Religions are like fan clubs of God

[Xavier Perez-Pons 20]

God is uncreated, eternal. Religions are like fan clubs of God. Man has the intuition of God, loves Him/Her (because God must be androgynous) and creates a religion to honor Him/Her (as if God was so vain that he wanted to be honored). The believer in India creates a fan club of God. Middle East, another. Each tribe or civilization creates its own fan club of God and establishes its own statutes and rituals. But God does not participate in that. If I create a fan club of you, what “fault” do you have? Have you asked me to create it? I created it myself because I love you so much! I believe that God manifests Himself/Herself above all in the intimacy of each one's soul, no matter what religion one belongs to or even if one belongs to a religion at all.

[XenoFish 85,560]

Religions are cults created by egotistical individuals. 

[Rlyeh 14,293]

Like a comic book fan club.

[ant0n 406]

Stating that deities exist requires evidence.

Expressing a belief in a deity is fine by me as long as it doesn't affect me.

Regarding 'religions', I'm not able to define them well. I believe religions imply loving/fearing imaginary friends.

Edited October 23 by anton00

[and then 35,582]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Religions are cults created by egotistical individuals. 

I thought ego was about self?  How does belief in a God who demands self-abasement and putting love for others FIRST, qualify for that X?

[XenoFish 85,560]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

I thought ego was about self?  How does belief in a God who demands self-abasement and putting love for others FIRST, qualify for that X?

Love god or else. Do as we say or else. Believe or else. Our imaginary friend is the true God, not those other people. 

Yeah, god is love and swift to anger. 

Plus you'd have to be pretty egotistical to think a universe creating entity would care about you. If there is a God, we're microbes in a petri dish. 

[and then 35,582]

22 minutes ago, anton00 said:

Stating that deities exist requires evidence.

Only in a place where the individual requires it.  The very essence of "faith" is the acceptance of a thing without proof.  One either has faith or not and that is a personal choice, not a demand by a government, unlike in Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

You wouldn't fit well in one of those since you don't desire to make demands of those with faith who make no demands of you.

To your last point - that you admit you cannot "define them well" means you admit to not totally grasping what they are and that's all to the good.  Personal beliefs that amount to a "live and let live" approach are a perfectly reasonable way to approach the beliefs of others which make no demands of you.  It is the civil way to act about the diversity of thought in a culture.

[ant0n 406]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Only in a place where the individual requires it.

Isn't UM such a place? How so? (I'm relatively new here)

[and then 35,582]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Love god or else. Do as we say or else. Believe or else. Our imaginary friend is the true God, not those other people. 

Yeah, god is love and swift to anger. 

Plus you'd have to be pretty egotistical to think a universe creating entity would care about you. If there is a God, we're microbes in a petri dish. 

Then it is obvious that you are free to choose.  An egomaniac wouldn't leave that door open.  There DOES exist a religion that perfectly fits your criteria though. Face it, your problem is with the choice you have to make because no one and nothing should ever have the right to demand anything from YOU.  Only, all humans are faced with the same choice whether they admit it or not.  One who has problems accepting they are included in a group that large seem to be the actual egoists, no?  Most just make the choice and move on without a need to be obsessed with anger that the choice was ever an issue.  

[and then 35,582]

Just now, anton00 said:

Isn't UM such a place? How so? (I'm relatively new here)

You feel that UM requires a faith in religion?  I'm not sure I understand your question.

[quiXilver 5,235]

When I talked about my friend only I could see as a child, I was sent to a psychiatrist.

When I joined everyone on Sundays and pretended to talk to their friend, who only they knew was real... I was celebrated as a good christian boy.

[XenoFish 85,560]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Then it is obvious that you are free to choose.  An egomaniac wouldn't leave that door open.  There DOES exist a religion that perfectly fits your criteria though. Face it, your problem is with the choice you have to make because no one and nothing should ever have the right to demand anything from YOU.  Only, all humans are faced with the same choice whether they admit it or not.  One who has problems accepting they are included in a group that large seem to be the actual egoists, no?  Most just make the choice and move on without a need to be obsessed with anger that the choice was ever an issue.  

So basically shut up xeno, believe god, you have no actual choice.

[and then 35,582]

1 minute ago, quiXilver said:

When I talked about my friend only I could see as a child, I was sent to a psychiatrist.

When I joined everyone on Sundays and pretended to talk to their friend, who only they knew was real... I was celebrated as a good christian boy.

Why did you feel the need to join a group you felt you need to lie to be a part of?  

[and then 35,582]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

So basically shut up xeno, believe god, you have no actual choice.

Not at ALL true.  You say you do not believe and exhibit a near militant attitude towards those who do.  That's the curious part of discussions like this with you.  You say you don't believe and I accept that so why the need to perpetually repeat it and even express anger along with the derision you have for those whose only "sin" is that they affront your beliefs? Live and let live, yeah?

[XenoFish 85,560]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Not at ALL true.  You say you do not believe and exhibit a near militant attitude towards those who do.  That's the curious part of discussions like this with you.  You say you don't believe and I accept that so why the need to perpetually repeat it and even express anger along with the derision you have for those whose only "sin" is that they affront your beliefs? Live and let live, yeah?

Because it's culturally accepted insanity. 

[ant0n 406]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

You feel that UM requires a faith in religion?  I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

I wrote: "Stating that deities exist requires evidence."

You replied: "Only in a place where the individual requires it."

I replied: " Isn't UM such a place? How so? (I'm relatively new here)", UM = Unexplained-Mysteries.com

[quiXilver 5,235]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

Why did you feel the need to join a group you felt you need to lie to be a part of?  

I was brought to church by my Mum.   I was four years old.  She didn't lie.  She believed... for a time anyway.  Eventually she released it, some decades after I did.

I had no need to lie.  I don't even consider the dodgy answers and evasive non-answers to be lying.  The adults just tended to no longer peruse those aspects of belief.  I let them.  But I had to keep exploring for authenticity...

I believed until the age of reason and critical thinking caused me to read their source book when none of the adults could, or were comfortable entertaining the questions I was fielding.

 

I still claim, the shortest route to agnosticism, is to read the source material for whatever religion one is considering.

 

Edited October 23 by quiXilver
added sentence about the age i was when this played out

[quiXilver 5,235]

Read your bible cover to cover kids.  Read it for yourself.  Don't cherry pick.  Read it all and come to your own conclusion.

 

If you find it works for you.  bully!  good on ya, I'm genuinely happy for you that you can take comfort in it.

Just don't go projecting your experience onto the rest of life, as what is fulfilling for you, is not 'the truth', it is 'your truth'.

So long as your truth doesn't impinge verbal or physical violence, we're all good.

[GoldenWolf 2,798]

30 minutes ago, and then said:

I thought ego was about self?  How does belief in a God who demands self-abasement and putting love for others FIRST, qualify for that X?

Narcissism and co-narcissism/collective narcissism.

[quiXilver 5,235]

23 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

Narcissism and co-narcissism/collective narcissism.

well said.

 

And for the record... your avatar pic is outstanding mate!  really stunning.

[jamesjr191 1,369]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Only in a place where the individual requires it.  The very essence of "faith" is the acceptance of a thing without proof.  One either has faith or not and that is a personal choice, not a demand by a government, unlike in Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

You wouldn't fit well in one of those since you don't desire to make demands of those with faith who make no demands of you.

To your last point - that you admit you cannot "define them well" means you admit to not totally grasping what they are and that's all to the good.  Personal beliefs that amount to a "live and let live" approach are a perfectly reasonable way to approach the beliefs of others which make no demands of you.  It is the civil way to act about the diversity of thought in a culture.

That was ant0n that said he couldnt define them well Not Zenofish

[Horta 2,518]

19 hours ago, Xavier Perez-Pons said:

\Man has the intuition of God, loves Him/Her (because God must be androgynous) and creates a religion to honor Him/Her (as if God was so vain that he wanted to be honored). 

I have no intuition that any type of religious gods exist. Quite the opposite. It's a belief system peculiar to one extremely strange and irrational ape species and the only place that it (god) can really be shown to exist is in the imagination.

My intuition tells me that if there is "something", it is impersonal, doesn't care about humans and is so far beyond puny human comprehension at this stage that to pretend to understand it (as religions do) is ridiculous. Science might one day understand it as at least they have, as a starting point, the honesty and humility to realise what they don't know and they have systems in place to help guard against delusion.

Quote

I believe that God manifests Himself/Herself above all in the intimacy of each one's soul, no matter what religion one belongs to or even if one belongs to a religion at all.

I find no reason to believe "souls" exist in any religious sense either.

Though I can at least see the possibility that some fundamental universal property within biology could continue to exist. Though it wouldn't be something peculiar only to humans, and even this seems unlikely.

Edited October 24 by Horta

[Coil 416]

1 hour ago, Horta said:

I have no intuition that any type of religious gods exist.

I find no reason to believe "souls" exist in any religious sense either.

The funny thing is that a person carries the spirit of God in himself, which is his true Personality but the external person thinks that God and soul are fictitious and unimportant. This shows that on the material level, everything is opposite and far from the truth.
Your intuition has let you down because real intuition accurately knows that God is because it feels his presence as clearly as you feel and see the sun because it is itself derived from God.

[Davros of Skaro 7,923]

7 hours ago, Coil said:

The funny thing is that a person carries the spirit of God in himself, which is his true Personality but the external person thinks that God and soul are fictitious and unimportant. This shows that on the material level, everything is opposite and far from the truth.
Your intuition has let you down because real intuition accurately knows that God is because it feels his presence as clearly as you feel and see the sun because it is itself derived from God.

How do you know it's not your imagination that you're feeling?

[quiXilver 5,235]

What most folks call the 'voice of god'.

I experience as 'conditioned response to stimuli'.