Here's my question: Why is God such a big secret?

[Zoeisright]

As I've gotten older I've read a lot of books about religion. And I just don't understand why, if there is a God, it's such a secret. Why isn't there direct evidence? Why doesn't he just show himself?

I went to parochial schools all of my life so I know all of the pat answers: belief that requires proof isn't faith, etc. etc.

I just want to know if anyone else has wondered this.

[sudopod]

1. A wizard did it. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

5. A sneaky tricky wizard.

he made the universe 6k years ago but then set it up to look like it was billions of years old just to trick people into thinking the world isn't 6k years old, and don't get me started with all the evidence of evolution, that is one of his best tricks.

[sudopod]

6. Oh, Level 20 at least! ;) nt

[FiveGoodMen]

2. My take: It's the only way to sell such an absurd story with no evidence.

[Fire1]

3. Nope. n/t

[Peacetrain]

4. I think that is a question that most thinking people have

wrestled with.

[patrice]

7. Why would language necessarily be capable of saying anything even remotely accurate about

a "God"? = a problem that is so relevant that not even that question itself is accurate.

Remember, we are referring to something here that, by definition (ha! ha!) is all powerful in what we know now is not just one but perhaps multiple multi-verses, throughout all of what we refer to as "time" and we're supposed to be able to make sense about that with words??? Pardon me, but, "it is to laugh!"

[LAGC]

62. Yep, if God really exists and is really that awesome and powerful...

Our feeble minds would have no hope of being able to grasp or understand it, let alone KNOW what God really thinks or wants from us.

[CJCRANE]

8. God is the name

for all the stuff we don't know.

You can call it Tao or Universe or whatever.

[madrchsod]

9. we are just one piece of the cosmic whole.

[patrice]

12. Personally, I think "God" is our connection to that, whatever that connection is. nt

[MineralMan]

10. When human invent deities, they have to include the secrecy,

since there's nothing to show. So, you get invisible, ineffable supernatural entities you have to take on faith. It's worked very well for all these centuries.

[demwing]

11. Enlightenment is like wealth, or power

One only experiences its true value through an earning process, not in just securing a shortcut to the goal.

[patrice]

13. That's why Buckminster Fuller's "I seem to be a verb" makes sense to me. We are not

whats; we are hows.

[demwing]

17. perfect. +1 /nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. So you're saying it's better to fool people into believing there's a god

and to let them work it out for themselves that there isn't one, rather than for it to be generally acknowledged?

[demwing]

50. LOL. You know, if you wrap yourself around what I really said any tighter

you might be able to give yourself a kiss

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Since your post didn't even mention God, it seems fair to try and bring you back

to the subject of the thread.

What do you mean by 'enlightenment', then? Nothing to do with the most common religion in the world, I presume - because picking that up is easy-peasy. All you have to do is listen to authority, and ignore the evidence of the natural world that we live in.

In fact, since you live in the US, belief in God is the overwhelming majority opinion, expressed frequently. It seems to me that there is your 'shortcut' - just picking up the majority opinion. That's why it seems fair to assume you mean that arriving at the opinion of no gods is something you 'earn'.

[Boojatta]

52. "the natural world that we live in"

Did you use the adjective "natural" to indicate reliance upon the assumption that our self-awareness and sensory perceptions aren't all occurring within a simulation that is grounded in a deeper substrate?

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. A simulation is always a possibility; but that includes doubting the existence of the past too

Once you allow "it's a simulation" as an argument, you can make up pretty much anything you want as a possibility. It certainly becomes pointless considering whether there are gods or not, since you have to doubt your senses, memory and reasoning capacity as well. You end up without knowing anything whatsoever.

But I said 'natural' to distinguish it from the claimed 'supernatural' world for which I have never seen evidence (though strangely it's claimed there were many supernatural occurrences in the past, by many religions - maybe the religions think we're more gullible than they were?).

[Boojatta]

54. Have you seen evidence that there are infinitely many prime numbers?

If we actually live in a universe that is spatially finite (but nevertheless unbounded), then the next step might be to conjecture that there are, in reality, no infinities.

Do you have any sensory perceptions of an infinity?

How much can science be trusted if it relies upon assumptions and conclusions about an intangible realm that includes actual infinities and other things that seem akin to fiction or fantasy?

[LAGC]

63. You philosophers always blow me away.

I, too, was captivated by philosophy during my freshman year in college...

But it didn't take me long to realize that science was only real path to greater understanding and knowledge, as limited as it may be...

Philosophy, as a whole, is only so much mental masturbation after awhile. You end up questioning everything and are never able to come to any real practical conclusions... after all, how can you really "know" anything?

[GliderGuider]

109. Philosophy on a religion board? Shocking.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

[skepticscott]

74. Science can be trusted to the extent

that it agrees with the physical reality we encounter and allows us to manipulate that reality. In other words, to a very considerable extent, as you would only have to look around you to realize, if you're being honest.

[GliderGuider]

75. Do you think pure mathematics is a science?

It looks a lot like philosophy to me...

Edited to add this comment from the Wiki entry on Mathematics: Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

[skepticscott]

80. No, mathematics is not a science

in the sense that chemistry, physics and biology are, but neither is it a philosophy.

[GliderGuider]

73. They are unlike in one very important way, though.

Once you achieve enlightenment, you realize it wasn't important in the first place. Wealth and power tend to addict those who achieve them into the idea of their importance.
The process of achieving any of them is just something humans do until it's time for dinner.

OTOH, I have no clue what any of this has to do with god. God is just a word - we make it mean whatever we need it to mean in order for us to feel valuable. If having a god that's a secret makes us feel good, we define it that way. If having a god that's universal and expressed through the entire universe makes us feel good, that's the meaning we give the word. If having a god that's non-existent and a figment of other peoples' imaginations makes us feel good, that's how we define the word.

It's not about theology, it's about semantics and the struggle for perceived social status.

[sudopod]

14. You see, the Romans and Egyptians had the right idea.

They had real gods you could see (and boy were they snazzy dressers!). Gods who threw bread at you and and provided sporty entertainment and killed those nasty pants-wearing foreigners who smelled bad. Sure, the 20 years of labor to build each of those pyramids were kind of rough, but a proper god has got to have some stick to balance out the carrot, am I right?

Them's the kind of gods that get respect!

[Zoeisright]

15. So no serious answers, huh?

I'm disappointed.

[demwing]

18. Honestly, were you really looking for an answer?

Even if you didn't agree with my post #11, there was plenty of room for intelligent discussion, but all you came up with was a flip little retort...

[patrice]

25. 1+ We didn't guess the answer OP had in mind, ergo none of the proffered hypotheses is serious. wow.

:crazy:

[edhopper]

20. The serious answer

is the more a given church defines and describes God, the easier it is to see he does not exist.
They then invented the whole faith con. If you cannot see that God exist, you must have faith. It is only faith that will let you believe. It is a test, the less you see the more you have to believe.
I think Hans Christian Anderson had a tale about people accepting something that was apparently untrue.

[trotsky]

22. The toughest questions never get answers.

Or a really shrewd theologian sits down and ponders another way to state the old "god works in mysterious ways" canard, and tries to pass it off as some novel idea.

[patrice]

23. Uh, apparently not what you expected, but to put this discussion down that way with

the pejorative "no serious answer"????? Your response makes your OP appear to be a less than honest question, disingenuous, because you weren't actually wondering anything to begin with, since you look at all of what is offered (and rather than ask yourself if you understand anything anyone has said here) you say none of it is "serious". wow. This shows you apparently had already decided what the answer would be like and none of us read your mind, so . . .

Why don't you just answer your own question FOR us?

[dimbear]

33. Here's the Christian dogma.

This is implicit in the episode where JC is supposedly asked why He always talks in parables. His supposed answer: if He didn't talk in parables, people would understand and believe Him.

In the Gospel of Thomas the secrecy theme is even better developed. It's practically a riddle. A very very important riddle. Solve it and you're in.

IOW, God hides so that people don't believe in Him. That's not so complex. Heaven is a reward for a long hard slog through and beyond incredulity. It has to be to keep its elite and highly selective status. There's a pile of Christian imagery to reflect this: narrow gate, strait path, etc. And those walls! My, my.

[trotsky]

41. This. ^^^^^^^

Great answer.

[Boojatta]

49. A link to ...

the Gospel of Thomas

[damntexdem]

16. Because She works in mysterious ways?

Because She wants to avoid all the paparazzi?

She's just on vacation for a few eons?

Or, most likely, because She just can't stand us and doesn't want to encourage over familiarity?

;-)

[sudopod]

21. If She wants to avoid controversy, why does She dress like a man? :3

(This has been a test of the Emergency Trolling System. This is only a test.)

[Boojatta]

31. Emergency Trolling System? Why wasn't I notified in advance about this?

[Rageneau]

19. If God is a secret, why does He have so many houses?

As to why God chooses to remain unseen, you'll have to ask Him about that. Mankind is not likely to be smart enough to figure out the reason.

[rrneck]

46. They're safe houses.

Y'know, like the witness protection program.

[tiny elvis]

24. it is not a god, that thing

it is a beautiful planet with a fine star generating life in increasingly complicated forms
it seems to me that species do not generally simplify and mammals develop extra brain power
a species does not need intelligence to thrive, but one primate weirdly goes off the relative intelligence scale
reason from chaos, awareness from matter?
maybe there is something not physical but energetic coming out of this planet through us
but it is not a god, which would be a kind of person
the ancient myth makers agreed that gods will reveal themselves as persons and talk to us, as their gods did so
jesus christ is your parochial school revelation of god as a person
will that not do?
i am not completely sure what i am and i have never thought any assembly of things to be a real god
at present we are certain that the nature of all assimilated things is decay
a true atom (indivisible part) may be unchangeable, but we have found none
because no assimilation can be maintained for ever, or very long, no god inclusive of matter can be infinite
no intelligence can be simple and no complex thing can endure without end
if you do not detect anything around you that could be a god, the pat answer has a kind of validity
faith can make you interpret things as godly or holy, revelatory, portentous
will that not do?

[patrice]

26. I kind of like this "answer", except for a couple of things:

Energy is physical. In fact, all physical things/matter are fundamentally energy.

and - "no god inclusive of matter can be infinite" - That depends upon what one assumes a god to be and omnipotence is probably one of the most common traits of what people are referring to when they use the letters g, o, and d, so why are you limiting an omnipotent being. Couldn't an omnipotent entity be any sort of god it intended to be? How do YOU acquire the power to say what the all powerful is and is not?

As for nothing being without "end", the various juries: physics, astrophysics, cosmology are all still out on the proposition, so perhaps you should inform them their work is over.

Everything anyone says is relative, it depends upon the semantics & the semiotics of the language used to say it, change any of that, for example, change the definition of the word "end" even just slightly and other truths are possibly "revealed" at least in part.

[tiny elvis]

34. none of our systems work better by adding the assumption that some things are endless

some may work less well with such assumptions
pragmatically, we should work without that idea
the question of whether something that can do anything can do anything
or, 'can something that can do anything, do anything?'
is not reasonable, it is only redundant

adding
do unphysical things have force? do they resist other forces or decomposition?
are they energetic?
maybe not

[patrice]

42. What is "unphysical"? Examples, please. nt

[tiny elvis]

56. not material and not wholly of matter, from matter

if i have a pile of rocks, the number of rocks is a physical thing
the question of whether a number is a physical thing is answered in principia and,
as i do not wish to write a paragraph on that, let us say it is because we say so
the question of whether a physical thing is real is null
my knowledge of the number of rocks i have is made of matter, so real
my knowledge that you have more rocks than me is created differently from my knowledge of our numbers
i will very loosely call it a judgement
my decision to take some of your rocks is called arbitrary and so is my judgement of how many to take
judgements and decisions are at least once removed in our minds from the physical things being judged
is a decision a biological process?
is decision a name that assumes something unreal or mistaken?
is it useful to treat a judgement or decision as a biological process?
in the arizona shooter's case, yes
but are you missing some rocks because of some physical processes, or did that sob steal your rocks?
both treatments of possibly partly unphysical things are useful, but one is more so,
suggesting the validity of the idea of non physical motive and structure in thought

others disagree
more examples?
sorry you asked?

[patrice]

27. Every atom that ever was is still here.Yourbody contains atoms that are multi-millions of years old.

[patrice]

28. Some of those atoms were once dinosaur shit, some were stars. nt

[tiny elvis]

29. fission and fusion nt

[Angry Dragon]

57. No wonder I feel so old sometimes

[darkstar3]

69. Um, no.

That is not remotely how the law of conservation of matter, or the law of conservation of energy, work.

[Boojatta]

30. Before wiretapping, why don't FBI agents notify those suspected of being in criminal organizations?

"Tomorrow, we're going to start recording your phone calls. We'll be listening."

[dimbear]

40. Because they would pretend to be better than they are.

OTOH, if people always pretended to be better than they are, constantly, they really would be better. God doesn't want that.

[Boojatta]

45. Would people be better if something like "the Ludovico Technique" of A Clockwork Orange

were applied not just to people convicted of crimes, but also to teenagers generally?

[dimbear]

55. Not sure, but it's worth an old school try. Got toothpicks?

[pokerfan]

32. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike? (nt)

[demwing]

36. Who says God is invisible?

not me...

[Deep13]

35. Obviously, the purported virtue of faith comes from the fact...

...that god is an implausible idea. Some part of human nature wants there to be a god and those who run religions prey on this. But even a few minutes honest reflection shows that it is not a viable concept.

[Boojatta]

37. "even a few minutes honest reflection"

Could you post a sequence of words that gives an indication of the contents of those few minutes of honest reflection?

[Deep13]

38. Epicuras and Socrates can do a better job than I can.

Besides, using god as an explanation for anything only begs the question, where did god come from.

[Boojatta]

43. For a similar reason, do you not accept "Stalin did it" as an explanation of any historical events?

Perhaps the problem of where Stalin came from isn't merely a question of who his biological parents were, but how he developed his unusual attitudes and skills, and how he acquired power.

[edhopper]

59. The logic here

is terribly, terribly flawed.
And no I won't explain why as it is self apparent.

[Boojatta]

64. Are you interested in logic?

It occurs to me that one alternative possibility is that you simply wish to find fault on some pretext. You could have used the word "grammar" instead of the word "logic." Alternatively, you could have asserted that the post you replied to is very unclear as written and that an explanation or revision is required.

However, if you are interested in logic, then you might enjoy voting in this poll.

After that, you might be interested in reading the following:

The logic of not merely connectives (and, implies, not, inclusive or, xor, etc) but also quantifiers

A poll about logic and clarity of language

You didn't disclose any step-by-step reasoning.

Start with a true sentence. Replace a sub-formula with its contrapositive. Is result true?

[Boojatta]

70. Why not share your wisdom?

To begin, click here

[skepticscott]

67. How many people

use "Stalin did it" as an explanation for things when no well-supported explanation has been developed, or when alternative explanations have far better evidence in their favor? As compared to the number of people who use "god did it" in the same circumstances?

[Boojatta]

68. How many Soviet citizens were punished for ...

"wrecking", "espionage", being "enemies of the people", etc -- and how many people inside or outside the USSR grudgingly or wholeheartedly accepted those accusations -- when the problems were actually caused directly or indirectly by the system that Lenin established, and the decisions that Stalin made?

[skepticscott]

72. You sir, talk like

a plate of beans trying to negotiate its way out of a cow's digestive system.

(to quote Sir Talbot Buxomly)

[Boojatta]

44. I was under the impression that Socrates ...

(like Jesus?) left no written records, and that the most popular source of information about Socrates is one of his disciples (Plato, in particular).

[Boojatta]

60. Do you think that to use god as an explanation for something is

to commit the fallacy known as "begging of the question" (i.e. covertly assuming what is to be demonstrated) or do you simply mean that you are motivated to ask the question "where did god come from"?

I don't assert that your choices are restricted to exactly one of the two that I presented. Perhaps there are other choices that I haven't considered.

I attempted to specify what part of your message could be more clear, and why there is a problem of clarity. If this post that you are now reading is itself not clear enough, and you make some effort to specify where and why, then I will of course edit (or post a revised version of) this post.

[Boojatta]

65. Are you talking about Plato's written account of the spoken words of Socrates?

Can you quote where Socrates indicates that he doesn't believe that any gods exist?

Unless I'm mistaken, in Plato's account, Socrates believed in reincarnation. Is there a purely materialistic explanation for what would cause reincarnation?

[struggle4progress]

39. It is an ancient scandal: the Romans who conquered Jerusalem were shocked, too:

... Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews. Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple. Thus it became commonly known that the place stood empty with no similitude of gods within, and that the shrine had nothing to reveal ...

The Histories By Tacitus ... Book V
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html

I expect Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, hoping to find a decorated idol there, according somehow to his own conceptions: it is a common human mistake, anyway, to seek what meets our own little notions

But what are you looking for? A golden calf?

[dimbear]

58. He would have been more comfortable in the 'First Temple' with the Cherubim.

That Jewish aniconism led to accusations that they were in fact atheists. In the early centuries after the fall of Jerusalem, some synagogues became much more to Roman taste, what with illustrated Zodiacs, for instance.

Curious world we live in.

[rrneck]

47. God is no more of a secret than Gandalf. nt

[backscatter712]

61. Don't you love how God only reveals himself to solitary cult leaders?

The most current example is how God allegedly revealed himself to con-artist-turned-prophet Joseph Smith - he has his angel Moroni give Joe magic gold plates, which are in a strange language, so Joe is also given magic glasses so he can read them and transcribe them into the Book of Mormon. Of course, he conveniently loses the gold plates and the magic glasses, so all we've got is his word.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

66. Because there is no evidence for him?

That's my theory.

I don't need a peek-a-boo god, thank you.

The default position is that there is no god. You can't prove a negative. So it is up to the believers to prove him/her/its/their existence.

[GliderGuider]

71. Because you're using the wrong definition for "God"?

If you define "God" to mean something for which it's impossible for there to be direct evidence, you have no right to act shocked and dismayed when you go looking for some and don't find it.

The solution is simple: change your definition of "God".

When I was an atheist my position was supported by the very thing that dismayed theists - the lack of evidence.
Ever since I became a pantheist, however, there has been absolutely no shortage of direct evidence for "God"...
Now I get to piss off both sides of the debate.

:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

76. The purpose of defining "God"

I brought this down from my post above, because it properly belongs as part of this answer about definitions.

"God" is just a word - we make it mean whatever we need it to mean in order for us to feel valuable:

If having a god that's a secret makes us feel good, we define it that way.
If having a god that's identical to the universe makes us feel good, that's the meaning we give the word.
If having a god that's non-existent and a figment of other peoples' imaginations makes us feel good, that's how we define the word.

This is not a question of theology, it's about semantics and our individual struggles for perceived social status.

[laconicsax]

77. Hmm...so "God" is whatever you want it to be.

How convenient.

[GliderGuider]

78. Why on earth not?

It's just a word. So long as I understand the meaning used by someone I'm talking to, communication is no problem. If I'm using it purely personally, I get to use whatever definition I want. I'm not much into absolutes.

[laconicsax]

79. And in doing so the word becomes meaningless.

What's the use in believing in a meaningless concept?

[GliderGuider]

81. Not at all. Here's an example of another word that has similar malleability

Take the word "justice". We use it all the time as though it has a nice universal meaning, but on closer examination it really doesn't. Is the death penalty just or unjust? Is "three strikes" justice? How about "zero tolerance"? Where do honour killings fit in (if we think outside out own culture for a moment)? What about Sharia law or the Napoleonic code? What is the "just" sentence for a starving man who steals a loaf of bread, or for Bernie Madoff? According to who?

The meaning of the word "justice" depends greatly on who uses it, and what the cultural context is. It's the same for the word "God" - it means quite different things, for example, to a Catholic, a Hindu or a traditional Sioux.

Now let's talk about meaning and meaninglessness. When an individual redefines what a word means to them, it usually reflects a shift in the meaning (and therefore the meaningfulness) of the underlying concept to which the word refers. That malleability doesn't render the concept meaningless, it just points out that connections between language and ideas tend to be much looser than we tend to give them credit for.

This is all well and good when the meaning is purely personal - my god-concept would be the same to me whether I called it Shiva, Jehovah or Fred. But communicating with others requires a shared semantic context, and there it gets tricky. In general if I meet someone from North America, or especially in this forum, and they use the word "God" I can be fairly sure that they're referring to some form of the Christian god-concept. If I were to meet someone who was obviously from "away" I would not have that assurance. Just as you have no assurance that what I mean by the word "God" matches your expectation.

Why believe in such a malleable concept? Because it brings meaning to one's life in some way. Kind of like believing in "justice"...

[edhopper]

83. And you neglect to state

what you believe God is.
As a pantheist you believe that......?

[GliderGuider]

85. I didn't know that was important in this discussion, but

For my own purposes I define the word god to mean one or more of the following:

a) all of nature;
b) the entire universe;
c) all of reality (including non-physical things like thoughts, feelings and virtual forms);
d) the web of connections that links everything to everything else;
e) the inverse of everything;
f) my Self;
g) the inverse of my Self;
g) all of the above; or
i) nothing at all.

My choice depends on my needs at the moment.

Does that help?

[edhopper]

86. Of course it is important

There is a reality that we can agree on or not. But knowing whether we mean the same thing matters in the discussion.

[GliderGuider]

87. OK. So what's your definition?

And what sort of dialogue does it support, when talking to me?

[edhopper]

88. I'm a secular atheist

and don't think there is anything other than the physical universe and the laws that govern it.
No paranormal or spiritual component.

[GliderGuider]

89. On a religion board?

I've never understood why people with no religious or spiritual beliefs whatsoever would hang out here. What's the attraction for you?

[trotsky]

90. Are we not allowed to have opinions on the subject?

Can we not post about how our lives are affected by believers and the religion they're trying to legislate on the rest of us?

I find it shocking how so many otherwise liberal, tolerant people think we don't belong in this forum.

[GliderGuider]

92. Where did I say you didn't belong?

I just wondered what the attraction was. Back when I was still a full-fledged self-identified atheist boards like this held virtually no atteraction for me. I'm just wondering why so many atheists self-validate by calling people with religious/spiritual values doody-heads over and over (and over and over and over and over and over and over if you get my drift).

What are you getting out of it?

[trotsky]

95. Could you perhaps point to the posts...

that call "people with religious/spiritual values doody-heads"?

I mean, if it's happened "over and over and over and over and over" it shouldn't be too hard to point to one or two.

Because I know you wouldn't be exaggerating/over-simplifying or anything just to knock another group of people. You're waaaay too good for that, I'm certain.

[GliderGuider]

99. Not knocking a group of people so much as a behaviour.

I did it too, on usenet in the '90s under the guidance of stellar luminaries like Stix, Tony Lawrence and the Knights of BAAWA. I'm perfectly familiar with the behaviour, and the various ways of disguising it. You noticed that I'm still using such techniques, so my cloak of invisibility apparently needs a firmware update. :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

100. So you admit your charge was baseless.

Thanks.

[GliderGuider]

101. Oh well, into each life a little fun must fall...

We should always remember that talking about religion on the internet is Really Serious Stuff! :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

103. ...he says without a hint of irony. n/t

[GliderGuider]

104. You need to have your irony-meter replaced.

My post had a 20-km irony evacuation zone around it. That's why there was an :evilgrin: at the end.

[trotsky]

106. So you berate others for activity they didn't do...

and then laugh off your accusation rather than apologize and retract. Clearly you must be at a much higher plane than those of us dolts stuck in the "materialist" worldview, subject to a much different set of standards for behavior.

[GliderGuider]

107. There are three things in the world that are constant

Death, taxes and your outrage. It's downright reassuring, it is.

BTW, I don't think that people stuck in materialism are "dolts", any more than I think that people stuck in monotheistism are dolts. It's not a failure of critical thinking skills in either case - you're simply trapped by your conditioning. It's entirely possible to move past the conditioned reflexes and gain a more expansive perspective.

[trotsky]

108. Outrage? Hehe.

You may wish you could rise to that level of annoyance, but I don't see it happening.

It's not a failure of critical thinking skills in either case - you're simply trapped by your conditioning. It's entirely possible to move past the conditioned reflexes and gain a more expansive perspective.

[GliderGuider]

110. It probably wouldn't bug you so much

If you didn't have the sneaking suspicion that it was true...

Moving outside of boxes is always always preferable to staying stuck inside them.

[trotsky]

112. That *must* be it.

I can think of no other reason than I'm simply jealous of your enlightenment.

[GliderGuider]

113. Cool. I've never had someone jealous of me over nothing before!

Careful, it's a trap...

[edhopper]

115. Could you be

just a little more condescending?
Those of us to conditioned my science, logic and critical thinking might not be able to move past our conditioning to see how superior your view is.

[GliderGuider]

116. Sorry, please don't take anything I say in this sub-thread seriously.

I just can't help playing around whenever the other gentleman enters the discussion.

ETA: Those on here who were conditioned to believe in religions might not be able to move past their conditioning to see how superior your view of science, logic and critical thinking is...

The point is that in this area most of us are dancing like puppets on the strings of our training. I did exactly the same thing for 57 years, unable to move beyond the materialism, logic and science I learned from my father.

Science and its bastard child technology are fantastic for manipulating the material world, but less universally effective at providing a sense of personal meaning and value.

[edhopper]

117. I think you might be mistaken that

1. Many of us who end up atheist came to it through upbringing or conditioning instead of intellectual reasoning and critical thinking. Weighing all the evidence and coming to the inevitable conclusion.
And 2. that we don't find "meaning" in life outside of science and technology.

If you need imaginary beings or energy or whatever for your sense of value, good for you.
I don't see the difference between that and people talking to Jesus for guidance.

[cleanhippie]

121. So you just admitted that you are simply trolling this forum?

It's all so much clearer now.

[GliderGuider]

122. Actually, no. I come in and post with the best of intentions.

Then I get involved in these exchanges with you with you, and it changes my behaviour. Something in your approach or tone pushes my buttons, I'm afraid. It's happened several times now. I'm tempted to put you on ignore, but I have a policy of not doing that, and I don't want to make you the first.

[GliderGuider]

123. And this shows how triggered I am.

I didn't read the name, and assumed from the tone you were trotsky. I think I'll take a break for a while...

[trotsky]

125. Yeah, the approach of making you back up your baloney is probably highly disturbing.

Enjoy your break!

[cleanhippie]

126. While I can understand your point, it would seem that it is your problem, not mine.

And my tone and approach, while sometimes crude and abrasive, should have no bearing on the points of the discussion.

[skepticscott]

91. Why is it so hard for people to grasp

that non-believers can (and should) take a deep interest in the overblown and domineering role that religion and supernatural beliefs have in our society? Aside from the prejudices aimed directly at non- believers from religionists, are you saying that atheists should NOT be interested in the constant attempts by religious organizations to control our government, our laws, our educational system and our morality? Should we not be interested in countering the corruption and bigotry with which organized religion pervades so much of society, to its detriment? Are atheists incapable of weighing in on the issue of whether the field of theology is anything more than mental masturbation? Are those topics to be declared of no interest to atheists?

[GliderGuider]

93. You already know what's going on in your society regarding (some) religion.

I know I do. Does getting on here and wrangling with believers actually "counter the corruption and bigotry with which organized religion pervades so much of society"? Are the believers on here responsible for the corruption and bigotry that's running rampant in your country? Or is the wrangling more about personal self-image?

[edhopper]

94. It is better to light one candle

than curse the darkness.
And we have had quite a few threads here about how the so called "liberal" believers do little or nothing to counter the damaging ideas of religion.

[GliderGuider]

97. There are many candles that can be lit.

For instance, my "candle" is trying to expand people's understanding of how broad the realm of "spirituality" is, and why alternatives to the standard-issue American Christian god-meme might be useful to both atheists and Christians alike. Turning a Christian into an atheist (especially through confrontation) is very hard. Inviting people to contemplate the possibilities in traditions that aren't god-centered can be a little easier. The approaches I champion tend to be things like Zen, Taoism and Advaita, along with a rather "eclectic" version of pantheism.

I'm still an atheist, but for the last three years or so I'm no longer a "secular" atheist. This is largely because of the fact that I view much of the universe and its shenanigans as sacred, and also use various non-material possibilities to decorate and inform my inner landscape. Of course if one is fully embedded in the materialist world-view, there isn't much common ground for dialogue even with this position. Most of what remains possible in such a situation involves resistance and opposition, and that doesn't stay interesting for long.

[trotsky]

96. ...

"Are the believers on here responsible for the corruption and bigotry that's running rampant in your country?"

I can honestly say that yes, some of them are. I have encountered anti-atheist bigotry on DU and continue to do so to this day.

[GliderGuider]

98. There are only four kinds of people in this world I can't stand

Protestants, Catholics, atheists and bigots... :evilgrin:

[edhopper]

102. In most social interactions

and situations, challenging another's religion is not welcome. There are times when people want to engage in a discussion. But most often, with family and friends, it is not constructive.
But here we have a forum where we can openly debate religion and theology. Challenge everything a believer basis his ideas on. (And them us). No holds bared. Since much of us have reached our atheism through an intellectual process, continuing to question and look at the matter seems natural.
Otherwise we would just be talking to other atheist and act like some religions that never challenge their convictions.


If you are not a Christian, why do you come here to talk to Christians? (rhetorical)

Why would we NOT come here to debate religion?

[GliderGuider]

105. I may have misunderstood the purpose of the forum.

I thought that, like most other topic boards on DU, it was intended as a community of common interest. If its purpose is to act as a container for debate, then I withdraw my objection.

[edhopper]

111. No

there are forums for different religions and sects.
This for for open debate about any issue dealing with religion and theology.
Understand how you could be mistaken.

[GliderGuider]

114. Thanks.

I never really knew what to make of this board...

[onager]

82. Psst! Atheism is an even bigger secret!

According to the neocons, anyway...

(Irving) Kristol restated this insight nearly five decades ago in an essay in Commentary dealing with Freud: "If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves.

Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish."

Reason magazine - "Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?" by Ronald Bailey

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Frankly speaking, the Universe does not look like one made by a God...

in other words, a god may exist, but it surely doesn't appear like he, she, or it does.

[laconicsax]

118. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[GliderGuider]

119. Yes, it does look like it was designed by a committee.

One on which most members weren't on speaking terms. The design of the human body alone whould have caused a designer god to fail Mech Eng 101.

And welcome to DU!

[Humanist_Activist]

120. I think, if people think about it, the universe may be the meta-example of emergence...

the "creation" of organization from the smallest and most insignificant parts. You start off with some simple rules, or "laws" though they don't require a lawgiver, and then see what happens after that.

An ant colony is an example of this, more or less self organization with no consciousness behind it, every ant knows its place, how it interacts with other ants, and from that, complexity emerges. Its not designed, as humans would define it, but it is organized, and is also non-random.

The same with the universe itself, you have subatomic particles, which then self-organize into atoms, and they interact with other atoms, splitting or fusing, chemically bonding, etc. and then complexity emerges, again, with no consciousness behind it. This is how the universe looks right now. With 4 forces and a few laws governing them, you have galaxies and black holes, a few self replicating molecules, and given time life and everything that springs from that.

[Taverner]

124. Same reason you have to take a bunch of Ayuhuasca to "see" the spirit world

That is, it does not exist