat, but you don’t let him die of starvation. Good of the species? Surely God knows better methods of population control than letting children burn to death in rivers molten lava. And hopefully, the guy with the metal spikes is trying to make kitty better and not extract information from her while you sit studiously avoiding violation of the Prime Directive. I’m not sayin’ it ain’t so, and you’ll find plenty of religious folk who agree. It’s probably the best they can come up with to plug a contradiction in their narrative, when a simple ‘I don’t know,’ would perhaps be more honest. The customers usually prefer something a little more concrete before they part with their money and their souls though.

I agree with the ant analogy and our inability to understand. In looking at the various concepts that we can understand however, I find that love and compassion, in the traditional (but certainly not exclusively) Christian sense, is the best candidate for avoiding the ultimate self-destruction that would render the question moot – at least from our species’ perspective. That seems to me to be a perfectly rational assessment that would apply to any putative aliens as much as it would to us. Call it a universal constant. It certainly isn’t easy to achieve. That’s probably why we haven’t heard from ET. Most sentient species have probably killed themselves off before achieving it. As a bonus though, even if God is a fantasy, it’s still a worthy goal – kind of like going to Tijuana to see the donkey show and finding out it doesn’t exist, but you had a wonderful time and found a great Mexican restaurant anyway. OK, an intentionally profane comparison to avoid getting too profoundly sappy here ÷) I’m sure that my theology is as full of holes as anyone’s and I haven’t made a dime off of it to boot, but without uncertainty, faith would be redundant. At any rate, when logic and science fail, turn to the poets:

“There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning." – Thornton Wilder, The Bridge of San Luis Rey

This is good stuff. I keep thinking I should unsubscribe from this thread but I can't stop eating popcorn with eyes glued to the screen.

I see a new aphorism arising from these points.

"Life - It's one big rabies shot."

You know, the Mormons (LDS Church) believe that the God of our planet - that is, the god of the Old Testament - aka God, Yahweh, Allah is just one of many, possibly infinite gods.

That's not to say they're polytheists though. They're not, they believe our planet has only one God, but that there are other planets that have their own god. Or it might be that our universe has only one, and there are other universes. Not really clear on that.

Anyway, that's just part of the progression. The "best" of the Christians (Mormons, of course) get rewarded in their eternity by becoming gods of their own planet or universe. They have a wife, they create a family, and it's a very real, very non-mysterious, non-metaphysical existence. And no, I'm not getting that from anti-Mormon propaganda either - I have a few good friends who are Mormons and that's how it is, that's what they ultimately believe.

Actually, I think their whole belief is really kinda cool when you get into the deeper aspects, certainly far more interesting than regular Christianity.

So it made me think, what if there ARE many gods, each with their own region, planet, Universe, whatever to populate and maintain.

You would think that some would be better than others, wouldn't you?

I've thought how terribly ironic it would be if we ended up with one of the average ones, or even worse, a god with a bad attitude and a grudge. Like, what if our God just barely passed God School with low grades and got sent out to this remote region as a punishment. What if some of the other Gods are just cooler and more imaginative with none of that sacrifice this, worship me like that bullshit? What if they're hands-on gods that like to hang with the little people and aren't all stuffy and strict?

Hey you never know, we could have been universally screwed before we even began, just out of bad luck. ;-)

I've been lurking here since this thread started, drinking me coffee and eating Metamucil cookies.  I really didn't think that this thread would last this long.  I'm proud in the way that this thread going-extremely intelligent thought on both sides of the equation.  My hat is off to all of you.  Jan

Quote - You know, the Mormons (LDS Church) believe that the God of our planet - that is, the god of the Old Testament - aka God, Yahweh, Allah is just one of many, possibly infinite gods.

That's not to say they're polytheists though. They're not, they believe our planet has only one God, but that there are other planets that have their own god. Or it might be that our universe has only one, and there are other universes. Not really clear on that.

Anyway, that's just part of the progression. The "best" of the Christians (Mormons, of course) get rewarded in their eternity by becoming gods of their own planet or universe. They have a wife, they create a family, and it's a very real, very non-mysterious, non-metaphysical existence. And no, I'm not getting that from anti-Mormon propaganda either - I have a few good friends who are Mormons and that's how it is, that's what they ultimately believe.

Actually, I think their whole belief is really kinda cool when you get into the deeper aspects, certainly far more interesting than regular Christianity.

So it made me think, what if there ARE many gods, each with their own region, planet, Universe, whatever to populate and maintain.

You would think that some would be better than others, wouldn't you?

I've thought how terribly ironic it would be if we ended up with one of the average ones, or even worse, a god with a bad attitude and a grudge. Like, what if our God just barely passed God School with low grades and got sent out to this remote region as a punishment. What if some of the other Gods are just cooler and more imaginative with none of that sacrifice this, worship me like that bullshit? What if they're hands-on gods that like to hang with the little people and aren't all stuffy and strict?

 

Hey you never know, we could have been universally screwed before we even began, just out of bad luck. ;-)

I grew up in the Mormon church and NEVER EVER heard any of that.  Do you have any place I can actually read that for myself?

Quote - I grew up in the Mormon church and NEVER EVER heard any of that.  Do you have any place I can actually read that for myself?

Oh geez I don't have the time for that.

It's not really official, just like polygamy isn't really official, but they still believe in it. The mainstream Mormons don't practice polygamy because they believe that God told them they have to follow the laws of the country, but they still believe it should be allowed and would if it were legal.

Most Mormons don't really go into the god thing and it's not widely taught expect to those who get deeper into the church. My best friend's dad is a Mormon priest with the Melchizedek priesthood and he was going on about his stuff one day. Plus I think it was in a book by James Talmadge that I read it too.

The way I stated it is the over-simplified version, but there's plenty out there on the 'net and even in the Mormon's Doctrine and Covenants book.

Here's one thing at least:

Linky

Attached Link: http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/mormon

My brother in law is a Mormon Bishop, and we talk religion for hours.  He respects my beliefs as much as I respect his, which is emmensely.

The "afterlife" you talked about in your previous post is taught like this:

You have the Celestial, the Telestial, and the Terrestrial.  The Celestial is the level of heaven closest to God.  It is the heaven where those who follow God's law will reside.  The Telestial is the next level, where those who followed the law of Moses will reside. God will have no actual presence there, but Christ will.  Then you have the Terrestrial.  Neither God nor Christ will have a presence there.  

And the "Multiple worlds/Multiple Gods" thing is a misinterpretation of the Doctrine and Covenant.  It states, repeatedly that there are many worlds, and that God created them all, and all of the creatures on them are His children.  For some reason, people interpret that to mean that, when those who move on to the Celestial heaven get there, they will be given their own world to be lord and master over.  No where in the scripture is that written explicitly.  What it does state, over and over, is that God didn't just create Earth, but EVERY planet, star, and speck of dust in the Universe.  But there is no actual scripture in any of the books that Mormons consider their Cannon that states that any spirit will be given the power of God over any world.  A man will rule his Kingdom (home), but not a world.

I want you to know, I'm not attacking you in any way.  But, I do know that if I know something is misinformation or a misinterpretation that I can explain, I would rather correct it than let it go unanswered.  This is how unnecessary prejudices happen.  

Are there some of the Mormon faith who believe what you stated?  Perhaps.  But that's not official church doctrine.  Just like the polygamy thing.  It's like stating all Atheists are amoral, or all Catholics are child molesters.  Just because a few are doesn't mean they ALL are.  

*Note: I am not currently a member of the Mormon church, or any other church for that matter.  I have spent several years studying theology, which led me on my path to being an Agnostic, in that I believe that God cannot be proven by faith nor disproved by science, and it's my sincere belief that we ALL have it wrong, and it's not worth fighting over.

Well I don't take it as an attack. I don't claimn to be an expert on it and I have to admit it was a long time ago that I was in that discussion. However I can say that my friend's dad most definitely seemed to believe it and he was showing me excerpts from books about it.

I wish I could argue it, really I do, but I know it's been a huge source of contention between the high and mighty, self-procalimed "correct" Christians who go around labeling cults, and the Mormon church, for decades.

However I'm not convinced that it's not a genuine belief among some if not many.

At any rate I just used that to go into my We Might Have a Lame God Theory becasue I suddenly remembered it, and wasn't prepared to get into a theological discussion about something like that. ;-)

I will concede though that it's probably not something that's generally taught, but as I said I'm not convinced that it's a misinterpretation. If anything, I think it's very carefully worded so as to be easily defended as being misinterpreted when need be. But that's just based on the impression I had back when I was learning about it and reading stuff about it and talking about it.

There are misinterpretations of every faith, many that spur faiths on their own.  We've seen it in this thread a few times.  

What I find fascinating in discussions on faith, is whether you have it or don't, someone else is an expert on your viewpoint.  I've never understood it, but I'm just as guilty as everyone else of doing it :/

Attached Link: Belief-O-Matic

For an interesting diversion, try Beliefnet’s Belief-O-Matic quiz. Contrary to the tone of the name, it actually requires you to do some thinking about what you really believe before presenting you with a ranking of where you fall among an array of different religions. Apparently, I’m down 100% with the Unitarian-Universalists, 97% Neo-Pagan?, and 93% Liberal Quaker, which I find kind of cool, even though the only Quakers I know were the guy on the oatmeal box and Richard Nixon. My Mormon rating is 37%, and sadly for my Saturday morning visitors, Jehova’s Witnesses bottom out the list at only 13%.

In general, though, I pretty much agree with Mr. Jefferson – President, scientist, philosopher and (possibly) practitioner of the late night slave quarters booty call. So, I close with some of his gems.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

“My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.”

Heh.  Secular Humanism.  No surprises there.

That said, if I were to meet you people in the real world, I'm sure I'd be happy to shake your hand and buy you a drink.  In Wolf's case, I'd make it a Coke or Coffee as preferred.

TJ was considered a good Christian founding papa 'til we decided to revisit the whole church-state thing. Now, they're trying to ease him out of the picture - ah, inconvenient truths :-)

12 pages over 26 days and this thread is still open!!! I can remember not so long ago when a thread like this wouldn't have made it past page 2 before lock down.

Thumbs up to everybody for being adult about this taboo subject.

I've decided that I do believe in God.  The reason why I do is because it helps answer my one of my biggest questions:  What was here before the Big Bang? 

I dove a little into quantum mechanics and the little problem of creating something from nothing.  Like one scientist stated that he has no problem with what happened 1 X 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, I don't either. What really bothers him and me is how the heck do you create something from zero energy and zero mass?  Yeah, Quantum Mechanics' state that there is no such thing as zero energy and zero mass, stuff comes and goes.  Yep, now present day it may be true; however 14.6 billion years ago???  

This is where I need a "Leap of Faith"--that something can be created (or at least did once) from nothing.  Is it possible that God and the universe was created at the same time (God and the universe being the same thing)?  After the Big Bang,  everything was chaotic and God could have been developing at the same time.  Some 10 Billion years later, God got it more or less right with a 3rd generation dwarf star and one of it's planets (after the failures of two others).  On this very special world, life developed from a slurry of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc and electromagnetism -  an amazing feat that I have a tremendously difficult time understanding - and finally advancing to a semi-intelligent, self aware being (more or less) who is capable of texting and driving at the same time.  This IMVHO couldn't happen just by accident; some power is at work.   

Perhaps the answer to what was there before the Big Bang is 42.  Jan