With all due respect to you who believe in a God. As a man of science I have a hard time understanding this.. A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.

Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.

Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.

Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. It a , I believe therefore He is, deal. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!

I have rejected the Christian God, and all the others, because I believe that the concept of worship, essential to most Christians and the other religions, contradicts the concept of omnipotence. The concept of an all-powerful perfect being demanding that his creations worship him seems absurd.

Some theists believe that atheism is dangerous for society because if there is no God there is no reason to be moral. BS I say, I can still tell whats right or wrong.

There are many modern religious people who are sex maniacs, liars, cheats, mass murderers, rapists, sexual abusers of children, robbers of pension funds, and the like. It seems obvious from the factual evidence of more than two millennia that belief in God is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being moral.

You've certainly got that right

Science and ones spirituality is compatible, here is just a small list of Christians’ involved in the sciences.
Science,Technology and Exploration
Robert Boyle*
George Washington Carver*
Christohper Columbus*
Kenneth H. Cooper - "Father of aerobics"
Michael Faraday*
Jim Irwin* - astronaut, Ark Hunter
James Clerk Maxwell - influential mathematician and physicist
Samuel Morse*
Isaac Newton* - inventor, scientist
Louis Pasteur*
Hugh Ross - physicist
Francis Schaeffer - theologian and thinker (1912-1984)
Carol Swain - political scientist, author of Black Faces, Black Interests and The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (a convert to Evangelical Christianity)
Wright Brothers*

IMo the most logical question would be who is doing the asking on Who is God? The observer gives the observed its meaning, so there are infinite understandings and interpretations to that question ..

In answering for myself i have outgrown the need/ dependency for a diety...I think the journey of live is as much about letting go of limitations, and addictions as using them for tools to growth or launching pads, once one knows his times tables he no longer counts on his fingers, it may of been a useful illusion/tool at one time but as all things if allowed one grows and lets go of illusions/tools he no longer needs...just my two cent....

The point of religion is to give some people a reason and a purpose to live. Some people still need that so they still need religion.

"Religion is a crutch for those who cannot stand up to the unknown without help"-Some Guy.

Good answer, and, I think, the only reason religion is still around.

As a non-believer in any known deity for the better part of 19 or 20 years, I can honestly say that my beliefs were fairly easy and straightforward. I never got generalized for my beliefs, I was never marginalised for them, never persecuted over them. Now as a Christian, it's common for people to persecute me for my Faith. It's common for people to dismiss my opinion as only that of a religious man. It's common for people to generalize me as a fanatic/extremist who wants to blow up abortion clinics. Before, I had the freedom to live however I pleased. I could do what I wanted when I wanted, and I didn't have to worry about it. Now, I think of God whenever I do something. Is what I'm doing now in line with what God would want? My own wants get put in the background as the wants of God take centre stage. It's not an easy life.

And people then turn around and say I'm using a crutch? Isn't a crutch supposed to make things easier, not harder? And yes, I know I don't live in a religious area, and in a religious area, the roles would be reversed and those in religion would have the easy street. But I take affront to the idea that religion is a crutch (though for some it very well may be). How about people who live in Asia who will be physically assaulted, cut off from family, imprisoned, beaten, even killed, all for turning to a particular Faith.

If Faith is a crutch, then you have a very different view of "crutch" than I do.

*end rant*

Now, to answer the question - "why do we still need to believe in Gods". Well, we believe in God because God exists. Yes, that is only my opinion, but I'll stick to it thank you very much

Regards, PA

Pa, possibly, maybe, (jsut throwing this out there).... your home life contributed in your expressing your self in dysfunctional ways, maybe relgion gave you the structure you didn't have at home, incidentally for some this is a great launching pad but have you now become the relgion and lost PA??? just a question? an effective functional system is no longer needed once one grows into qualitys its seeking to be. that is what it mean to evolve, a sytem isn't better becasue its been around along time actually that is a clear indication its not operational, meaning not doing what it was designed to do and that is never truer than relgion..It has not been able to solve the most basic of human issues, if time is the issue well its had alot of time, as a parent if something doesnt' work, it doesn't work you let go and find something that does you don't have faith it will magically work one day............. ....that is what is meant by religon becomes a crutch many feel they can't face a day without the bible it creates a dependency, to its cause it is designed to do that.......

This is my honest take on God.

I am hearing impaired. I have to use a hearing amplifier to understand things. This has caused me to become more reclusive. For example message boards are easier to deal with than a group conversation. In the time that I have lost my use of language to some degree I have also inexplicably stopped believing in God.

For several years however I didn't have anything to hear with so I withdrew. In that time and till now I have noticed that I have an uncanny ability to communicate with people who don't speak any English. Recently for example I went out with a friend of mine and her mother from Israel. She was this little old lady from Israel who spoke no English at all. So throughout the night the mother began hanging with me and I was chatting with her in this way I have and she understood everything I was saying. She was laughing and goofing off. Her daughters were floored. They couldn't figure out how she knew what I was saying. I think that because of my hearing I use my other senses more to communicate with people. She even called her daughter from Israel when she went home because she wanted my phone number to call me and her daughter said "Mom you don't speak English" and her mom said , "I'll talk with her, I know."

I looked into the history of Helen Keller who is an example of consciousness as a human. Helen Keller states that she was completely devoid of any consciousness until her break through with Annie Sullivan. She literally thought with her body. She used to do very complicated things like mimicking people and fighting with people. But in reality she was like a pet. She didn't understand anything she was doing or have any reflection about it.

Now that changed when she acquired language. True language, not mimicry. It is interesting to note that she did not have any feeling of "god" prior to language acquisition. If there was a god you would imagine that he would make his presence known to this poor child.

When she acquired language she began to read the Bible and then she "found" god. But not in the traditional sense. She was a fan of Swedenborg.

My opinion of God is that in using language you at the same time "bond" and seperate from others. In the very act of communicating you are connecting. But there is instantly a paradox of disconnection. Because You are the one who is speaking you realize that you are separate from the person with whom you are trying to communicate.

What your mind does is holds the space there of self. You look at yourself from the outside and the inside simultaneously.

Take a mathmatical equation

1,000,0000 all the zeros in that number are simply space holders. Now take computer coding. You have one digit I and then its 0

The 0 holds the space.

If you pop a human into the I then in the moment you communicate you need a space holder for the self that is "not there" which would be 0 and this is God for people. God is simply the space holder. God is the yearning that is created by the separation from the collective consciousness through the use of language.

In my case, because I communicate with others without using language I connect with the person on another level. I have noticed this alot. I have lost my good friends to a large degree but I have gained many people in my life who don't speak English and yet we are friends.

A valid point, like mentioned in the Matrix for those plugged in, "Many are hopelessly dependent on the system, they would do anything to defend it." - also, crutch is the equivalence of dependence, which is true for those that heavily rely on religion - to help them understand their purpose with archetypes they alone create.

I agree that religion is a crutch. Not only does it give an explanation for the unkown, but it also alllows people to be martyrs. And, this martyrdom seems to give these people some sort of purpose. It's as though they feel glorified in their baseness.

Mankind created gods in order to explain the world around them. I prefer to rely on facts and proof rather than a supernatural being. If we need the miraculous in our lives, just look at nature. Pretty amazing stuff going on, and no mythological beings needed.

fear prevents adjustment and growth and most religons are fear constructs, anger is fear announced,the defending is the annoucement one can't make an adjustment or grow because they are afraid to.. .. and funny irony fear chases us to hell and back, over and over ....relgion
has capitatlized on profitting from fear, and controls through fear...crippled in fear takes on new meaning here.... wehn you look into the face of fear it ceases to have a hold...

I believe in a creator simply because it's just as logical as a self creating universe in my opinion. Given that, I find it more logical that it was created.

Using religion as a crutch is your take on how Christians live their life.

I am a Christian, but I do not believe in "religion", its a word that applies to a law. I believe in faith, which is understanding and believing. I think most of you are generalizing the word CHRISTIANS. You take the tabloids, television shows and such and catargorize all Christians under that understanding. Maybe you do, maybe not.

I respect everyone, no matter what faith they have, or not faith they may have. We all live together and its your own free will to believe whatever you want. I could also make a topic saying, Why do people still believe in no God? But it doesn't matter if its 2006 or 6006, you will always have people of faith.

I think it just frustrates people to think that others believe in God. That is time wasted on thought. Everyone is respected for what they believe in, I never argue over this cause its never ending.

Its the same with UFO or alien existence. There's proof out there, but none is concrete to a point that everyone will see and believe. You have small tidbits of information that is interesting and can be proven either way....BUT, someday we will know, just like one day we will know of the afterlife.

I drink, smoke, done drugs, love sex and curse, and I am still a Christian. I may not be a poster boy, but I do try to listen to my heart and try to follow a path that is given to me. If I condemn myself and try to please God, then I'm wasting my time.

The experience of God is different things to different people.

For some, it is a substitute for "I," as in, "God hates homosexuals."

For others, it's an anthropomorphization of universal principles.

To some, it's a "supernatural" being. To me, it's an aspect of nature that I don't fully understand in a linear, rational way, but I experience it in an emotional, intuitive way.

And I suppose it's a million other things.

To say that mankind invented gods in order to understand the world scarcely condemns the God concept. After all, mankind invented math and science for the same purpose, not to mention art and philosophy.

One thing I've come to learn is that sometimes a concept of God works better than any other concept. For example, I've found, personally, that humble prayer to a God of one's understanding can easily and instantly achieve results that are otherwise unachievable, to my knowledge. I don't know how, and I don't know why, even though I go out of my way to know a lot of stuff. It is not the sort of thing I was ever inclined to believe, and I'm not confident I can "prove" it. But I would say "just try it and see" to anyone who is struggling with any problem in life.

In other words, do an experiment and let the results speak to you.

Most of us have lived lives of christianity and are sepaking form personal experince.....At least the ones that contribute on Um they have been one of the "faithful"...

truethat,
Im also hearing impaired, i have no hearing in my right ear and about 45% in my left ear, and dropping. Growing up I had an aunt who could only speak Spanish, and some how we could understand each other fine.

Have you ever tried to learn sign language? It’s quite easy to learn.

To me, God is irrelevant. I have never been visited by an angel, had visions, been visited by God himself, or had any other personal invitation to beleive in him. Sure, there are plenty of men and women out there inviting me to beleive in him, but it seems that if God were really the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that we are told that he is, he would not have any trouble convincing all of us what is true and what he wants us to believe. Take the bible for instance. If it were true, God would not have to come down to earth and re-write it. All he would have to do is appear to everyone at once and tell them that the bible is the true account of what really happened, and that he wants us to follow its laws. Some would argue that this would waste God's time because he would probably have to visit earth every couple of years. If he is omnipotent though, his power cannot be diminished. No matter how much power he exerts, there is an endless supply at his disposal. Therefore, it would not be any trouble at all for him set the record straight.

I agree with the earlier posts. God may have been a neccesary set of training wheels for a fledgling society struggling to learn about morals, but we are old enough to take the training wheels off now. The training wheels are only a hindrance once you learn to ride on your own.

In my experience at challening God to answer prayers, he failed on every count. I did succeed in learning that our own minds are amazing instruments though.

But how many skeptics would actually believe? Could an individual not just say that it's aliens with superior technology. And if one being comes down and claims the Bible to be right, then that only proves that a being exists that wrote the Bible. That doesn't actually prove that he/she/it is the only God-like being in the universe. There may be an entire race of beings such as Q from Star Trek.

Would a god-like being coming down and sanctioning the Bible really make a difference?

Well, In my experience, God doesn't want us to be robots. Do you love your mother and father because they make you? No, you love them for who they are. I believe that is what God is to us. He's not gonna make you want him, you have to believe in faith. Which I agree is tough, because your believing in something that you cant see touch smell or hear. So, Im not talking you into it, just telling you why I don't need signs all the time.....Although he comes around every now and then...

But if you don't believe, its quite all right and understandable.....Your free to believe what you want!!

An interesting question, PA.

Indeed, "a being" popping in to say "i endorse the bible", even if it claimed to be the only one of its kind, does not prove it to be so. Believing it would take faith .

Personally, if such a being showed up claiming the christian bible true I would have to doubt such claims. It would have to explain (you fav topic) the contradictions, the incorrect claims, etc. Now if it could (give that flash of a history lesson, Q style), then a whole new set of questions arises on if what we are having manipulated before us is true. In other words, an entity could show itself to be of some great magic, but it could never prove itself the creator of anything, and it could never convince me it should be called a "god".

Suddenly I'm thinking of that show Joan of Arcadia (it's a seppo show)
"Well, if you're God prove it."
"How?"
"I don't know. Make something."
"There." motions to a tree
"But that's just a tree."
"Let's see you make one."

Why do "we" still need to believe in gods? Look around, we humans are doing a terrible job looking after ourselves and each other (on the whole) so it is at the very least comforting to know that there maybe someone out there looking out for us (though we may complain that they aren't doing enough).

Worship? I have no clue.

As Musashi said, "I respect deities, but I do not rely on them."

I was thinking more along the lines of everyone hearing the voice in their head at the same time, and feeling all of the feelings that were described in scripture. Could an alien race duplicate that? Probably, depending on their sophistication. But why would they waste their time? On the other hand, it is not a waste of God's time, because time is meaningless to him and he WANTS us to believe. And for the sake of argument, if some wierd alien race did show up claiming to be God with all of the abilities listed above, I might just agree to listen to them. Maybe that is all that God is. After all, it is just a word to describe a being that we have designated as our creator and "heavenly parent". Perhaps we are Gods to lab mice.

To the other post regarding faith, I still don't understand what faith has to do with it. I can choose a multitude of topics/subjects to believe in that I have no proof or evidence of; I just don't see the point. If we are hear to learn how to become better people, God appearing and acknowledging that he is real does not take away our ability to not follow him. If a scientist discovered how to view atoms through a new kind of microscope, that would not take away a persons ability to disagree with the atomic model. Evidence and proof of an object have never limited an individuals' freedom of choice. It would certainly infuence it, but according to most people, he does that through other means all of the time anyway.

When I used the quote "Religion is a crutch for those who cannot stand up to the unknown without help" I didn't neccearily mean it as bad thing.

Religion answers all the big questions for you. Questions like where do I go when I die and what is the purpose of life are answered through religion.

Even if the answers religion gives you are right...you didn't find them on your own.

The way I see it it's because faith is systemic. Generation upon generation imbuing the future with the hope, there is something more to our human condition. Something to blame when it gets deep, something to praise when it rises up. And because we're so materialistic and selfish, keeping all that we believe alive in so many ways, from our physical labour to our faith, we're also terrified that after we close our eyes for the final breath, we disappear forever. Never to know anything, any sensation, which we're so fond of now, collectively as a sentient species, that we just can not let ourselves to accept that possibility. When we die we disappear.

I don't know sign language and since no one I know does it seems pointless but I guess I will eventually.

Do you use a hearing aid? Because the one I use works great.

I am interested in the experience with the Spanish speaking aunt. I think it is very fascinating how I can communicate very well with people who speak no English. Its almost as if I engage another way of speaking when I speak to that person. I can feel a shift in myself. Do you experience the same thing?

I admit I'm a little frustrated with this thread.

It started out with the usual straw man stuff about God: It's a superstition, it's a crutch, it's belief without evidence, it's received truth, mankind has outgrown it, etc. But all this was presented in the form of a question. So I took the time to answer it and say what God means to me, personally. And I don't think what I said resembles those negative stereotypes in the slightest.

I thought it would be nice if someone engaged my ideas about the God concept constructively, but I wasn't holding my breath. What disappoints me is that when I check back here, I see (what I presume are) atheists restating exactly the same stereotypes and straw man arguments as before, as if a different viewpoint had never been offered. I feel annoyed at having wasted my time, and I wonder if others who took the trouble to say something about their spirituality feel the same. I know that atheists pride themselves on their superior rationality, but to me this exchange feels exactly the same as any other so-called discussion with people who are closed-minded on spiritual or religious matters.

I am talking about statements like this one:



And this is not to single out one quote or one person, because several of you have said pretty much the same thing. And then somehow it's not meant as a bad thing, or is said with all due respect, or some similar lame disclaimer. Look, it's everyone's own right to be an atheist or a fundie or whatever he wants to be, but these are put-downs, pure and simple. There's no reason to keep repeating these caricatures when several of us have offered ideas about God that are nothing like this, viz:



(Emphasis added to parts I'd like to call particular attention to.)

Now, I don't see anything in there that resembles a crutch, or a superstition, or an exhortation to believe anything without evidence, or an attempt to explain any mystery by appealing to received truth. So even if no one can find the time or energy to engage my viewpoint constructively, I would be grateful if it were at least acknowledged. It'd be good enough for me if it were said that some people use God as a crutch. That, I can agree with, but not this insistence on tarring everyone who is not an atheist with the same brush.

Anyone?

boorite,

fine. I ackowledge your perspective.

It isn't different from every other perspective in its essence.

be it a crutch, a placeholder, a form of "positive thought", it all boils down to the same pychological needs being fulfilled.

But since we are discussing the "need of gods", maybe it should be a question of if the things that form "gods" need those that believe?

Imagine, for sake of argument, that the beleif in gods was brought on by a parasite that altered brain chemistry to affect its needs? Not all that far fetched as we know of examples of parasites that do just such things. Imagine the world being turned on end if people realized their god was a chemical effect of a parasite?

But since we are discussing the "need of gods", maybe it should be a question of if the things that form "gods" need those that believe? 'hyper's quote'


Hyper i wonder if these "gods" are really ones own limitations, and a need to feel powerless thus justifying the lack of responsibiblity for oneself, Religion seems to be a epidemic of sorts IMO......

You just say it's the same without proposing a single reason to think so. It looks to me as if you're not even slightly interested in another viewpoint. You seem to be here to disparage views that are different from yours without even properly characterizing those views. That's just plain old bigotry and closed-mindedness.



Name one. Be sure to explain how the effect of parasite on host is just like belief in God.



In a sense, something equally sinister is going on all the time. To the extent that our perceptions and feelings and modes of thought are genetically determined, our minds are controlled by things that "care" only for their own reproduction and are not in the slightest concerned about "ourselves" as we understand the concept.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that the spiritual impulse is a result of parasitic infestation, and it has nothing to do with my answer to the question, viz: what use is a concept of God? I find the concept uniquely useful-- not as a crutch, not as an excuse, not as a form of "positive thinking," not as a reassuring form of false certainty, and not as an easy answer to life's mysteries-- but for the reasons I clearly stated, above. If you're not interested, and your mind's all made up, then please don't pretend to engage in a "discussion."

boorite,

i am engaging in conversation. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean I am not.

You reasons do fit the categories I explained. It fills a psycological need for you.

Don't get all "high and mighty" as if your need for gods is somehow special compared to the next person's need.

You want a reason to think gods fill a need? If they didn't people would not be believing in such things. Reason enough? (and in reference to the parasitic question, that need could be the need of the parasite).

You keep saying this without offering support. That's called "begging the question."

In any case, it tells me you're not open to how the God concept might serve any but these negative, stereotyped purposes that have been laid out already. This is basically just closed-minded polemic, isn't it? To me, it's the same attitude that raises my hackles when I see Bible-bangers mischaracterizing "secular humanists" or "evolutionists." It's just the same old straw man tactics, which add up to "the other guys are stupid."

I offered a perspective of God that has nothing whatsoever to do with a "crutch" or easy answers or received truth, and you have responded that it's all the same. That is very frustrating to me.



No. I don't know where you got that idea. What I would like, as I stated, is for you and others to acknowledge that not everyone who uses the concept of God uses it as a crutch. I would be in perfect agreement with the statement that some people use God as a crutch (or whatever), but it is clearly unfair to characterize everyone's perspective of God this way.

Again, a question was asked, and I answered it to the best of my ability. That was an opportunity for an open dialogue. Instead, my remarks are pointedly ignored, and the proponents of atheism (which btw I think is a fine perspective itself) have just prattled on with the same threadbare stereotypes. I find that disappointing. I thought rationalists were supposed to be open minded.

Anyone care to discuss what use a concept of God could possibly serve?

boorite i find it intriguing one would find use for the God construct other than to exaggerate that which you aren't to get in touch with your true nature, or to have the model of generousity, or how a fear construct creates alot of problems i would be interested in your use.....shrugs

If I read you correctly, then the concept is alien to any God of my understanding. How is it that the God construct necessitates a failure to understand oneself?

One timeworn religious concept that I can relate to is offering all of oneself, good and bad, to "God." As I understand it, a devout person prays for knowledge of his shortcomings as well as his talents. This tendency is abundantly evident to me in all sorts of scriptures. Yes, some people do project themselves onto "God" in a neurotic or defensive way (as in my example, "God hates homosexuals"), but I don't think that's inherent to the concept of God itself.



I'm not clear on your meaning here. But about fear: Fear used to play a large part in my concept of God. Not anymore. I think a fear-based relationship to anything is basically misconceived. Fear is one of those Basic Mistakes that drive many, many people's lives, as it used to drive mine (before I discovered the God of my current understanding, as it happens ). Does that make sense?

now come on boorite, who here is doing the bating?

lets look at what you wrote again and see if we can parse out what kind of validation you are looking for, shalll we?



here, it is filling a need for an appeal to authority.



here it is filling a need to provide an explanation of the unknown through concepts understood.



Here it is filling a need to have ands explanation for everything (which is a destressor)



agreed, it fills a need!

[quote]
One thing I've come to learn is that sometimes a concept of God works better than any other concept.
[quote]

here you express how it fills a NEED for YOU.

So there we have it.

AGAIN: I don't know where you got the idea that I questioned this. What I would like, as I stated, is for you and others to acknowledge that not everyone who uses the concept of God uses it as a crutch (or whatever). I would be in perfect agreement with the statement that some people use God as a crutch (or whatever), but it is clearly unfair to characterize everyone's perspective of God this way.

AGAIN: a question was asked, and I answered it to the best of my ability. That was an opportunity for an open dialogue. Instead, my remarks were and continue to be pointedly ignored, and the proponents of atheism (which btw I think is a fine perspective itself) have just prattled on with the same threadbare stereotypes. I find that disappointing. I thought rationalists were supposed to be open minded.

I do not and have never objected to the idea that the concept of God fills a need. Clearly and repeatedly, what I have objected to is the suggestion that it fills the same need for everyone who believes in it, namely that of a "crutch," an easy answer, etc. etc.

If that is not utterly clear to you now, feel free to ignore it as before.

I believe it was Einstein who made reference to the fact when he looked more at the complexity of the universe, it revealed an intelligance far beyond ourselves. For some this would point to a greater being perhaps God. Great minds in science often lean toward God and many do not. Because these issues become a matter of faith rather than science it almost becomes a moot point to ask why or why not. I cannot explain faith, it is experienced.

borrite, don't think yourself so special.

The underlying needs are the same.

Just because you don't like the term "crutch" to be too closely associated with what you see as your lofty gid-views does nothing to change you, the crutch user, and the athiest all have the same underying needs.

I don't. There are lots of people like me.

I object to the characterization of everyone who believes in God as using the concept as some sort of crutch.

Nothing in there about me being special. You invented that.

You are continually mischaracterizing me while ignoring the substance of my posts. I can't think you're interested in the question at hand. I have no interest in continuing this. Let me know if you would like to discuss anything I've offered.

why are you so hung up on the term "crutch"?

It doesn't matter how elaborate you make your model to fulfill your need, it still just fulfills a need.

I am not ignoring the substance of your posts. I just don't see what is so special about your view of your god AT THE CORE.

I am not lumping you with anybody else with respect the outer coating of your god views. Is all you want to talk about is the candy coating of your god constucts? Would you feel better if I said, "why yes boor, your view of god is much brighter and shiner than that other model..." Go to a medical supply store and look at the crutches, since you like them so much. You can get fancy padded crutches, and you can get basic old model wood crutches. There are many differences between them, but they are all crutches!

I came into this conversation with you openly only to have you toss about dispersions because I didn't give you what you EXPECTED. How about you listen to what I am saying rather than just griping when I don't say what you WANT me to say?

Boo why are you offering yourself 'good' and bad to gOd???? shortcomings what are your shortcomings and why are you prayng for knowledge of them???? How are you getting to know yourself through a religous construct, the construct seems to center around a 'little self' one much smaller than the 'bigger' self meaning (little as seperate and bigger as unified) you seem to be saying your self is somewhere else when really its right here...So how is it you are using this construct as other than a need fullfillment, i was under the impression you have found great value in this construct, i guess i misread....

It's demeaning and offensive. Granted, it's no more demeaning or offensive than the other terms I mentioned. Good point. But it's a nice stand-in for that whole cluster of disparaging remarks about everyone who has a concept of God.



See, you are ignoring what I've posted repeatedly. I never said my perspective on God was "special." I said it was not like this crummy stereotype that's being aired here.



Yeah, see, this is what I'm talking about. Insults. Nice dialogue there. Way to be open minded and rational.

The subject line here claims curiosity about the "need" (I'd rather say "usefulness") of the concept of God. Is that just a pose? Is it "just qurious" (sic) or is it "let's bash everyone's religion?" If there's real interest in the question, then I'm all for a discussion. If it's about bashing, then I don't care for it. Deplorable, really.

You know, as an apathetic agnostic who is leaning towards atheism, I'm offended at the gross generalizations made by people who are saying that all religious people are using their spirituality as a crutch. Really, you aren't doing atheists any favors by making yourselves look like complete jerks and I'm thinking of creating a terminology for myself that doesn't include the word "atheist" lest I be lumped with these guys. I have enough trouble swimming through the internet with the title "evolutionist" tacked onto my butt without having "self-righteous snooty jerk who thinks they're better than others because of their personal beliefs" added to the weights around my ankles. Because that's all this really is. A bunch of people patting each other on the back for how "enlightened" they are because of their personal beliefs. And believe me, I already get that kind of crap from fundamentalists. I'm embarassed that supposed rational people are doing the same thing in the name of enlightenment.

Boorite i am a dear freind of Hyper, and I can tell you this about him , he would not bash anyone, nor does he delight in insultiing others, he has a interest in you as i do , you seem to be articulate and intellegent and open to a dialogue, we many not agree but we are seeking to understand, not cause you harm, I'm truly baffled you see him that way , you are missing out on a great dialogue with a really awesome, aware person.....

One way of putting it is: It's a metaphor for self-acceptance. But it's more than a metaphor. Because by taking this action of offering all of oneself to one's own concept of a Supreme Identity, one acts out total self-acceptance. In my experience, ritual and prayer like this can speak directly to deeper levels of the self than I can reach with rational thought alone. I have found that it changes me for the better, and that's in line with the experience of others I've decided to emulate, and I think it's consistent with experiences that have been talked about through the ages.

To me, it's a ritual of healing and self-knowledge.



Why do you ask what my particular shortcomings are? I don't think my character flaws are particularly important here.

As for why one would pray for knowledge of one's shortcomings-- to turn one's attention inward, to one's own behavior, and to the things one might change. It's an extremely powerful way of dealing with problems in life.

Note that this is far from the concept of a crutch or of finding something to blame or finding easy answers. It is a private ritual aimed at accepting responsibility and taking action. It is not what has been portrayed by certain people on this thread.



I don't quite follow you.

I do think there are several levels of "self," nested like Russian dolls or Chinese boxes or layers of an onion. And one great mystical secret, which I mention at risk of violating the taboo against it, is that the ultimate level of "self," the Supreme Identity, is this thing I'm calling God, for want of a better word. I'm It masquerading as me, and It's me masquerading as It. It's like a game of hide-and-seek. But this statement is so easily misunderstood that most of us seldom come right out and say it.

So I don't believe that my "self is somewhere else" except in a very contingent and metaphorical sense. The distance or separation from Everything, which we all experience, is illusory. My experience of what I'm calling God is a unifying experience, a discovery of oneness with everything, even as "I" am seemingly trapped in this consciousness of separateness, this confusion of language, this faculty of awareness that makes hard distinctions of everything.

See, here we have a problem. The experience of oneness or totality isn't quite accessible to language, which I have to use here. I find that, in the same way, it is not quite accessible to reason, either. I can wave at it with words, but I'll always get it wrong. It has to be experienced. The mystics have always complained about this problem.



I have never argued that the God concept does not fill a need. Ever. I am tired of repeating this. I am saying the God concept, for me (and for many others, though I only presume to speak for myself for sure), fills a need other than the lame nonsense that's being prattled on about in this thread.




No need for sarcasm. You read correctly.

Now, I would never tell anyone: This is the correct way to view God or have a spiritual experience or any of that. But to anyone who is struggling in life, I would say that these thoughts and actions have been salvific (not in the Pauline sense though) to me and many others. I'd say, if you're struggling or miserable, try it, and if it doesn't work for you, you can have a full refund. I'm not saying anyone should have the kind of "faith" that is believing without evidence. I am saying I tried a spiritual solution to my problems, and it worked, and I found peace and power where before I had only problems I couldn't figure out how to solve. And I didn't have the slightest belief that it would work. No "faith" whatsoever. Not even an inkling of what I was going to experience. I just tried what someone suggested, and it worked for me.

I would say this is quite a different view of the whole God thing than the caricature I see on this thread.

No, you have been very pissy about anything that suggests you don't have some special awareness or construct.

I suggested to you that it does not matter what your construct is, it is still at its root something that fulfills a need. I didn't say "you use a crutch". I did say that you use a tool(construct) you have created to fulfill your needs, which is not unlike every other constuct in use. I have also said that at its root, the function of god constructs fulfill a basic set (category) of needs.

When I said "go look at a crutch store" I was not insulting you. Perhaps the crutch word is the issue. Go look at a car dealership. You can get a clunker or a BMW, each has its "features", yet both are tools that get you from A to B.

You are focused on "the individual car differences", where I am discussing the class of "automobiles".

I direct your attention to the following remarks.



Those are insults. As I've said repeatedly, if anyone wants a discussion (as you seem to), let me know. But there's been a lot of bashing on this thread, and I find that disappointing. I'll stop calling it what it is as soon as it's over.

He's pissy because people keep misunderstanding what he says (which are spelled out so clearly that anyone (should) be able to understand it. That's what makes him pissy. Believe me, I know.



Okay, so you say god is a tool that people use to fulfill a need. Logic and reason are also tools to fulfill a need. However, if I said all people use logic and reason as a "crutch," you would think I was insane.

So why is boorite getting all this crap because he objects to the gross generalization that all spiritual people use god as a crutch?



But you're saying that one is a beat up piece of crap that only works while the other is a nice comfortable ride that makes getting form point A to point B a pleasant experience. Which is the clunker and which is the shiny new BMW?

He is basically saying the same thing do you want to talk and really explore and challenge beleifs or just play pretend, he's asking you too not to waste each others time, I'm not clear on how you see this as an insult, unless you are trying to feel safe before you lay your beleifs out...boorite this side is the skeptics side it can get can get intense , we really challenge each other here , no one is meaning to harm or hurt anyone really, we just try and keep it real, and the same goes for you...really Hyper is not insultive......mybe you are a bit sensitive its okay you have to honor who you are, I'm jsut trying to help and let you know sincerely Hyper is a gentle person, truthful but gentle.....

I direct your attention to the following remarks, which you wrote.




If you would like to now say differently, that's fine by me. In fact, it's all I asked to begin with.



Actually, that's very similar to what I have said all along, viz: I, personally, have found the God concept uniquely useful. Moreover, I do not use it to explain away mysteries that bother me, or to have something to blame, or in any of the other crutch-like ways that have been suggested by several people here. Information was asked for. I gave it.

I wouldn't substantially differ with what you've said above. I would quibble only slightly with the idea that I "created" this construct. Yes, I create it in a sense, continually. But I got the idea from others, and I think I share it with many, many others.

I also think the God concept has much in common with other concepts I find useful, but in some ways, it's very unusual. And in some ways, it's unlike any other thought I'm capable of thinking.



Then please find another way of not insulting me, as I can't be expected to like the suggestion that my spiritual experience, which I shared in a heartfelt way, is a crutch, an excuse, or any of that stuff. Please. Thanks.



The issue is not a word. The issue is tarring all people who have a concept of God with the same stupid brush. I have been very clear in stating my issue here. There is no way to misunderstand it.