When people talk about "god" they are talking about themselves.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there any other explanation that makes as much sense? Even if we discuss a particular god of a particular sect of a particular religion we find differences and different interpretations of that "god" and its behavior among individuals in that particular group of people. They may agree on a majority of alleged characteristics but are never 100% in agreement. People who talk about god appear to be merely projecting themselves onto this human archetype.

If I worship a god that commits genocide and I explain it away by saying that my god is mysterious then obviously I approve of genocide. If I worship a god that allows children to die of cancer than obviously I approve of children dying of cancer. We shouldn't be asking someone why their god allows evil but be asking why they themselves allow evil.

The difference between a good person that does bad things and a bad person that does good things is the things those persons do. Claiming that I have a god is just my attempt to put some space between my behavior and personal accountability for same.

 

[Jarhyn]

To be fair, It's not that I approve of kids dying from cancer so much as that kids where I'm from do die of cancer, and it would be a rather rude awakening from any of my simulations to discover life is even worse here than where they came from? That's not mysterious so much as just "shitty".

Also, a system where physics allows a rich basis for growth and expansion and change based on errors is going to be one where errors effect general structure in general ways, and singling out kids in particular would be hard and would make my existence obvious to my creations.

Again, it's not mysterious. I just said why I personally would do that. If you have a better option that meets my requirements, I'm all ears, but I'll be damned if I could even conceive of a system of regular physics that both allows intelligence and spares children or never spawns conflict.

Then, I'm not one to shy away from the reality of my decisions, nor to hide behind some other thing claiming it's not my fault or my decision, or as an excuse to not explain myself.

I agree that if someone wants to justify something like that, they have to actually be able to justify it as if they were "God", and the reasons can't be "mysterious" or weak.

 

[Wiploc]

So if Joe says that gods don't exist, he means that he doesn't exist?

And if Sara says god is all-powerful, she means she is all-powerful?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So if Joe says that gods don't exist, he means that he doesn't exist?

It would mean that fantasy power joe doesn't exist, isn't real. Joe is just joe.

 

[Elixir]

So if Joe says that gods don't exist, he means that he doesn't exist?

It would mean that fantasy power joe doesn't exist, isn't real. Joe is just joe.

How refreshing. I like Joe.
I believe you’re absolutely correct about the projection. It is useful to keep that in mind when trying to explain the attraction that Trump holds for evangelitards. It is exactly the same thing that Trump does whoever he refers to the “Country”; he’s talking about himself.
“Fight like hell or you won’t have a Country me any more!”
“The Democrats are destroying this Country me!”
Etc etc - take a listen! You’ll find that in every case, changing “this Country” to “me” renders almost everything he says about “this Country” absolutely true.

 

[Politesse]

#notallgods

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So if Joe says that gods don't exist, he means that he doesn't exist?

It would mean that fantasy power joe doesn't exist, isn't real. Joe is just joe.

How refreshing. I like Joe.
I believe you’re absolutely correct about the projection. It is useful to keep that in mind when trying to explain the attraction that Trump holds for evangelitards. It is exactly the same thing that Trump does whoever he refers to the “Country”; he’s talking about himself.
“Fight like hell or you won’t have a Country me any more!”
“The Democrats are destroying this Country me!”
Etc etc - take a listen! You’ll find that in every case, changing “this Country” to “me” renders almost everything he says about “this Country” absolutely true.

Good point, and I think spot on. I suppose selfishness isn't too far removed from narcissism and sociopathy.

It is very difficult for humans to behave unemotionally, to control one's feelings so well that the beasts stay caged. Just possessing an awareness that our emotions need to be managed is a step forward certainly.

Lately I play this game where I take a reading on another person and determine where they sit on the rationality spectrum. If modern humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years it's obvious some of us have brains that are 300,000 years old and haven't changed much. Orangey would be such an individual as would be 99% of his base including those evangelicals. I think I reside somewhere in the Neolithic. I can think of a couple friends who are far more modern in their development and neural inheritance based on my observing their behavior. They give me a good target.

 

[Learner]

Is there any other explanation that makes as much sense? Even if we discuss a particular god of a particular sect of a particular religion we find differences and different interpretations of that "god" and its behavior among individuals in that particular group of people. They may agree on a majority of alleged characteristics but are never 100% in agreement.

Is that similar in example as say, people here in the UK having various views on the nation based upon individual understandings and interpretations of their everyday rights and laws?

Agreeing on a majority of characteristics, as you put it, is obviously not a major issue.

People who talk about god appear to be merely projecting themselves onto this human archetype.

If you're talking about 'human emotions'.Then that is a major advantage to understanding the bible and not the opposite as atheist have often used as an argument in error i.e."people take to the faith because of the fuzzy-feely emotions".

Well yeah, you see, compassion and love is an understood language of communication on all levels, hence even children and ordinary simple folk understand it. That is key.Jesus always spoke in that tone!

If I worship a god that commits genocide and I explain it away by saying that my god is mysterious then obviously I approve of genocide. If I worship a god that allows children to die of cancer than obviously I approve of children dying of cancer. We shouldn't be asking someone why their god allows evil but be asking why they themselves allow evil.

Yeah... not forgetting children also being allowed to grow old and die. Some people worship a God who says all those bad things will be wiped away. Love your enemies and your neighbor in the mean time.

The difference between a good person that does bad things and a bad person that does good things is the things those persons do. Claiming that I have a god is just my attempt to put some space between my behavior and personal accountability for same.

A good person who does bad things isn't necessarily a good person (or was never really a good person). A bad person who does good things isn't necessarily a bad person(or was never really a bad person). Depending on how one reads your statement. A little more detail could help for the context you mean here.

 

[Juvenal]

Is there any other explanation that makes as much sense? Even if we discuss a particular god of a particular sect of a particular religion we find differences and different interpretations of that "god" and its behavior among individuals in that particular group of people. They may agree on a majority of alleged characteristics but are never 100% in agreement. People who talk about god appear to be merely projecting themselves onto this human archetype.

If I worship a god that commits genocide and I explain it away by saying that my god is mysterious then obviously I approve of genocide. If I worship a god that allows children to die of cancer than obviously I approve of children dying of cancer. We shouldn't be asking someone why their god allows evil but be asking why they themselves allow evil.

The difference between a good person that does bad things and a bad person that does good things is the things those persons do. Claiming that I have a god is just my attempt to put some space between my behavior and personal accountability for same.

From time immemorial, folks have believed in gods they acknowledged as hateful. The perfect, pure, loving creator god associated with Abrahamic religions is something of a novelty.

 

[Wiploc]

From time immemorial, folks have believed in gods they acknowledged as hateful. The perfect, pure, loving creator god associated with Abrahamic religions is something of a novelty.

His believers may call him perfect, pure, and loving, but they describe him as doing the most hateful things.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there any other explanation that makes as much sense? Even if we discuss a particular god of a particular sect of a particular religion we find differences and different interpretations of that "god" and its behavior among individuals in that particular group of people. They may agree on a majority of alleged characteristics but are never 100% in agreement. People who talk about god appear to be merely projecting themselves onto this human archetype.

If I worship a god that commits genocide and I explain it away by saying that my god is mysterious then obviously I approve of genocide. If I worship a god that allows children to die of cancer than obviously I approve of children dying of cancer. We shouldn't be asking someone why their god allows evil but be asking why they themselves allow evil.

The difference between a good person that does bad things and a bad person that does good things is the things those persons do. Claiming that I have a god is just my attempt to put some space between my behavior and personal accountability for same.

From time immemorial, folks have believed in gods they acknowledged as hateful. The perfect, pure, loving creator god associated with Abrahamic religions is something of a novelty.

And when a child dies of cancer that loving god just becomes a mystery. What happened to the love? Go figure. Not taking anything away from that person who projects himself as a loving god, just would prefer an aha moment.

 

[Juvenal]

And when a child dies of cancer that loving god just becomes a mystery. What happened to the love? Go figure. Not taking anything away from that person who projects himself as a loving god, just would prefer an aha moment.

The story starts out with a guy eating a forbidden fruit and then blaming the woman, the perfect foreshadowing of a god getting ready to say, "Hey, not my fault."

 

[Juvenal]

His believers may call him perfect, pure, and loving, but they describe him as doing the most hateful things.

Some may call sending bears to tear up some kids making fun of a bald guy hateful. I call it an overreaction. I'm sure he would have decided otherwise given a few deep breaths to calm down.

 

[DBT]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony


"But at length he [God] grew old and soft and mellow and compassionate, more like a grandfather than a father, most like a tottery old grandmother.

Then he sat, shrivelled, in his chimney corner, fretting over his weak legs, world-weary, weary of willing, and one day suffocated through his excessive pity...

He was also indistinct. How angry he was with us, this snorter of wrath, because we mistook his meaning! But why did he not speak more clearly?

He had too many failures, this potter who had not learned his craft! But that he took vengeance on his pots and creations because they had turned out badly-- that was a sin against good taste." - Zarathustra: 'Retired From Service'

 

[Learner]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

Said the woman, a member of the Unitarian church.


(I would agree with her though to some extent, depending on the 'type of fruit they produce' etc.)

"But at length he [God] grew old and soft and mellow and compassionate, more like a grandfather than a father, most like a tottery old grandmother.

Then he sat, shrivelled, in his chimney corner, fretting over his weak legs, world-weary, weary of willing, and one day suffocated through his excessive pity...

He was also indistinct. How angry he was with us, this snorter of wrath, because we mistook his meaning! But why did he not speak more clearly?

He had too many failures, this potter who had not learned his craft! But that he took vengeance on his pots and creations because they had turned out badly-- that was a sin against good taste." - Zarathustra: 'Retired From Service'

I do see the wit in the atheist parodic humour, but alas... Parodies are not taken seriously, they're meant merely just to entertain.

It succeeded. I was entertained old friend.

 

[DBT]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

Said the woman, a member of the Unitarian church.


(I would agree with her though to some extent, depending on the 'type of fruit they produce' etc.)

"But at length he [God] grew old and soft and mellow and compassionate, more like a grandfather than a father, most like a tottery old grandmother.

Then he sat, shrivelled, in his chimney corner, fretting over his weak legs, world-weary, weary of willing, and one day suffocated through his excessive pity...

He was also indistinct. How angry he was with us, this snorter of wrath, because we mistook his meaning! But why did he not speak more clearly?

He had too many failures, this potter who had not learned his craft! But that he took vengeance on his pots and creations because they had turned out badly-- that was a sin against good taste." - Zarathustra: 'Retired From Service'

I do see the wit in the atheist parodic humour, but alas... Parodies are not taken seriously, they're meant merely just to entertain.

It succeeded. I was entertained old friend.

As it applies universally, the Anthony quote is true regardless of her other beliefs. It also applied to her. Plus, at the end of the her life she was agnostic.

If it has to be explained, the parody represents the transition of the fierce, vindictive, vengeful god of old testament times into the somewhat more mellow new testament version, including the lack of clarity that has led to the numerous splits in theology that we have.