MWF

I suppose by posting this I'll offend someone, but I'm interested in opposing viewpoints. I'll give a little background before I post the actual issue. (The actual debate is on my website, but as only one person seems to take interest in it; I've moved it here to see what kind of feedback I can generate)

I stated that inventing deity or deities was primitive man's way of taking resonsibility away from himself; and yet he still had the feeling of control by worshipping said deities in order to get something "good" or blaming them for something "bad". If this is true does that mean that the religious mind is a primitive one?

I believe that the religious use this primitive thought process to cling to their illusions. I wondered if the primitive mind might be more preferable to the religious one because it was searching for answers, whereas the religious mind accepts one set of answers and does not question them further.

My one opposition did not agree and pointed out that --- "there are plenty of religious physicists, astronomers and other assorted science types. id say they seem pretty focused on searching for answers. someone might argue that science is something seperate of religion, which can be the case with some religions, but traditionally, science has played a major role in almost all religions"

I tried to point out that the religious mind only attempts to prove what he believes and fit their findings within that belief, and here I quote Nietzsche:

"it is on account of this "faith" that they trouble themselves about "knowledge," about something that is finally baptized solemnly as "the truth." The fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the faith in opposite values. It has not even occurred to the most cautious among them that one might have a doubt right here at the threshold where it was surely most necessary - even if they vowed to themselves, "de omnibus dubitandum. (all is to be doubted)"

So... do you (specifically aimed at Madd, but whoever else might read it) have any thoughts on the subject?

offending, only to the closed mind. I welcome your views, for you script it out with thought.

For me to answer this question, well, I think it takes actually jumping tangent to your intended post. However, I can sum up a few things in your post.

To deity, I take your use as in the Christian God, mythological gods and goddesses, animal gods, Buhda, and everything else considered "non-mortal". So if I think this wrong, then correct me. In the sense you speak where a human specifically is worshiping a deity to take responsibility away from himself, I would say that would make the mind itself a primitive one. However, not all humans worship for the same reason.

I feel that religon many times takes a step towards the wrong direction. Even those who believe in "my" God (who is based off the Christian God however my actual belief is way more spiritual and follows no actual Luthern, Cathlic, etc standards). They many times use the deity for the wrong reasons, and in doing so, I think it taints the deity. I also believe that science in itself tends to move towards it own religon.

I think a lot of people believe what they believe due to upbringing and their surrounding environment. They also have a tendancy, for some, to be "lazy" and just use the existance or especially the non-existance of any type of deity as an easy route for an answer. Meaning, some people believe in a higher power because it makes the origin of existance easy for them to understand. Others use a lack of a deity because something like everything simply evolving tends to be easier to think about.

To this I will add this challenged thought to you. I feel that *some* people who believe in no diety do so because they would hate to think that humans are not on the top of the food chain. To believe in the existance of an immortal being means accepting that there is one stronger and more powerful than human. I also think other people do not believe in a diety because the world is not handed to them and bad things happen and they revert to "well if there was a [God] then why is there so much suffering in the world?"

Interesting concepts....

This isn't entriely on topic, but it has a main themre running through it. Can a human define ominipotence? Meaning, we being humans cannot define omnipotence and so we can not use the excuse that god is omni-"whatever". Also, if god is omnipresent, then how can he "be". He can't "be" since he knows doesn't he? I might not be very clear, so here's an example:

A Christian called Bob has turned away from God. People state that God is sad, and that he wants Bob to turn back to him. How can God "want" Bob to turn back to him if he is omnipresent?

Hope this is clear enough.

Well, that is one of the big deals I have with anyone attempting to disprove God's existance with that how can God be everywhere, and the like, and do this, and feel that, when in Reality, not a single one of us could know what it would be like to have the omni-"anything". On the same token, people who state that you are not living by what God wants, I would once again point out to the same fact. How can anyone know what God wants? That would be like an ant knowing exactly what my intentions are as I walk on by it. The ant has no way to understand the concept of being human.

In your second statement, people who state that God is sad, are simply resorting to common psychological tricks, I feel. Almost like a guilt trip.

I accept the first answer to my statement. Well put forward.

Looking at what you replied to my second statement; do you think it is a trait for humans to try and 'humanize' God? (Giving 'him' human emotions.)

Thank you.

Humans do it all the time, humanize things. They talk about their computer that "has all these emotions", hates them, etc. Their pets. They talk about their moody pets and while pets may have a basis for certain emotions, I seriously doubt that doing something one day is going to have their pets wanting to seek revenge the next whole month. So they do to innanimate objects, like the "stubborn" car, and live entities, such as their pets. I feel very much they do the same for God. I am not saying I am much different myself. I, however, come to realize that any conceptuization I have of God is one that is way off.

The last sentence you wrote; would that be one of the reasons why you are not a specific "Lutheran, Cathlic" believer of God? I read in a book once about a character who did not worship in church because he felt any human creation that tries to define God is wrong, or as you said "way off" the mark..

I think you hit it pretty well on the nose. I mean... we are a species attempting to understand a Being that is infinately beyond us. I agree with that guy... any attempts to truly understand God are going to be way off. I mean, you are talking about creatures bound to time and space against a Being that lives outside of time and space.