The Concept of GOD: FTW or FTL?

[CreepersWiener]

Is it possible that believing in a god or gods is beneficial for humankind? Does the concept of GOD unify a community and nation, or does it ultimately seek to perform genocide on people that do not share their particular ideology? How is it that the concept of GOD helped people in the past? How is it that the concept of GOD has done the exact opposite of that? Does the concept of GOD allow for GOD to really care about field goal kickers, or do they just waste their time pointing to the sky after every kick (CLICK HERE FOR PWNAGE!)? How has the concept of GOD helped you in your life, and would your life and reality be anymore different if you didn't believe in GOD? Does your concept of GOD include GOD having genitalia?

[MeDeFe]

Is it possible that believing in a god or gods is beneficial for humankind?

"Possible", yes, though probably not more so than a conviction that we should all try to get along.

Does the concept of GOD unify a community and nation, or does it ultimately seek to perform genocide on people that do not share their particular ideology?

One does not exclude the other

How is it that the concept of GOD helped people in the past?

Has it? Citation needed.

How is it that the concept of GOD has done the exact opposite of that?

See above.

Does the concept of GOD allow for GOD to really care about field goal kickers, or do they just waste their time pointing to the sky after every kick (CLICK HERE FOR PWNAGE!)?

Depends on the concept. I'd say there's easily a dozen concepts of god around just on these fora. If their concept of god says that god cares about what they're up to with their game, well, then they probably feel that they're not just wasting their time.

How has the concept of GOD helped you in your life, and would your life and reality be anymore different if you didn't believe in GOD?

I don't. But the existence of such concepts has helped me have some nice discussions.

Does your concept of GOD include GOD having genitalia?

I don't have one, I prefer to poke holes in other people's concepts of god.

[Gregrios]

I can only hope that someday people will quit blaming God for man's own error and ignorance. God does not force their hand, it is man's choice to contradict what God stands for. End of story.

Breaking news, Barry Bonds busted for steriod use.

"It's not his fault, it's the team's fault. Don't ask me why because I have no answer. It's just that it's easier to make snap judgements then it is to actually get the facts."

[daddy1gringo]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness. A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start. If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

Leaving aside the "truth" factor, we theists are left to defend our belief only on such things as social/psychological benefits, which, though interesting, are not really the point. That kind of slants the discussion.

Besides that, the history of discussions like this is that the only things that many people seem to think believers ever do are crusades, inquisitions, persecution of Galileo, hassling people at the mall, and flying planes into tall buildings. If anything positive is mentioned it's some vague thing about "feeling better". It's as if no one has ever heard of Gregor Mendel, Albert Schweitzer, David Livingstone, Mother Theresa, Catholic Charities (except concerning condoms) Compassion International, World Vision, (through which I and my family have supported various children in 3rd world countries), or any of the thousands, perhaps millions, of other charitable works of people motivated by their belief in God and their belief that He created and loves less advantaged people as well as themselves.

But anyway, as I said, the real issue is truth. If it is your opinion that God does not actually exist, then I think believing in Him is a bad idea for you. It would require some sort of mental illness, of which there is already too much in the world.

[PLAYER57832]

Con:
supporting slavery, genocide, subjugation of certain people, denial of scientific evidence.. etc.

PRO:
abolition, freedom fighters/rescuers from genocide, just plain living "peaceful" and "helpful" lives, acceptance of people who are different (in any way), acceptance of science over "magical evidence" put forward by "faith leaders" (of many types)


Found without religious excuse:

ALL OF THE ABOVE!


Bottom line -- the issue of good versus cruelty is people, not what they do or do not believe.

[GabonX]

This thread is awesome.

[Gregrios]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness. A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start. If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

Leaving aside the "truth" factor, we theists are left to defend our belief only on such things as social/psychological benefits, which, though interesting, are not really the point. That kind of slants the discussion.

Besides that, the history of discussions like this is that the only things that many people seem to think believers ever do are crusades, inquisitions, persecution of Galileo, hassling people at the mall, and flying planes into tall buildings. If anything positive is mentioned it's some vague thing about "feeling better". It's as if no one has ever heard of Gregor Mendel, Albert Schweitzer, David Livingstone, Mother Theresa, Catholic Charities (except concerning condoms) Compassion International, World Vision, (through which I and my family have supported various children in 3rd world countries), or any of the thousands, perhaps millions, of other charitable works of people motivated by their belief in God and their belief that He created and loves less advantaged people as well as themselves.

But anyway, as I said, the real issue is truth. If it is your opinion that God does not actually exist, then I think believing in Him is a bad idea for you. It would require some sort of mental illness, of which there is already too much in the world.

Well said, but there's just one thing I need to bring to light. If a person starts a thread asking believers about God, is it not the responsability of him and following posters to see it and discuss it from the perspective of the believer? And if not, what's the point?

[CreepersWiener]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness.

Perhaps, as most questions are inevitably meaningless throughout the expanse of time. I take this particular response as an immediate defensive stance against any attack on your god, gods, or/and religion. I want to assure you that I am not attacking your god, gods, or/and religion or cults. But in the other "sense" you mean that you are just playing Devil's advocate, then please accept my apologies for being over presumptive.
Peace!

A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start.

Perception is key. My perspective is from an atheist perspective. And from this particular perspective, I will consider theistic ideology to be delusional. I understand that people are RAISED into their particular belief systems, and ultimately I hope that they will see that belief in a god/gods is futile and meaningless, and their efforts and energy are best placed somewhere else.

If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

A very good point! The yin and yang of the debate is at the very basis of this particular statement, and thank you for perceiving it. I am an atheist and need more than silly fairy tales and stories to make me believe their is a god/gods that watch our every move. Therefore, I adhere to your former statement that God does not exist, which in turn provides the accusation that anybody that does believe in god/gods are deluding themselves and are partaking in some mass neurosis to help them deal with the reality of their own mortality.

Leaving aside the "truth" factor, we theists are left to defend our belief only on such things as social/psychological benefits, which, though interesting, are not really the point. That kind of slants the discussion.

I don't think you have to 'defend' your belief in this thread.I just would like someone to explain to me (an atheist) on why I should believe in god/gods. What evidence is there that would make me say to myself,"You know, the numbers and formulas add up...therefore...there is a GOD!" Believing in a god/gods is a personal belief, but do such people use those beliefs to declare themselves as the "only way" and therefore, propagate the belief that all others are "inferior" to them and their belief system?

Besides that, the history of discussions like this is that the only things that many people seem to think believers ever do are crusades, inquisitions, persecution of Galileo, hassling people at the mall, and flying planes into tall buildings. If anything positive is mentioned it's some vague thing about "feeling better". It's as if no one has ever heard of Gregor Mendel, Albert Schweitzer, David Livingstone, Mother Theresa, Catholic Charities (except concerning condoms) Compassion International, World Vision, (through which I and my family have supported various children in 3rd world countries), or any of the thousands, perhaps millions, of other charitable works of people motivated by their belief in God and their belief that He created and loves less advantaged people as well as themselves.

Well...you know, after 9-11, there was a big CHRISTIAN push to put the hurts on the Muslims. Bush named his little operation Eternal Crusade or something along those lines...

Yes, the Inquisitions were quite the party, huh? Boiling water down a presumed heretic's throat. Rats inside a spiked cage set upon an atheist's soft belly (of which a fire was lit on top of the cage which made the rats BURROW into the atheist's innards!)

The "vague thing" of which you mention is the same as drugs to a drug addict. It distorts their reality for the time being...and once reality starts setting in, they have to go back to the "drug dealer" for another fix.

As for charitable institutions...I give to both the Red Cross and the United Way. Believing in a god/gods does not monopolize the market on charitable acts. As a human being...why wouldn't I want to help another human being? It's absurd to think that just because one doesn't believe in god/gods makes him/her any more heartless than Adolf Hitler (<----CHRISTIAN!)

But anyway, as I said, the real issue is truth. If it is your opinion that God does not actually exist, then I think believing in Him is a bad idea for you. It would require some sort of mental illness, of which there is already too much in the world.

And if your understanding of "truth" comes from fairy tales and superstitions, then perhaps the atheist way of thinking is not for you, in turn. I mean, how could you deal with reality if you had to believe that you evolved from monkeys and apes? You would probably go NUTS!

So, to you my friend...Cheers!
Cheers!

[MeDeFe]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness. A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start. If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

Actually, presumptions have nothing to do with which view is delusional in this case, the nature of reality might, but even that is debatable. Personally I have considered points for and against and come to the conclusion that believing in god is not necessary for me and that it would be rather silly of me to believe since there is no credible evidence for god's existence. That god does not exist is not a presumption from which I start, but a conclusion I have arrived at.

[john9blue]

Agreed, many atheists like to claim that atheism is a neutral position, or that babies are atheists, etc. Really I think that would be either agnosticism or ignosticism, or both. You have to view and consider evidence before you make the claim that "God does not exist" and that you're an atheist.

[Gregrios]

My perspective is from an atheist perspective. And from this particular perspective, I will consider theistic ideology to be delusional. I understand that people are RAISED into their particular belief systems, and ultimately I hope that they will see that belief in a god/gods is futile and meaningless.

Just so you have the right information, not everyone who believes in God is raised believing in God. I spent my youngest years with only knowing a few of the commandments, basically having no real knowledge of God. For several years after that I lived in defience of God not that it was directed at him but just by not caring. Then at an age I will not mention, I formed a foundation of belief do largely inpart to reading the Bible for the first time in my life. There are other circumstances that contributed but without the Bible it most likely wouldn't have happened. Now as I look back I can see that God has truly blessed me with an unshakable foundation of belief and I sit here today and tell you with 100% confidence that I will NEVER stray away from doubting him again. Sure I may lose my way with aspects of the Bible but as for the question of whether he exsists or not, I will never stumble as I've already been tested to the full extent and passed do largely inpart to an unshakable foundation of belief. My point is that I went from knowing nothing, to being defient, and now I'm here at a place of no regret.

[MeDeFe]

Agreed, many atheists like to claim that atheism is a neutral position, or that babies are atheists, etc. Really I think that would be either agnosticism or ignosticism, or both. You have to view and consider evidence before you make the claim that "God does not exist" and that you're an atheist.

Well... seeing how a baby in all probability lacks the mental capacity of holding any form of belief beyond "Make noise, mom come" and is unable of articulating even that in any form, I think babies technically are atheists at least until they are able of forming more complex beliefs. After that it depends on what they are taught. If young children are told that god exists they are probably much more likely to form such a belief than if they are told there is no god (which it only makes sense to tell them if the concept of god has been introduced to them), if they are not told about beliefs about god at all things could get interesting. Is any such case known?


fastposted by Greg.

But would you have formed a belief in god if you had never heard about the concept of god?

[daddy1gringo]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness. A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start. If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

Actually, presumptions have nothing to do with which view is delusional in this case, the nature of reality might, but even that is debatable. Personally I have considered points for and against and come to the conclusion that believing in god is not necessary for me and that it would be rather silly of me to believe since there is no credible evidence for god's existence. That god does not exist is not a presumption from which I start, but a conclusion I have arrived at.

Understood. But the thread is about whether believing in God is a beneficial thing or not. So your conclusion in the question of whether God exists becomes your premise in that question, as you yourself just said.

That's my point. If you are starting, as the OP obviously does, with the premise that God does not exist, then the conclusion is already pretty much decided. I think we can agree that delusion is not good. However, the premise is not proven, so the idea that one should not delude oneself cuts both ways.

[AAFitz]

In one sense, this thread/question is doomed to meaninglessness. A lot depends on the concept of truth. It really depends on the presumptions with which you start. If you presume that God does not actually exist, then the belief that He does is a delusion, which is never good. On the other hand, If you presume that He does actually exist, then the delusion is to deny it.

Actually, presumptions have nothing to do with which view is delusional in this case, the nature of reality might, but even that is debatable. Personally I have considered points for and against and come to the conclusion that believing in god is not necessary for me and that it would be rather silly of me to believe since there is no credible evidence for god's existence. That god does not exist is not a presumption from which I start, but a conclusion I have arrived at.

Understood. But the thread is about whether believing in God is a beneficial thing or not. So your conclusion in the question of whether God exists becomes your premise in that question, as you yourself just said.

That's my point. If you are starting, as the OP obviously does, with the premise that God does not exist, then the conclusion is already pretty much decided. I think we can agree that delusion is not good. However, the premise is not proven, so the idea that one should not delude oneself cuts both ways.

Actually all of that is irrelevant to whether a God is good for society. He can exist, and belief in him could still be non beneficial in many ways, and he could not exist, and belief in him could be beneficial.

On an individual basis, believing in God may make someone happy, help them make decisions, help them enjoy a community, raise their family and aspire to very worthwhile values. However, in another individual this belief in God, could be perverted into a reason to commit crimes, murder, self mutilation etc.

To answer the question honestly, however, one must accept both the possibility that God both exists, and that he doesn't. Then, only from that point of view can one weigh the pros and cons...and even then, only from the point of view of its affect on the human race and not on any individual per se, because if there was a god, presumably believing in Him would be intrinsically good for everyone.

So many presumptions still have to be made. The most important is that the God in question is not changing anything for the better or worse. If he were, that pretty much answers the question right there. Two, he may or may not exist. Three, a true God is not worried about belief in him or not, but only how we treat other people anyways.

With these presumptions and the open mind to accept both the possibility, and absence of God, one can view the effects of belief on history, and in ones own life.

In history, religions held back science. It kept technology from progressing, including medicine. Its possible many lives were lost. However, since technology will possibly be our actual undoing, its possible that religion, in delaying this technology, unwittingly saved the human race thousands of extra years of existence. Its impossible to know however. Native americans more or less all believed in the earth as a god itself, and tried very hard to live in balance with it. It is very possible that the human race would be better off living like that, but conversely, it is safe to say, that a great majority of us would not exist at all. Balance most certainly means less humans, and that means we arent here...so... is it good for humans, maybe... is it good for me as an individual not to ever have existed...no ffing way.

Now that ive argued the thread is not meaningless and doomed, I must admit that it is except in a fictional way, for entertainment purposes. Really, one must know if there is a God, because that one fact is actually key to the answer. Its an answer that we will never ever know. Or know at the end of our lifetimes. Personally, Id make sure you enjoy what you have here, no matter how strong your belief.

[john9blue]

Well... seeing how a baby in all probability lacks the mental capacity of holding any form of belief beyond "Make noise, mom come" and is unable of articulating even that in any form, I think babies technically are atheists at least until they are able of forming more complex beliefs. After that it depends on what they are taught. If young children are told that god exists they are probably much more likely to form such a belief than if they are told there is no god (which it only makes sense to tell them if the concept of god has been introduced to them), if they are not told about beliefs about god at all things could get interesting. Is any such case known?


fastposted by Greg.

Yeah this will just end up in a discussion of what "atheism" actually means. To me it requires making the actual CLAIM that there's no god (believing that God doesn't exist), but some people mix agnosticism in there (not believing that God exists) which to me is simply a meek way of saying the former, as all but the pure agnostics HAVE to make a judgment call one way or another.

But would you have formed a belief in god if you had never heard about the concept of god?

I think everyone should ask themselves this, tbh. The concept of God had to originate from somewhere. I think it's natural to try and seek your Creator, like adopted children seek out their biological parents. Humans took the concept and ran with it (to put it mildly), but the basic idea remains unchanged. Although I do believe in God, it's not the type I was taught in religious ed...

[Army of GOD]

Are we talking about a specific religion's "GOD" or religion itself?

[nietzsche]

I'm gonna answer just one of the original questions: How did the concept of god helped people in the past.

Just think that you'll go to hell when you die, or not hell, you'll just be trapped suffering feeling suffocated for eternity. People need god so they are anxiety-free.

Also, in the past, before the middle (dark) ages, there was no god, but gods. It was the way people understood things they could not change and feared/respected.

The concept of god comes mainly from the fact that we humans, when we see something that requires design (a chair, a clock) we assume it needed a creator. So we go ahead and think we, animals and plants needed someone to create us. <- can't remember the name of the concept of this fallacy.

The greeks (and perhaps another civilizations before them) we're quite ahead of us in this. They knew about the tragedy life was. Most of them took life in a stoic manner. But then it came christianity, and we sank into a dark age. I believe it was until 1500 that Aristotle was discovered and taught like in english colleges.

Nietzsche, not me, the philosopher, having been trained to become a priest as a child, discovers all this when he studies the greeks, and hence he says that "the gods laughed themselves to death, This happened when the most godless words issued from a God himself – the words: ‘There is one God' "

Then of course he went mad as he tried to remove something that had very deep roots on him, and as he also tried to become his own god (the birth of existentialism).

Finally, if a 5 year old girl loses her parents in a car accident and you had to explain it to her, how would you do it? Being an atheist myself, I think that if were in that situation I'd go to god and heaven for the explanation, lol.

[CreepersWiener]

^ in response to the 5 year old girl...I would explain it with water. The concept of God/Gods is pretty much meaningless to me, and i would not push such a concept on a child. I would try to explain in real terminology and water is the closest thing I could use as a model for a child to understand what happens to us when we die. Also, you could use the TV or the computer as a way to explain to a child what happens after you die. Of course, no one really knows, but I do know that our consciousness consists of energy. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only moves from one state into the next. This is why I am not opposed in believing in the concept of reincarnation, and I think reincarnation is a better way of dealing with the questions of death, rather than telling a child that you go to see and old man in a cloud and he decides on if you have been naughty or nice; and if you have been nice...you can go into Heaven and be an angel, but if you have been naughty...you are thrown out of Heaven into a burning Hell where you are to be roasted and tortured for all eternity! (Feel free to watch George Carlin right now!)

[nietzsche]

You must be kidding with all you said about consciousness.


It's widely recognized that the metaphysics of science is the metaphysics of Baruch Spinoza. Body and Mind are one and the same thing.

It has even been little by little recognized by the average Joe. Gloomy thoughts for a long time can sicken your brain and cause you a mild or major depression according to your genes. The changes in your brain can be seen on a MRI machine, and the right antidepressant can take it back to normal, and it will show in your consciousness, this you and your friends can note.

Dennet explains how consciousness could have evolved, and in what it consists. Although Dennet's thought is still on debate, he's one of the finest philosophers alive, and to my taste he's quite right. Whether his hypothesis is correct or not Body and Mind still are one and the same thing.

Yes, science says energy cannot be destroyed, nobody has destroyed the mass of the body, it has only stopped working, and cannot keep its temperature at 36 degrees celsius, and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics it will pass its heat to the environment, and later bugs and bacteria will eat that mass to transform it into energy to keep their own bodies alright.

And let's go back to the greeks again, in the Illiad you can read what they thought of dead: "To die is only not to be". It was the dark (middle) ages and their priests that caused all this confusion and delay in science. And they made a fool of Copernicus, and they burned books. They also hanged those who were experimenting in their houses as a scientist experiment in a lab today.

BTW Stephen Hawkins gave us a fright when he said that energy can be destroyed, but later he recanted.

[MeDeFe]

The problem with Dennet is that he treats consciousness as something purely functional, he leaves the explanatory gap regarding qualia as wide as ever and when all comes around doesn't explain consciousness at all. Personally I'd recommend reading Chalmers.

[nietzsche]

The problem with Dennet is that he treats consciousness as something purely functional, he leaves the explanatory gap regarding qualia as wide as ever and when all comes around doesn't explain consciousness at all. Personally I'd recommend reading Chalmers.

Well, that's what many say, that he explains consciousness away. I read the book and I'm convinced. He's criticized by their peers for not using always philosophy's terms but then again I find this very pleasant as I can understand what he means with his thought experiments right away instead of having a philosophic dictionary on the side to check every concept, its first meaning, its evolution, etc. Its hard sometimes to me since I read philosophy in english and spanish.

Nevertheless, that "Body and Mind are one and the same thing" is not disputed as the metaphysics of science for a long time now.

[nietzsche]

The problem with Dennet is that he treats consciousness as something purely functional, he leaves the explanatory gap regarding qualia as wide as ever and when all comes around doesn't explain consciousness at all. Personally I'd recommend reading Chalmers.

And qualia, I don't think it will ever be explained. I just has to be someway you know. Since I was a child I asked myself "why me" "why I'm not someone else". It just happened that I'm myself and nobody else. Same thing with qualia, it has to feel someway.

I'm not quite sure and it has been a long time since I read Dennet's books but I think he disqualifies qualia, but I'm not sure in this.

I think the answer is in Spinoza's Ethics, one is convinced after reading it, and does not need concepts like qualia.

This is rather complicated and I've always avoided the subject, to me it resumes as -it has to be someway, and just happens that is this way. What is like to be a bat we'll never know.

[MeDeFe]

Dennet doesn't even "explain it away", he circumvents it, leaves it out of the equation.

The question regarding qualia goes a bit further than just "it has to feel some way", it goes all the way to "why does it have to feel any way at all?" There's nothing in the physical world that implies you should have an experience of red when you look at a red object, there's nothing that says you should have any experience at all. Light entering your eyes, electric impulses going to your brain, electric impulses going to your arm, bringing up your hand and catching the ball that was thrown towards you. All of that can be explained without there being any need to invoke conscious experience. Moreover, nothing in the explanation will in any way imply that there is such a thing as conscious experience. And yet I don't doubt that you are certain you have conscious experiences with a certain qualitative feel.

IIRC Dennet tries to frame conscious experience in the form of judgements, but that falls short of what "conscious experience" actually means.


If you're worried about too many technicalities I can ease your mind, Chalmers' The Conscious Mind is written in such a way that also a layman can follow it. Some of the chapters are quite technical, but those are not necessary for following the general chain of the argument. They also have an asterisk in the headings and are immediately recognizable.

[khazalid]

of all the germans i think feuerbach got closer to it than anyone, especially than spinoza and nietzsche. the only way to really start pulling any meaning out of god as a concept is to see it as invested in and drawing from different systems of human symbolism/actions to which divinity is attached. thereby conscious experience is god-given just as consciousness begets some form of god. golden thread and all that shit.

medefe - i think we have a much better understanding of what it is to be a bat than we did a hundred or so years ago. it would be possible to replicate the sensory experience fairly exactingly if anyone had a mind to do so. how far you take sensation to be analogous to consciousness is the crux of it i suppose

[Neoteny]

I kinda like this thread.