Op/ED g/God, broken concept

[Lion IRC]

Tell me again why humans would invent God?

How much time do you have and which gods would we be referring to?

I dont know how much time I have.
I dont know who you mean when you say..."we".
And multiple gods is unmanageable theology. The theology of monotheism is much more coherent. So God (singular) with a capital "G".

To control others? Nope. Religion is and always has been voluntary.

I have never seen a more blissfully misinformed sentiment expressed. You can thank us secular sons of bitches for that leeway in belief btw, whenever it's convenient for you.

Nope. I have free will and dont need your permission to be an atheist.

Fear of death? Imaginary anaesthetic for real pain? Nope. The God conclusion isnt a prank ppl play on themselves.

Yes and yes, and yes.........

Whats to be afraid of when you're dead? Besides, the afterlife isnt even an atheist agenda item.
Atheists can - and many do - think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) is possible without the necessity of a divine being.

Whenever I hear an atheist say religion invented the afterlife because of a fear of death I wonder about the corollary - Atheism is a religion invented by people so that they dont have to be afraid that there IS an afterlife.

The afterlife is a great deal older than any religion, so far as we can tell. The various descriptions of it have been invented by varying religions -as a matter of fact-.

Thats a contradiction.
*afterlife is older than any religion
versus
*invented by varying religions

If the afterlife is older than religion then religion didnt invent it.

[The Grand Nudger]

We, as in you an I, in a discussion. Whether or not some pantheon seems manageable to you has nothing to do with whether or not it is coherent. But if you want to limit yourself to your favorite god that's fine. Do me a favor, list off the things that your concept of a god does for you?

This bit about needing my permission, sorry, but I'm going to have to say that I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous on this count. No one said you did, firstly. Secondly your contention that religion has always been voluntary is complete and utter bullshit. For just the last two thousand years, the vast majority of the history of christianity alone - it was compulsory. Sure, sure, you could "just pretend"..so long as you pretended well. Of course we're talking belief now, not religion. I likely could have skated by not believing, but I would have to "do christian" nevertheless.

I suppose that depends on what a person fears may be waiting for them Lion. Perhaps even the thought that nothing is waiting is a source of fear. The atheist agenda..lol. Are you trying to avoid this one by means of invoking an agenda? Some atheists believe in the afterlife, and?

You left a couple of words out when claiming a contradiction. I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose..lulz.

[yoda55]

Personal experiences DO count.

Here on this board shit they count for.
Watch out that the force doesn't creep up your ass.

If 'personal experiences' hold no water on this forum topic, then there is no reason to perpetuate this topic, or this forum.

Every contributor (that means all the pseudo-atheist snipers and self-absorbed philosophers - no matter how long they've been sponsors or drivvelers) thus far has been proferring just such material (which includes the philosphical pontification , 'rational' discussion , and abusive strafing ).

I will look forward with glee to watching it implode upon itself.

[Brian37]

The theology of monotheism is much more coherent

Yea, thats like saying "Star Trek is silly because it has unreal animals like Tribbles, but Star Wars has "the force".

The Ancient Egyptians thought the sun was a god, they had more to point at than you do. So why don't you worship the sun as a god?

[Tobie]

And multiple gods is unmanageable theology. The theology of monotheism is much more coherent. So God (singular) with a capital "G".

Please explain why monotheism is better/more coherent. I see it as a less logical position (which isn't saying much, as any -theism requires the belief in god(s) which IMO is illogical) because if one god could exist, why not many?

Anyway, you do realise that your angry desert god Yahweh is just a Zeus kind of figure but with the other gods later retconned by the tribes that invented him?

[Brian37]

And multiple gods is unmanageable theology. The theology of monotheism is much more coherent. So God (singular) with a capital "G".

Please explain why monotheism is better/more coherent. I see it as a less logical position (which isn't saying much, as any -theism requires the belief in god(s) which IMO is illogical) because if one god could exist, why not many?

Anyway, you do realise that your angry desert god Yahweh is just a Zeus kind of figure but with the other gods later retconned by the tribes that invented him?

Joseph Goebbels "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The biggest lie that religion of all labels sell is that utopias exist. The irony of a brutal dictator's minion telling the truth is astounding. Hitler worked because he sold a utopia. Islam works because it sells a utopia. Christianity works because it sells a utopia. Politics works because parties sell utopias.

And humanity still loves its emotional crack as much today as they did in ancient times. We give our emotional crack names like Communism, Capitalism, Islam and Christianity, but funny how none of us as individual humans can escape death despite the cure all's we claim will make us live forever.

I think the only cure for human delusions is to accept evolution and that death is final, no matter our boarders, our religions or politics. Death is the only thing no human can argue with.

[Lion IRC]

And multiple gods is unmanageable theology. The theology of monotheism is much more coherent. So God (singular) with a capital "G".

Please explain why monotheism is better/more coherent. I see it as a less logical position (which isn't saying much, as any -theism requires the belief in god(s) which IMO is illogical) because if one god could exist, why not many?

Multiple gods is flawed theology because one god could simply undo what another god did. One creates a universe. Then another comes along an uncreates it. What's the first god gonna do? Recreate it? Arm wrestle to settle the dispute over whether or not to have a universe?
God = highest Being. The One who can beat anybody/everybody in an arm wrestling contest.

Anyway, you do realise that your angry desert god Yahweh is just a Zeus kind of figure but with the other gods later retconned by the tribes that invented him?

Thats not true.
a) Zeus was believed to have been born.
b) The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob....etc. predates the Greek Empire and ancient Greek mythology. (And the Persians and the Babylonians and the Assyrians.)

[Brian37]

We, as in you an I, in a discussion. Whether or not some pantheon seems manageable to you has nothing to do with whether or not it is coherent. But if you want to limit yourself to your favorite god that's fine. Do me a favor, list off the things that your concept of a god does for you?

This bit about needing my permission, sorry, but I'm going to have to say that I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous on this count. No one said you did, firstly. Secondly your contention that religion has always been voluntary is complete and utter bullshit. For just the last two thousand years, the vast majority of the history of christianity alone - it was compulsory. Sure, sure, you could "just pretend"..so long as you pretended well. Of course we're talking belief now, not religion. I likely could have skated by not believing, but I would have to "do christian" nevertheless.

I suppose that depends on what a person fears may be waiting for them Lion. Perhaps even the thought that nothing is waiting is a source of fear. The atheist agenda..lol. Are you trying to avoid this one by means of invoking an agenda? Some atheists believe in the afterlife, and?

You left a couple of words out when claiming a contradiction. I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose..lulz.

And even today despite "no religious test" in the US Constitution's oath of office, neither the left or the right can get elected in most parts of this country to any public office unless they swear to some sect of Christianity. And if most of these idiots would actually read the letters of Thomas Jefferson, he couldn't get elected today having said what he said about the dangers of pulpit politics.

Jefferson, "And what of the morality of the atheist? It is idol to say, as some do, that no such thing exists"

Jefferson, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear".

Only two congressmen Pete Starke and Keith Elleson in recent history have been elected to high office without having to put their hands on a Christian bible. Jefferson would be appalled at religious limus tests and the fact that despite his concepts and Constitution we have collectively ignored the secular intent of the founders for the most part.

No Christian reading this would want to live in Iran where at best, as long as they live in silence, are left alone. But every politician in the east has to swear an oath to Allah to some sect if they want any political power. It astoundsme today that the west still has far to many Christians who cannot see that what they are doing is no less sectarian than the east, and just as dangerous to pluralism that we see lacking in the east.

---

Please explain why monotheism is better/more coherent. I see it as a less logical position (which isn't saying much, as any -theism requires the belief in god(s) which IMO is illogical) because if one god could exist, why not many?

Multiple gods is flawed theology because one god could simply undo what another god did. One creates a universe. Then another comes along an uncreates it. What's the first god gonna do? Recreate it? Arm wrestle to settle the dispute over whether or not to have a universe?
God = highest Being. The One who can beat anybody/everybody in an arm wrestling contest.

Anyway, you do realise that your angry desert god Yahweh is just a Zeus kind of figure but with the other gods later retconned by the tribes that invented him?

Thats not true.
a) Zeus was believed to have been born.
b) The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob....etc. predates the Greek Empire and ancient Greek mythology. (And the Persians and the Babylonians and the Assyrians.)

Blah blah blah blah blah. "My invisible friend claim is older than yours".

DON'T CARE. People believed in gods long before even the first written language, so by your logic, the first is right, so you by using your own logic should worship the first cave god a human manufactured.

Before you get to word one of any book of myth, the starting naked assertion is that a disembodied brain with no brain, no location, exists. If you want to believe such ancient desert bullshit, you can. But modern science and medicine and knowledge of evolution kind of fucks up ANY claim of sky daddies. So all you have is a comic book super hero.

And judging the gang manual, your super hero is a selfish prick who only cares about his fame. The earth has been around for billions of years. Our species has been around for millions. Yet you'd have me believe your super hero cares and still sits on his hands like a deadbeat parent?

Maybe it is just you? Maybe you, like the Egyptians who thought the sun was a god, want a hero to save them. That makes much more sense to me than invisible beings being real, by any name in any point in history.

Allah is not special or Jesus or Yahweh, and have as much evidence as volcano gods, or cave gods, or sun gods. "I was first" doesn't make you the first to fall for a delusion.

Try understanding why you reject all other invisible friend claims besides yours, when you do, you'll understand why we reject your pet deity claim as well.

[Lion IRC]

Multiple gods is flawed theology because one god could simply undo what another god did. One creates a universe. Then another comes along an uncreates it. What's the first god gonna do? Recreate it? Arm wrestle to settle the dispute over whether or not to have a universe?
God = highest Being. The One who can beat anybody/everybody in an arm wrestling contest.


Thats not true.
a) Zeus was believed to have been born.
b) The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob....etc. predates the Greek Empire and ancient Greek mythology. (And the Persians and the Babylonians and the Assyrians.)

Blah blah blah blah blah. "My invisible friend claim is older than yours". DON'T CARE....

I was responding to Tobie who incorrectly asserted;

...Anyway, you do realise that your angry desert god Yahweh is just a Zeus kind of figure but with the other gods later retconned by the tribes that invented him?

... People believed in gods long before even the first written language, so by your logic, the first is right, so you by using your own logic should worship the first cave god a human manufactured.

Thats exactly right. I do worship the same God. The fact that the cave man and me have incomplete and non-identical
understandings of the exact nature of God doesnt prevent either of us from worship.

...Before you get to word one of any book of myth, the starting naked assertion is that a disembodied brain with no brain, no location, exists....

Now look who is making assertions about what God is/isnt.
Where do you get YOUR information?

...If you want to believe such ancient desert bullshit, you can...

The Garden of Eden was not a desert. You dont even know what you are rejecting.

... But modern science and medicine and knowledge of evolution kind of fucks up ANY claim of sky daddies....

Thats funny. I am very happy with the direction modern science is taking. Until recently, I could never have used dark energy/big bang inflation (''modern science'') to justify the biblical statement that God stretches out the heavens. Whoever thought that the multiverse idea of another dimension of space/time reality existing beyond our universe (Heaven/Afterlife) might actually be scientifically feasible after all.

And I think we can give modern science credit for providing the ultrasound evidence that embryos are people. Science is turning around peoples views on abortion and F.A.S.D. (And Facebook pictures of embryos at 6 weeks.)

Science is providing the means by which the "viability" of life outside the womb is getting earlier and earlier. Science is providing the evidence that embryos "feel" (respond to) external stimulii at LEAST as early as 4 weeks from conception. Science is providing the "clinically proven " evidence used by companies like Bayer/Elevit which market products products for use BEFORE and during pregnancy - TO ENHANCE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR EMBRYOS.

Science is doing a great job sanctifying life.

[Anomalocaris]

Science is doing a great job sanctifying life.

If a single living cell is found on a distant planet, we would kill it if we deem that necessary for our convenience or edification regardless of what we call it. So a single cell in a womb may be killed without a second thought for edification or convenience by the same logic.

I amend my previous conjecture of "no matter how stupid a Christian you meet today is, Christianity will make another more stupid tomorrow".

It should read "no matter how stupid a Christian you meet today is, he will be more stupid tomorrow".