Why we need God

[manifold]

which, given the analogy.. isn't the queen ant basically their god anyway?

exactly.

I can't speak for you, but I prefer an unprovable, unseen God to an actual person acting in that capacity any day.

I dare say Shogun, you are dangerously close to getting my point. I'm gitty with excitement I tell you, truly gitty.

the word is Giddy, Mani. And, I prefer to drop the charade and stop pretending that there is more to our reality than the human scope of perception by using a human construct of godliness. Sure, it may be different if we could look up to see for us what we are to ants but WE don't have that kind of evidence or indication of our place like ants do when they get toasted by a kid with a magnifying glass.

As your own god, you are free to prefer whatever you like.

Whether it is a charade or not, I still see a tremendous value (ie. necessity) that you obviously disagree with. But at least we've quickly isolated where we need to agree to disagree.

Peace.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't know about you, but I certainly enjoyed the thread topics about the relative pros and cons of religion. In a nutshell, the reason we need religion is because we need God, and it's unrealistic to perpetuate God without the help of organized religion. We don't necessarily need there to be a real God, but we need for most people to believe there is a real God.

Why? So they can fight o9ver its name?

Here is why:

We are all gods... relatively speaking. And by relatively speaking I mean compared to all other life forms that we know about. Consider ants.

this is gonna be stupid, aint it?

They are phenominally efficient and successful as a species but they all bow to the queen of their colony.

so... they're like the british?

. But if we don't want to evolve toward what ants have become,

For humans to ever evolve into insects is impossible

we must collectively buy into this notion that on some level, we are all our own individual gods

This is starting to sound like poorly regurgitated satanic philosophy...

And the only way to get everyone to buy into this notion is if most believe something exists that is still the boss of everyone. If you value individual liberty and freedom, you should think twice before evangalizing atheism.

...


one of the dumbest things I've read on USMB, including baltimore bob


BTW, if you value individual liberty and freedm, you should reject deity and religion as an inherently oppressive control mechanism that teaches subservience and decries all second-guessing

 

[Ravi]

so... they're like the british?

 

[manifold]

JB,

In a relatively short period of time you have established yourself as a master of taking things out of context and twisting them to conform to your own preconceived notions.

Good luck with that.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, I have shown the stupidity of everything you juist said

That you offer no refutation, and instead only perosnal attacks, speaks to the emptiness of yourpost and your complete lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point.

 

[sidneyworld]

btw, ants can kill us so which is the higher life form?

And they can carry ten to fifty times their weight!

The are pretty awesome. We had some heavy rain that almost completely flooded our yard and one nest built a bridge out of their own bodies over a flooded area while a couple of ants moved the queen to higher ground by walking across the "bridge."

Noah's ark of the ant world, maybe.

Verrrrry Interrrresting! Endless accounts of survival. Too bad we haven't adapted that concept. Socialism is a problem, but extinction is a bigger problem.

Anne Marie

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't know about you, but I certainly enjoyed the thread topics about the relative pros and cons of religion. In a nutshell, the reason we need religion is because we need God, and it's unrealistic to perpetuate God without the help of organized religion. We don't necessarily need there to be a real God, but we need for most people to believe there is a real God.

Here is why:

We are all gods... relatively speaking. And by relatively speaking I mean compared to all other life forms that we know about. Consider ants. They are phenominally efficient and successful as a species but they all bow to the queen of their colony. And if you ever watch any specials, we know colonies actually communicate with each other but we don't really understand how. Bottom line, ants do not possess anything that we would consider individual liberty and/or freedom. I doubt they would survive if they all started doing their own thing. But we do get to do our own thing to a degree. A degree that understandably has fluctuated throughout history. But if we don't want to evolve toward what ants have become, we must collectively buy into this notion that on some level, we are all our own individual gods. And the only way to get everyone to buy into this notion is if most believe something exists that is still the boss of everyone. If you value individual liberty and freedom, you should think twice before evangalizing atheism.

Actually Mani, you're a lot closer to the truth than you may think. It's covered in Judaic and Zen philosophy by the way. Zen (Buddhist variety) believes that all people are capable of becoming a Buddha (which is to say God), and Judaic theology teaches that God is Light (says so in the Bible by the way), and it also refers to the idea that our "soul" is a small piece of God that He carved out from under His Throne with the blade of self will, and inserted it into our embryo which was created by our parents.

By the way, Yeshua (Jesus) referred to this when He stated that "the Kingdom of God is within", as well as when He stated that "the Father and I are One".

Yeshua wasn't stating that He was special, as much as He was telling us that we ALL have the capacity to become like God. Remember........no one person can BE God, but we are all a PART of God.

Matter of fact, Yeshua tried to teach others how to do the miracles that He did. Remember the Sea of Galilee where He tried to get His disciples to walk on water with Him? Only 1 tried. He also tried to teach people that they can ALL do this.

If you want a really nice easy to read way to understand this? Read "Illusions" by Richard Bach. Follow that up with "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", and pay close attention.

You too can learn how to do miracles.

 

[manifold]

Actually, I have shown the stupidity of everything you juist said

That you offer no refutation, and instead only perosnal attacks, speaks to the emptiness of yourpost and your complete lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point.

As your own god, you are free to believe anything you like.

And if you actually offered a single relevant rebuttal to the OP, I would be happy to address it. So far you are batting zero in that respect... just so you know.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, I have shown the stupidity of everything you juist said

That you offer no refutation, and instead only perosnal attacks, speaks to the emptiness of yourpost and your complete lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point.

The only stupidity that I really see going on is that of the Jelly Butt Licking failed lawyer.

You are a walking sphincter with teeth and legs dude. A biting asshole.

 

[Shogun]

exactly.

I can't speak for you, but I prefer an unprovable, unseen God to an actual person acting in that capacity any day.

I dare say Shogun, you are dangerously close to getting my point. I'm gitty with excitement I tell you, truly gitty.

the word is Giddy, Mani. And, I prefer to drop the charade and stop pretending that there is more to our reality than the human scope of perception by using a human construct of godliness. Sure, it may be different if we could look up to see for us what we are to ants but WE don't have that kind of evidence or indication of our place like ants do when they get toasted by a kid with a magnifying glass.

As your own god, you are free to prefer whatever you like.

Whether it is a charade or not, I still see a tremendous value (ie. necessity) that you obviously disagree with. But at least we've quickly isolated where we need to agree to disagree.

Peace.

Did you have a Cat Stephen s moment or something? As my own human individual i'd be no less apt to believe whatever I like too. We may disagree, but I don't see that you've adequately explained your assumption that belief is necessary in regards to the human condition on pain of reverting into ants.

 

[JBeukema]

So now we have two incompetent minds attacking JB and offering no rebuttal

Since you clearly can't meet JB's intellect or analytical ability, I recommend being silent and merely thought to be fools

 

[manifold]

the word is Giddy, Mani. And, I prefer to drop the charade and stop pretending that there is more to our reality than the human scope of perception by using a human construct of godliness. Sure, it may be different if we could look up to see for us what we are to ants but WE don't have that kind of evidence or indication of our place like ants do when they get toasted by a kid with a magnifying glass.

As your own god, you are free to prefer whatever you like.

Whether it is a charade or not, I still see a tremendous value (ie. necessity) that you obviously disagree with. But at least we've quickly isolated where we need to agree to disagree.

Peace.

Did you have a Cat Stephen s moment or something? As my own human individual i'd be no less apt to believe whatever I like too. We may disagree, but I don't see that you've adequately explained your assumption that belief is necessary in regards to the human condition on pain of reverting into ants.

I can't put a number on it, but I conclude based on a lifetime of observation, reflection and deduction that if too few people believe in a supreme boss of everyone, then too many people will try to fill that role within their own personal scope of existence. There's no arguing that this is a wholly subjective determination on my part.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So now we have two incompetent minds attacking JB and offering no rebuttal

Since you clearly can't meet JB's intellect or analytical ability, I recommend being silent and merely thought to be fools

Can't meet your intellect? You're right.

My cats are smarter than you.

 

[Shogun]

As your own god, you are free to prefer whatever you like.

Whether it is a charade or not, I still see a tremendous value (ie. necessity) that you obviously disagree with. But at least we've quickly isolated where we need to agree to disagree.

Peace.

Did you have a Cat Stephen s moment or something? As my own human individual i'd be no less apt to believe whatever I like too. We may disagree, but I don't see that you've adequately explained your assumption that belief is necessary in regards to the human condition on pain of reverting into ants.

I can't put a number on it, but I conclude based on a lifetime of observation, reflection and deduction that if too few people believe in a supreme boss of everyone, then too many people will try to fill that role within their own personal scope of existence. There's no arguing that this is a wholly subjective determination on my part.

well, fair enough.. as long as you admit that your reasons are no less based off of the same personal insight as jones and koresh.


Tell me, what makes you think that your personal observations are universally applicable in regards to a god concept? Is it not true that any given individual whose shared your same experience will still manage to perceive their conclusion differently than you have? I understand that it's the common beliefs that make like people similar in their coagulating belief system but that doesn't necessarily apply to TRUTH. Belief doesn't equate truth. What does every religion want us to believe? that it is THE TRUTH. Yet, I daresay that even believers in the greek pantheon are no closer to THE TRUTH than believers of christ, Ras tafari, Odin or Buddha. Each is a belief system created by humans to explain that which had yet to be explained. Again, if we had the same scope of reality as ants then we'd have our spiritual theories validated every time we flew to space and discovered a giant Phillip K dick-like eye staring down at us.

 

[manifold]

Tell me, what makes you think that your personal observations are universally applicable in regards to a god concept?

It's all I have to go on obviously.

Is it not true that any given individual whose shared your same experience will still manage to perceive their conclusion differently than you have?

Yep.

 

[Shogun]

Tell me, what makes you think that your personal observations are universally applicable in regards to a god concept?

It's all I have to go on obviously.

Is it not true that any given individual whose shared your same experience will still manage to perceive their conclusion differently than you have?

Yep.

then how does your individual perspective, and theological opinion, become any more relevant than that of an atheist?

 

[manifold]

Mani, is freewill REALLY an "if/then" equation complete with a penalty and prize depending on an assumed correct behaviour?

That is for each individual to decide for himself don't you think? Again, it's part of what makes each of us our own individual god.

How is that for an individual to decide if the rules, and penatlies or rewards, are already decided? Adam didn't have input on heaven or hell. An indivudal god doesn't get the prerogative to change realities TRUTH no matter how similar or distant our belief is to the actual reality, right?

They may be decided, they may not be. And yes, truth is truth regardless of what you or I perceive it to be. My point is that I believe that the widespread belief in a God is a necessary ingredient in the glue that holds together our universal respect for individual freedom and liberty.

 

[manifold]

Tell me, what makes you think that your personal observations are universally applicable in regards to a god concept?

It's all I have to go on obviously.

Is it not true that any given individual whose shared your same experience will still manage to perceive their conclusion differently than you have?

Yep.

then how does your individual perspective, and theological opinion, become any more relevant than that of an atheist?

I'm not offering a theological opinion. I'm offering an opinion about humanity.

 

[Shogun]

It's all I have to go on obviously.



Yep.

then how does your individual perspective, and theological opinion, become any more relevant than that of an atheist?

I'm not offering a theological opinion. I'm offering an opinion about humanity.

yea, in suggesting the necessity for belief in a theological construct.

 

[manifold]

then how does your individual perspective, and theological opinion, become any more relevant than that of an atheist?

I'm not offering a theological opinion. I'm offering an opinion about humanity.

yea, in suggesting the necessity for belief in a theological construct.

correct