The GOD Delusion:

[1st Gen]

As an outsider looking in, it's easy for me to judge harshly. I was simply looking for common themes and notable traits. Unfortunately, it seems to be the loudest of us that defines our group or ethnic reputation. I certainly wouldnt want anyone looking at America and thinking that we all feel the way our current administration does. I would feel insulted for being stereotyped and would probably be angry. My apologies.

 

[Donas64]

As an outsider looking in, it's easy for me to judge harshly. I was simply looking for common themes and notable traits. Unfortunately, it seems to be the loudest of us that defines our group or ethnic reputation. I certainly wouldnt want anyone looking at America and thinking that we all feel the way our current administration does. I would feel insulted for being stereotyped and would probably be angry. My apologies.

It's all good.

 

[FoxPro5]

With the fossil record, new information is eagerly sought after. Understanding comes from the study and research of new information and the piecing together of the puzzle we know as evolution. Creationists are threatened by new information because there is a very good chance religion doesnt account for, and cant explain the new discoveries.

I *heard* the other day that a 6 MILLION year old femur bone was unearthed somewhere in Asia (I believe it was). I have to do my own investigation to find the source, but don't expect this news to make the Christian Science Monitor anytime soon.

 

[FoxPro5]

While we're on the topic of good reads, I think you would also enjoy Friedrich Nietzsche's work. His overarching theme is the self-impowerment of man in enlightenment and so forth. He was traditionally an agnostic, in addition to being slightly maniacal I might add; however, he has some excellent concepts and insights.

Also, your thought processes remind me a lot of that of Gabriel Marcel-- a post modern existentialist philosopher (formerly an athiest but later a converted Christian). I think you'd like his work.

And if you're interested in the underpinning of ethics and the like, might I recommend Immanuel Kant's work, specifically "Grounding for the Metaphysics of the Morals". If you have never studied it, Metaphysics aims at identifying the primary causality of that which is being examined. It's fascinating, and very appealing to the imagination.

If you are into that, try a little Osho on for size. He's as real as you can get. Good stuff.

 

[Doodsmack]

my only gripe with religion is that, man invented it. you pretty much can't deny that. your concept of jesus, god, etc is the product of someone else's imagination. it seems to make sense, yes, and the fact that we have the ability to reason means that we'll always want to understand. but you have to admit that the bible is a complete shot in the dark. buddhists, muslims, etc are equally convinced that they are living the right way, and that their religion is the ultimate truth, and their beliefs are completely different from yours. i can't see why you would subscribe your entire mind to such an elaborate invention. to me it is a question of independance.

 

[gone_fishin]

my only gripe with religion is that, man invented it. you pretty much can't deny that. your concept of jesus, god, etc is the product of someone else's imagination. it seems to make sense, yes, and the fact that we have the ability to reason means that we'll always want to understand. but you have to admit that the bible is a complete shot in the dark. buddhists, muslims, etc are equally convinced that they are living the right way, and that their religion is the ultimate truth, and their beliefs are completely different from yours. i can't see why you would subscribe your entire mind to such an elaborate invention. to me it is a question of independance.

You need to be careful of how you phrase things, so as to not offend those who may subscribe to these religions. You may assert that religions are simply an imaginative "invention", however to those that it concerns (solely theists), that statement is self-contradictory-- because by definition, religion is an institution founded on a common belief in that which is uncomprehendable by the human mind, and therefore could not have originated from it. To the Theist, the process by which these uncomprehendable truths are revealed is solely through Divine revelation. For instance, the Christian Canon is defined by Christians to be God's revelation to the world-- the word of God translated through the prophets as a conduit for human understanding. The very presence of the human element however, inherently creates susceptibility to misinterpretation. This is why Catholicism for instance, opposes "Sola Scriptura"-- the ideology of biblical inerracy. Yes, there are several mainstream religions with varying degrees of similarity, and some with vastly different beliefs; however, to the Theist these degrees of erracy are representatives of degrees of misinterpretation. Therefore to every Theist (be it a proponent of Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, etc.), there is a single revelation by God to the world, and these different ideologies represent erroneous interpretations. Why did I choose to say erroneous and not 'different'? Because substituting the latter fails to make Theists distinct from Agnostics.

 

[G-Papi]

Yes, there are several mainstream religions with varying degrees of similarity, and some with vastly different beliefs; however, to the Theist these degrees of erracy are representatives of degrees of misinterpretation. Therefore to every Theist (be it a proponent of Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, etc.), there is a single revelation by God to the world, and these different ideologies represent erroneous interpretations. Why did I choose to say erroneous and not 'different'? Because substituting the latter fails to make Theists distinct from Agnostics.

I would subscribe to almost every point of this position with the possible exception of the supposition of error in interpretation among varying theist positions. While misinterpretation is certainly a real possibility, the more likely cause for variations may be no more complicated than a vehicular preference.

I would submit that varying cultures and circumstances may require varying manifestations and understandings, in much the same manner as a Honda hybrid vs. Mazda rotary comparison might be made. Neither is a misinterpretation of automotive technology. They simply represent extremely differing approaches to achieve the same ends ~ human transportation.

 

[gone_fishin]

I would subscribe to almost every point of this position with the possible exception of the supposition of error in interpretation among varying theist positions. While misinterpretation is certainly a real possibility, the more likely cause for variations may be no more complicated than a vehicular preference.

I would submit that varying cultures and circumstances may require varying manifestations and understandings, in much the same manner as a Honda hybrid vs. Mazda rotary comparison might be made. Neither is a misinterpretation of automotive technology. They simply represent extremely differing approaches to achieve the same ends ~ human transportation.

I can gaurantee that every individual who reads this analogy will likely interpret it differently; and even more likely I can gaurantee that these numerous interpretations can be categorized into just a few sects by similarity of overarching princples.

To the individual who observes with nuetrality, these interpretations would simply be 'different'. However, to the individual who belongs to one of these categorical sects, they are mis-interpretations. Pretending for a second that G-Papi's analogy is the divine word of God, there is undeniably one ultimate meaning behind it-- that which belongs to G-Papi.

 

[G-Papi]

I can gaurantee that every individual who reads this analogy will likely interpret it differently; and even more likely I can gaurantee that these numerous interpretations can be categorized into just a few sects by similarity of overarching princples.

To the individual who observes with nuetrality, these interpretations would simply be 'different'. However, to the individual who belongs to one of these categorical sects, they are mis-interpretations. Pretending for a second that G-Papi's analogy is the divine word of God, there is undeniably one ultimate meaning behind it-- that which belongs to G-Papi.

This individual cannot possibly exist. Any observer would bring his own history of experience through which to make an evaluation. If the presumption is made that faith is little more than an interpretation of one's history of experience, then that person's observation will pass through his own "faith filter" for interpretation.

Then what we have is faith rather than religion being the deciding factor, and surely individual faiths do vary within any particular religion or religious sect. What I am suggesting is that religion is merely a methodology for faith actualization.

btw ~ I'm glat that my analogy is NOT the divine word of God; hence it's as fallible as I am.

 

[gone_fishin]

If the person you're referring to is the person who 'observes with nuetrality', you are denying the existence of Agnostics?

 

[Doodsmack]

by definition, religion is an institution founded on a common belief in that which is uncomprehendable by the human mind, and therefore could not have originated from it. To the Theist, the process by which these uncomprehendable truths are revealed is solely through Divine revelation.

that is an integral part of the invention. if you believe that, which of course you are taking on faith (what the bible tells you is what is true, no questions asked), nothing can counter what you believe. this is the hallmark of a religion - that it purports to have reached the ultimate explanation to our existence. if you can conceive of what the religion tells you, however, so could the people who invented it. people invented god in their own image, not the other way around.

religions are social constructs. this is very nearly an undeniable fact. christianity is refined superstition.

 

[gone_fishin]

And with regard to your definition, I think it would be erroneous to define faith as governed by subjective experience as it's somewhat self-contradictory as well. The likes of experience are subjective, whereas the likes of faith are objective, and therefore one cannot correctly use the former to determine the latter.

 

[G-Papi]

If the person you're referring to is the person who 'observes with nuetrality', you are denying the existence of Agnostics?

As I understand an agnostic; he brings a skepticism to his observation. His historical experience is to doubt, question, and/or disagree with commonly held beliefs. Most professed agnostics I've encountered have been more concerned with promotion of their particular manefestation of agnosticism. That's not quite neutral. Neutral would be closer to "disinterested".

 

[gone_fishin]

that is an integral part of the invention. if you believe that, which of course you are taking on faith (what the bible tells you is what is true, no questions asked), nothing can counter what you believe. this is the hallmark of a religion - that it purports to have reached the ultimate explanation to our existence. if you can conceive of what the religion tells you, however, so could the people who invented it. people invented god in their own image, not the other way around.

religions are social constructs. this is very nearly an undeniable fact. christianity is refined superstition.

I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote about divine revelation and human interpretation-- The source of the uncomprehendable truths being God, and their human understanding being made possible solely through God. I.e. it was solely by the authorization of God and the action of the Holy Spirit, that the divine word (truths) of God were REVEALED to the prophets as a conduit for HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. This interpretation composes what we know as the old testament. The prophets were not the "invetors" because this would imply that they are the source. They are merely a necessary intermediate.

 

[gone_fishin]

As I understand an agnostic; he brings a skepticism to his observation. His historical experience is to doubt, question, and/or disagree with commonly held beliefs. Most professed agnostics I've encountered have been more concerned with promotion of their particular manefestation of agnosticism. That's not quite neutral. Neutral would be closer to "disinterested".

In the sprectrum of theology, there are theists (those who are pro-God), agnostics (which encompass not only skeptics, but additionally those who are unsure, and those who are dis-interested), and athiests (those who are opposed to God theory).

 

[Doodsmack]

my entire point is that what you just told me is a part of the invention. to believe that "god disseminated his uncomprehendable wisdom in the form of the comprehendable old testament" is to believe what other people have told you. yes you have come up with a possibility to explain why it might not be an invention. but, in fact, that possiblity is an integral part of the invention which serves to legitimize the invention. everything you believe about god and his nature you take on faith - it is the testimony of other people. as i said, you can define god however you want, because he is a product of your imagination. thus you feel that you can counter anything that is thrown at you. that is the hallmark of a religion - it is the final word, it is absolute and impenetrable. i don't think it is useful for humans to pretend that they possess the final word.

 

[gone_fishin]

my entire point is that what you just told me is a part of the invention. to believe that "god disseminated his uncomprehendable wisdom in the form of the comprehendable old testament" is to believe what other people have told you. yes you have come up with a possibility to explain why it might not be an invention. but, in fact, that possiblity is an integral part of the invention which serves to legitimize the invention. everything you believe about god and his nature you take on faith - it is the testimony of other people. as i said, you can define god however you want, because he is a product of your imagination. thus you feel that you can counter anything that is thrown at you. that is the hallmark of a religion - it is the final word, it is absolute and impenetrable. i don't think it is useful for humans to pretend that they possess the final word.

For the Theist, it IS the final word, and the final word is not an 'invention'. This steadfast belief (faith) is what seperates Theists from Agnostics. An Atheist would assert that religion is merely an 'invention'. I think that it has long since been established that there are clearly defined differences between these groups.

Your assertation that my faith is simply an 'invention' is your opinion as an Atheist. There is however, a significant difference between merely expressing an opinion and asserting that your opinion is the absolute universal truth. My explanation(s) have served only to locally legitimize my beliefs (as a Theist) not merely as an 'invention', but rather as a steadfast faith in uncomprehendable truths elucidated by divine revelation-- a revelation authorized by God and transmitted through the action of the Holy Spirit. And in this respect TO THE THEIST, it is not an 'invention', for the prophets were not the source but rather an intermediate. As they should be, my assertations of the legitimacy of faith is applicable only to Theists. They are not universally applied. To the Theist, religion is an institution of a common belief in certain incomprehendable truths-- which by definition, cannot originate from that which can not accommodate them without divine revelation. It is however, quite obvious that the Athiest would assume that there is no divine entity to reveal these truths, and therefore they are merely an 'invention' by the individual. That has been established-- it is what defines atheism and what distinguishes them from the Theists. So how exactly is what you are telling me new? Unless that is, you are claiming your ideology is the absolute truth? To that I would say that's wonderful, that is your opinion and that is what makes us clearly different in the Theological spectrum.

Tell me, can you prove the universal illigitimacy of my faith (among Theists, Agnostics, and Athiests) any more than I can prove its universal legitimacy? If you answered 'yes', there is no reason for you to be partaking in discussions or debates. If you answered 'no', the boundaries that demarcate the uncertainty of your beliefs and mine are becomming clearer and clearer. So inasmuch as my beliefs require faith in the acknowledgement of the deific, as do yours in its denunciation.

With regard to your labeling my faith as a personal adaptation to an ideology formulated by another, I'm guessing that you would deny that there are gradients of agreement and disagreement with respect to every aspect of doctrine within a given faith? Furthermore, I'm assuming you'd doubt the individual's ability to reason? Before you make the accusation that we are all following the lead of the person in front of us, you should know that Christians believe in two phases of divine revelation: the first being God's divine revelation to the world initially through the prophets which was completed and perfected by the Christ-event, and the second being the process of divine revelation to the individual. Divine revelation to the individual establishes steadfast faith, is initiated by an interaction with the Holy Spirit, and is solidified in our subsequent concurrence which is governed by free-will.

 

[clicknext]

Life is confusing. I'll just accept that fact and move on to things that are perhaps more likely to have an answer.

 

[1st Gen]

If I state that the only reason that you dont agree with me is that you dont understand the material due to prejudice or what ever, then I am setting up the parameters of what it means to be a theist.

If you dont agree with me, its because your own prejudices prevent you from seeing the real truth. You will see in every argument what you want to see as you are using the filter of your own fallible existence to measure the infinite. I however am using divine intervention as my rule which allows me a perspective that no infidel could possibly have. Thus, I am infinitely more attuned to the true workings of the physical, as well as the metaphysical world than you could imagine. It doesnt concern me that you dont agree or understand my point of view because you dont have the G chip showing you what is really going on. The idea that observation can rectify this situation only compounds the problem of interpretation. A chimpanzee with a microscope will only see what its mind allows it to see.

This is what the religion sounds like to me, with a certain emphasis on "we're better suited to make important decisions because our faith allows us to know what is right where as you infidels are simple monkeys with tools It sounds somewhat condescending and presumptuous. Its the definition of prejudice actually.

The problem I have with this perspective is that it assumes infallibility using Gods perfection as its source of inspiration. Within the framework of Gods domain, all the questions are answered and all the arguments are solved. It doesnt allow for learning or humans capacity to evolve over time. If I project out 10 million years, I can actually have a fair degree of certainty that the problem of interpretation involving quantum mechanics will be better understood on every level. We will essentially be taking Gods pants off and telling him to turn his head and cough.

Is God repulsed by this analogy? I think he/she would find it funny in a nervous kind of way. The children are growing up and the world has become bigger than the house we live in or the parents that spawned us. Or better yet, the world we live on and our need for parental guidance.

 

[Doodsmack]

gone_fishin, i am an agnostic, not an atheist. the "newness" of my position is that historical evidence demonstrates that religions are social constructs. this is becoming undeniable as we learn about our cultural history and what it is to be "human," in evolutionary terms. the specific tenets of each individual religion, such as "uncomprehendable truths elucidated by divine revelation-- a revelation authorized by God and transmitted through the action of the Holy Spirit," are the product of a gradual emergence of superstitious beliefs among a specific population with cultural practices and ways of life localized in time and geography. the egyptians (and many other societies) saw the Sun as dominating their lives and ascribed the Sun god supreme importance. this belief was as important to them as Jesus is to you. the Hebrews saw themselves as the chosen people for whatever reason, and codified their story, describing the beginnings of the Diaspora with mythical and superstitious explanations for actual events (Moses parting the waters to allow them to return home, etc). thus you can see that specific circumstances localized in time and space lead to differing spiritual beliefs which are a direct product of the interaction between highly evolved human imagination and real events.

zoroastrianism, which immediately preceded christianity geographically and chronologically, described the 25th day of december as the most important day of the year, and the seventh day of the week as the most important day of the week. this is just some of evidence that specific religions are a product of a gradual evolution of specific cultures and ideas. the emergence of "humanness" and higher cognitive functioning was necessarily and directly tied to the adoption of superstitious beliefs. spirituality, and, in its formal and institutionalized form, religion, is an inevitable by-product of the unfathomably complex neural machinery which is contained inside the human skull, and which is the specific biological adaptation which defines humanness by virtue of evolution. neural processes inside the human brain are necessary and sufficient to explain the existence of religious beliefs - divine revelation has nothing to do with it. people created god in their own image, not the other way around.

there is no instrinsic universal validity in the specific tenets of any one religion. i respect the fact that you recognize that your beliefs are only applicable to yourself and other theists - in the other words, the specific cultural community convinced by that specific set of beliefs. so you are not the kind of christian that would tell me he is going to "pray for me" because i am not following his religion - as if his way of thinking is more correct than mine.

my "ideology" is not an actual "ideology," in the sense i don't purport to have come to any final answers. in my view, specific instutionalized religions are shots in the dark at what the ultimate truth is. when you describe your religion to me, the odds that what you are saying is true, even for theists, are infinitesimally small. historical evidence and a realistic knowledge of evolution support this view.