Date: 24/07/2017 11:51:12
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1093436
Subject: God

Sheri S Tepper is not hugely regarded as a Science Fiction author, but perhaps she should be. She has a way of choosing a difficult topic in modern life and exploring it in detail. In “Raising the Stones”, Sheri S Tepper explores the topic of religion. What would an ideal religion be like? How could a religion make life better than atheism?

Her answer is, wait for it, the utopian God is truffle-oid.

An ideal God would be symbiotic, like the symbiosis between fungus and algae in lichen. But set up so both species can survive without the other, but both are better when they cooperate.

An ideal God would:

As well as slightly more ominous things:

This utopian God-religion is set off against others. One other is the worst imaginable type of religion on Voorstod – arbitrary cruelty for fun, slavery, inequality of sexes, and a policy of ultimately killing everyone in the accessible universe. Another is a multitheistic religion, where Gods are bought and sold for profit. Another is where a revelation (from a passing alien) has been perverted by interpretation over the generations. Another, humorous one, is an alien slug-oid race with a scatology. Set all that against a bureaucratic “Authority” and a queen-led monarchy, both largely atheist and both largely paralysed.

The story begins badly, both the utopian God and the turnip-oid race with detachable legs who own the God commit suicide on a new human colonisation planet called Hobbs World. A bad beginning often makes a good book. But the human who had been feeding (with a local species of vermin) the God dies at the same time and is buried with fungal spores. The children in their spare time, with adult help, build a new temple in imitation of the old, and adults and children together move the new truffle-oid God into it. Children Jeb and Saturday cuts and stores fungal mycelium, to be buried with recently dead people from the other settlements.

“As quarrelsomeness and strife disappear, clear thinking prevails and worship of the new god spreads to other settlements”

Moving years forward in time and the horrible religion from a different planet kidnaps Jeb. Saturday, with her packets of mycelium, and Jeb’s father Sam follow. The slaves of Voorstod sew the truffle-oid mycelium, and those prophets mentally unable to cope with the resulting non-violence are ejected.

Not the end of the story though. One of the priests of the perverted revelation, frightened of the mind-altering ability of the God, sends a small army to Hobbs World that burns the truffles and hills hundreds. And the exiled Voorstod prophets attack Authority taking charge of Authority’s mindless killing robots, which they send against Hobbs World. But the almost omniscient and almost omnipotent God of Hobbs World has seeen this coming, and fights back in a way reminiscent of HG Wells “War of the Worlds”, even as Sam walks among the invaders spreading dissent.

As a SciFi book, the bad parts AFAI am concerned are that parts of the book are boring, the ability to travel instantly between worlds, and the presence of telepathy. Good features include long timespan (ten years or so), and the lack of humanoid aliens (the aliens are slug-oid, turnip-oid and truffle-oid). Tankfully, even instant travel between worlds and telepathy are treated sensitively – instant travel runs a big risk of unconsciousness and death, and telepathy is so unintrusive that it almost doesn’t exist.

Something of a puzzle to me is the phrase describing the utopian religion as “a way, a convenience, a kindness”. “A way” is clearly a reference to “The Tao”, but “A convenience”? Web dictionary defines it as “the state of being able to proceed with something without difficulty”. Wouldn’t that be nice!

But the real crux of the story is its definitive answers to the questions “What would an ideal religion be like? How could a religion make life better than atheism?”

What do you think? Do you think a telepathic truffle would make the ideal God?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 11:55:47
From: Cymek
ID: 1093438
Subject: re: God

A decent god also wouldn’t want to be worshipped and get quite annoyed at violent and dumb stuff done in its name

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 12:00:44
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1093441
Subject: re: God

Cymek said:


A decent god also wouldn’t want to be worshipped and get quite annoyed at violent and dumb stuff done in its name

The truffle doesn’t want to be worshipped. There are no worship services, although it does have a choir. It doesn’t have a name, and neither violent nor dumb stuff is done when it is around (except by invaders from another planet).

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 12:09:10
From: furious
ID: 1093443
Subject: re: God

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:10:43
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 1093447
Subject: re: God

God is “Dog” spelt the other way.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:21:16
From: AwesomeO
ID: 1093448
Subject: re: God

I don’t think you can describe an ideal God becaue it changes with the culture. A warlike tribe would worship a warlike God that grants beneficence in battle and a warriors death would be a shortcut to feasting in banquet halls. They would have no use for a God that pastoralists would invent which would be concerned with rain and fertility of animals.

And then of course any God would be ineffable to us in its intentions, the presence of evil doesn’t mean there is no God, it just means that we do not understand the intent or motives, it may only mean that God is constrained in some way by a spiritual law of physics in that good and evil must exist in equal quantity, assuming of course that good and evil can be quantified in any realistic way.

Things may also appear to us to be God like only because we do not understand the cause.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:32:49
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093449
Subject: re: God

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:35:55
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093450
Subject: re: God

An ideal religion would be one that believes in the universe for what it is, respect for humanity, respect for all human rights, equality, ethics, logic, nature, well being of other species, fauna and flora.

Current religions are towing 2000 year old ideologies, some of which need to be reformed.

Religion needs to respect human rights, family well being, and financial well being.

Most religions at the moment, dont.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:36:17
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 1093451
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:39:08
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093452
Subject: re: God

bob(from black rock) said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:40:00
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093453
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

And free smiles and hugs, very important.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:41:10
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 1093454
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

Ok I will join your sect.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:41:34
From: The_observer
ID: 1093455
Subject: re: God

I believe a perfect ‘god world’ can only exist in a situation where the ‘god being’ communicates directly with its creations (us) in clear, unambiguous and direct conversation. But an individual would be void of free will, because a ‘near perfect god world’ could not incorporate free will.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality if the ‘god’ is an invisible, silent god, who’s very existence is debatable.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality if ‘the god’ orates conflicting messages to individuals, or where-by those messages are able to be interpreted differently from one individual to the next.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality where human prophets are, or are believed to be, chosen to be the messanger of ‘the god’.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality, especially, where there exists a self appointed ‘final prophet’ who claims to hold ‘the god’s’ final wisdom & laws, as interpreted through him, for how all humanity MUST exist. A ‘final prophet’ who is both terrified by, & totally intolerant of the kafir, sorry, non-believer of that prophet, to a point where all kafirs must either submit to conversion, or be killed or enslaved.

But a NEAR perfect ‘god world’ can exist when the world has submitted, totally, to that one religion!

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:44:07
From: stumpy_seahorse
ID: 1093456
Subject: re: God

bob(from black rock) said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

bob(from black rock) said:

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

Ok I will join your sect.

ok… so bob and tau are giving each other free sex.. what next?..

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:44:16
From: mcgoon
ID: 1093457
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

Your ideas interest me, and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:45:36
From: transition
ID: 1093458
Subject: re: God

>But the real crux of the story is its definitive answers to the questions “What would an ideal religion be like? How could a religion make life better than atheism?”

are atheists less susceptible to ideology?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:48:02
From: Cymek
ID: 1093461
Subject: re: God

Perhaps the perfect God is one who doesn’t interfere but gives it creations the intelligence to solve problems itself with a little bit of cooperation between them and it doesn’t give them the idea of making up religion as it’s smart enough to know that they will just use it to exploit and kill each other in the name of that religion.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:49:48
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093463
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


I believe a perfect ‘god world’ can only exist in a situation where the ‘god being’ communicates directly with its creations (us) in clear, unambiguous and direct conversation. But an individual would be void of free will, because a ‘near perfect god world’ could not incorporate free will.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality if the ‘god’ is an invisible, silent god, who’s very existence is debatable.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality if ‘the god’ orates conflicting messages to individuals, or where-by those messages are able to be interpreted differently from one individual to the next.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality where human prophets are, or are believed to be, chosen to be the messanger of ‘the god’.

A perfect ‘god world’ cannot be a reality, especially, where there exists a self appointed ‘final prophet’ who claims to hold ‘the god’s’ final wisdom & laws, as interpreted through him, for how all humanity MUST exist. A ‘final prophet’ who is both terrified by, & totally intolerant of the kafir, sorry, non-believer of that prophet, to a point where all kafirs must either submit to conversion, or be killed or enslaved.

But a NEAR perfect ‘god world’ can exist when the world has submitted, totally, to that one religion!

You want a God to control you and everyone else?

I think a perfect God would not want to control anyone.

I dont think there is a perfect God, its wishful thinking.

There are a lot of people who want to use the concept of God to control other people.

Compared with the universe, God is a fictional character from an old book.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:51:31
From: furious
ID: 1093464
Subject: re: God

Actually, compared to the universe, God is a fictional character in a new book…

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:53:00
From: The_observer
ID: 1093465
Subject: re: God

>>>You want a God to control you and everyone else?

I think a perfect God would not want to control anyone.<<<
.
.

yet you submit to the laws of nature.

You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Hmmmmmmmm

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:53:06
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093466
Subject: re: God

Cymek said:


Perhaps the perfect God is one who doesn’t interfere but gives it creations the intelligence to solve problems itself with a little bit of cooperation between them and it doesn’t give them the idea of making up religion as it’s smart enough to know that they will just use it to exploit and kill each other in the name of that religion.

Pretty hard to restrict thoughts of religion without suppressing more beneficial ideologies.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:53:09
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093467
Subject: re: God

transition said:


>But the real crux of the story is its definitive answers to the questions “What would an ideal religion be like? How could a religion make life better than atheism?”

are atheists less susceptible to ideology?

Oh, I missed that bit.

IMO the ideal religion would be atheistic. In other words, it would provide all the benefits of a theistic religion, without introducing any imaginary beings.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:53:58
From: Cymek
ID: 1093468
Subject: re: God

Witty Rejoinder said:


Cymek said:

Perhaps the perfect God is one who doesn’t interfere but gives it creations the intelligence to solve problems itself with a little bit of cooperation between them and it doesn’t give them the idea of making up religion as it’s smart enough to know that they will just use it to exploit and kill each other in the name of that religion.

Pretty hard to restrict thoughts of religion without suppressing more beneficial ideologies.

That is true

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:55:57
From: party_pants
ID: 1093469
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it makes for an interesting discussion, for those so inclined, but as we are stuck with the god we’ve got, who is either non-existent or hiding, wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the ideal religion?

OK, it must provide free beer and sex.

Free beer, free cannabis and free sex.

In that order I’d probably not get around to the last.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 13:55:57
From: furious
ID: 1093470
Subject: re: God

So. like a philosophy?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:00:05
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093471
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:

>>>You want a God to control you and everyone else?

I think a perfect God would not want to control anyone.<<<
.
.

yet you submit to the laws of nature.

You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Hmmmmmmmm

>>>yet you submit to the laws of nature.

all of us submit to the laws of Nature

>>>You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

I dont worship anything

>>>And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:01:27
From: furious
ID: 1093472
Subject: re: God

I don’t…

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:03:02
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093473
Subject: re: God

furious said:

  • IMO the ideal religion would be atheistic. In other words, it would provide all the benefits of a theistic religion, without introducing any imaginary beings.

So. like a philosophy?


I, for one, welcome our new Confucian overlords.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:03:12
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093474
Subject: re: God

furious said:

  • IMO the ideal religion would be atheistic. In other words, it would provide all the benefits of a theistic religion, without introducing any imaginary beings.

So. like a philosophy?

Not really.

It depends on definitions of course, but I’d see philosophy as related to individual thoughts on the nature of life, the universe and everything, whereas religion is related to communal activities that provide non-material benefits to those taking part (and indirectly to others).

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:03:42
From: The_observer
ID: 1093475
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


The_observer said:

>>>You want a God to control you and everyone else?

I think a perfect God would not want to control anyone.<<<
.
.

yet you submit to the laws of nature.

You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Hmmmmmmmm

>>>yet you submit to the laws of nature.

all of us submit to the laws of Nature

>>>You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

I dont worship anything

>>>And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose.

>>>>all of us submit to the laws of Nature<<<

not really

>>>I dont worship anything<<<

you do. you worship Gaia. Maybe you just don’t realise it.

>>>>>Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose<<<

I believe in fossil fuel. It has been, & still is, needed for the greater good for humanity.

Is that OK with you?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:04:13
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093476
Subject: re: God

furious said:

  • all of us submit to the laws of Nature

I don’t…

Oh yeah?

Prove it.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:04:47
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093477
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

>But the real crux of the story is its definitive answers to the questions “What would an ideal religion be like? How could a religion make life better than atheism?”

are atheists less susceptible to ideology?

Oh, I missed that bit.

IMO the ideal religion would be atheistic. In other words, it would provide all the benefits of a theistic religion, without introducing any imaginary beings.

Yes I agree, I think that’s where a lot of religions tend to fail, creating imaginary beings, some people get carried away with story telling.

Story telling can be used to control people, and a lot of people are controlling by it, not just region, look at cosplay, movies, books, theater, games.

Very powerful thing story telling.

Used since the dawn of humanity.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:05:00
From: transition
ID: 1093478
Subject: re: God

A lot of mileage is got from psychological hijackings in the service of ideology via we are our thoughts, or you are your thoughts/attitudes etc. Of course the latter’s true to some extent, though clearly if you load that way of seeing things with more importance it becomes more so and truer.

Is the atheists’ world given to a contagion of psychological hijackings in the service of ideology? I think so.

Can religion be a prophylactic against that? I think so. Of course the religion is a hijacking of its own.

So, a better question may be what is a good prophylactic against ideological hijacking.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:06:31
From: transition
ID: 1093479
Subject: re: God

>creating imaginary beings

aren’t I imaginary to you, mostly imagined?

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:06:46
From: furious
ID: 1093480
Subject: re: God

If it is cold outside, I turn on the heater. Take that Nature…

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:07:28
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093481
Subject: re: God

transition said:

Is the atheists’ world given to a contagion of psychological hijackings in the service of ideology? I think so.

Surely that would depend on the particular atheist.

I hope you are not engaging in stereotyping here.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:09:19
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093482
Subject: re: God

furious said:

  • Oh yeah?

    Prove it.

If it is cold outside, I turn on the heater. Take that Nature…

But your heater operates entirely within the laws of nature.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:09:44
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093483
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

>>>You want a God to control you and everyone else?

I think a perfect God would not want to control anyone.<<<
.
.

yet you submit to the laws of nature.

You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Hmmmmmmmm

>>>yet you submit to the laws of nature.

all of us submit to the laws of Nature

>>>You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

I dont worship anything

>>>And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose.

>>>>all of us submit to the laws of Nature<<<

not really

>>>I dont worship anything<<<

you do. you worship Gaia. Maybe you just don’t realise it.

>>>>>Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose<<<

I believe in fossil fuel. It has been, & still is, needed for the greater good for humanity.

Is that OK with you?

>>>I believe in fossil fuel.

You believe in using non nonrenewable resources as profit generating material.

>>>It has been, & still is, needed for the greater good for humanity.

Needed for the greater good of greedy rich people who want to exploit the environment and the poor.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:09:51
From: furious
ID: 1093484
Subject: re: God

And it submits to me…

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:10:26
From: transition
ID: 1093485
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

Is the atheists’ world given to a contagion of psychological hijackings in the service of ideology? I think so.

Surely that would depend on the particular atheist.

I hope you are not engaging in stereotyping here.

well, I am generalizing a bit, and so for affect, but it is true, take something and we’ll test it.

does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:10:54
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093486
Subject: re: God

transition said:


>creating imaginary beings

aren’t I imaginary to you, mostly imagined?

No, you are based entirely on real black and white evidence (in this particular case, quite literally).

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:11:50
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093487
Subject: re: God

I’d just be happy with free sex

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:12:48
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093488
Subject: re: God

transition said:


does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

I don’t know what that means.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:13:09
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093489
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

>creating imaginary beings

aren’t I imaginary to you, mostly imagined?

No, you are based entirely on real black and white evidence (in this particular case, quite literally).

Upper and lower case Times New Roman.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:14:00
From: The_observer
ID: 1093491
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>yet you submit to the laws of nature.

all of us submit to the laws of Nature

>>>You worship ‘a perfect enviroment’ as you percieve it.

I dont worship anything

>>>And anyone who doesn’t agree with your views are considered ‘kafir.

Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose.

>>>>all of us submit to the laws of Nature<<<

not really

>>>I dont worship anything<<<

you do. you worship Gaia. Maybe you just don’t realise it.

>>>>>Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose<<<

I believe in fossil fuel. It has been, & still is, needed for the greater good for humanity.

Is that OK with you?

>>>I believe in fossil fuel.

You believe in using non nonrenewable resources as profit generating material.

>>>It has been, & still is, needed for the greater good for humanity.

Needed for the greater good of greedy rich people who want to exploit the environment and the poor.

>>> “Everyone should be free to believe in what they choose” .<<<

LOL.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:14:20
From: transition
ID: 1093492
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

>creating imaginary beings

aren’t I imaginary to you, mostly imagined?

No, you are based entirely on real black and white evidence (in this particular case, quite literally).

i’d argue your idea of me is mostly what your mind conjures. It’s imagined.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:16:48
From: The_observer
ID: 1093493
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


I’d just be happy with free sex

what? is mrs palmer starting to charge.

give her a “hand out”

LOL

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:17:18
From: transition
ID: 1093494
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

I don’t know what that means.

probably just the outcome of having responded too quickly.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:18:01
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1093495
Subject: re: God

Think of all those people spending billions of human hours pondering about something which does not exist.

and most feeling good about it.

but then ISIS.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:19:20
From: The_observer
ID: 1093496
Subject: re: God

transition said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Is the atheists’ world given to a contagion of psychological hijackings in the service of ideology? I think so.

does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

Yes, its been exibited for around 1400 years

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:20:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1093497
Subject: re: God

transition said:


i’d argue your idea of me is mostly what your mind conjures. It’s imagined.

I think you are stretching the meaning of the word imaginary.

Imaginary things have no real existence, outside the head of the imaginer.

Of course the picture I have of you is nothing like the real you, but it is not based on imagination, it is based on real text, written by you.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:20:56
From: stumpy_seahorse
ID: 1093498
Subject: re: God

Tau.Neutrino said:


Think of all those people spending billions of human hours pondering about something which does not exist.

and most feeling good about it.

but then ISIS.

and how many hours do you spend posting about something which does not exist?

pot meet kettle…

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:21:23
From: The_observer
ID: 1093499
Subject: re: God

transition said:

does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

yes, in particular, its been practiced for 1400 years

fixed

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:22:42
From: transition
ID: 1093500
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Is the atheists’ world given to a contagion of psychological hijackings in the service of ideology? I think so.

does competition feature as an ideological tool. It exists in human nature, but is amplified by culture.

Yes, its been exibited for around 1400 years

careful observer, that looks like I answered myself, make sure you type below the bracketed “quote”

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:23:35
From: Cymek
ID: 1093504
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

i’d argue your idea of me is mostly what your mind conjures. It’s imagined.

I think you are stretching the meaning of the word imaginary.

Imaginary things have no real existence, outside the head of the imaginer.

Of course the picture I have of you is nothing like the real you, but it is not based on imagination, it is based on real text, written by you.

Most fiction is more real than the bible and other religious texts, some of them have movies, tv shows, merchandise and a whole fleshed out backstory, they aren’t real of course but more thought has been put into them than religious books.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:25:21
From: transition
ID: 1093505
Subject: re: God

The Rev Dodgson said:


transition said:

i’d argue your idea of me is mostly what your mind conjures. It’s imagined.

I think you are stretching the meaning of the word imaginary.

Imaginary things have no real existence, outside the head of the imaginer.

Of course the picture I have of you is nothing like the real you, but it is not based on imagination, it is based on real text, written by you.

your idea of me is mostly the work of your mind, imagined. It’s the same more generally of anyone’s idea of anyone else. That’s the way it works, the reality.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:27:31
From: transition
ID: 1093507
Subject: re: God

careful observer, that looks like I answered myself, make sure you type below the bracketed “quote”

whatever, dunno what’s going on there

never mind

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:34:06
From: The_observer
ID: 1093511
Subject: re: God

transition said:

careful observer, that looks like I answered myself, make sure you type below the bracketed “quote”

whatever, dunno what’s going on there

never mind

yes, I made the mistake, but rectified it.

Unfortunately we cannot edit our mistakes within the post itself

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:38:52
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093512
Subject: re: God

Cymek said:

Most fiction is more real than the bible and other religious texts, some of them have movies, tv shows, merchandise and a whole fleshed out backstory, they aren’t real of course but more thought has been put into them than religious books.

I think that is untrue. The greatest minds of the past have spent whole lives contemplating religious texts like the Bible, the Koran, The Analects, The Daode Jong, the various Hindu holy books etc

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:43:24
From: Cymek
ID: 1093514
Subject: re: God

Witty Rejoinder said:


Cymek said:

Most fiction is more real than the bible and other religious texts, some of them have movies, tv shows, merchandise and a whole fleshed out backstory, they aren’t real of course but more thought has been put into them than religious books.

I think that is untrue. The greatest minds of the past have spent whole lives contemplating religious texts like the Bible, the Koran, The Analects, The Daode Jong, the various Hindu holy books etc

They are pretty boring and preachy though

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:48:21
From: The_observer
ID: 1093517
Subject: re: God

Cymek said:

Most fiction is more real than the bible and other religious texts, some of them have movies, tv shows, merchandise and a whole fleshed out backstory, they aren’t real of course but more thought has been put into them than religious books.

The religious texts certainly are an historic document. The parts concerning god speaking to people & existing is BS, but otherwise, it does contain facts.

Jesus was a real person. He was a jew. He roamed the lands of what is now israel. Was he the messiah, the son of god, a prophet? That parts up to the individual

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:57:52
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093520
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:

Jesus was a real person. He was a jew. He roamed the lands of what is now israel. Was he the messiah, the son of god, a prophet? That parts up to the individual

There is no evidence to support the contention that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Paul the Apostle existed though and did a lot in spreading early Christianity.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 14:59:54
From: The_observer
ID: 1093522
Subject: re: God

Witty Rejoinder said:


The_observer said:

Jesus was a real person. He was a jew. He roamed the lands of what is now israel. Was he the messiah, the son of god, a prophet? That parts up to the individual

There is no evidence to support the contention that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Paul the Apostle existed though and did a lot in spreading early Christianity.

apostle
əˈpɒs(ə)l/Submit
noun
each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ

how ironic, an apostle to someone who didn’t exist?

maybe you should check your references

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:04:09
From: Cymek
ID: 1093523
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Jesus was a real person. He was a jew. He roamed the lands of what is now israel. Was he the messiah, the son of god, a prophet? That parts up to the individual

There is no evidence to support the contention that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Paul the Apostle existed though and did a lot in spreading early Christianity.

apostle
əˈpɒs(ə)l/Submit
noun
each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ

how ironic, an apostle to someone who didn’t exist?

maybe you should check your references

How many times have religious texts been revised though most likely to omit “facts” that don’t benefit those in control of whatever religion the book relates to.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:05:36
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093524
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:

maybe you should check your references

I’m not saying he didn’t exist. Just that there is no direct historical evidence for it.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:07:02
From: The_observer
ID: 1093525
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Jesus was a real person. He was a jew. He roamed the lands of what is now israel. Was he the messiah, the son of god, a prophet? That parts up to the individual

There is no evidence to support the contention that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Paul the Apostle existed though and did a lot in spreading early Christianity.

apostle
əˈpɒs(ə)l/Submit
noun
each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ

how ironic, an apostle to someone who didn’t exist?

maybe you should check your references

of course, the jews, despite not recognising jesus as the son of god, or a prophet, &, if not directly responsible for his death, were completely complicit, recognise the man named jesus existed.
Muhammad refered to the jews as the kafirs that murder prophets (jesus).

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:11:33
From: The_observer
ID: 1093530
Subject: re: God

Cymek said:


The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

There is no evidence to support the contention that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Paul the Apostle existed though and did a lot in spreading early Christianity.

apostle
əˈpɒs(ə)l/Submit
noun
each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ

how ironic, an apostle to someone who didn’t exist?

maybe you should check your references

How many times have religious texts been revised though most likely to omit “facts” that don’t benefit those in control of whatever religion the book relates to.

I agree totally. But there are basic facts lying beneath the BS that are useful in knowing what was going on at the time. The peoples that existed and where. what religion they were. climate change & environmental changes. The facts are a bit like archeology. dig it up and apply modern science to it to get answers.

for instance; Turkey,

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:12:19
From: The_observer
ID: 1093531
Subject: re: God

Witty Rejoinder said:


The_observer said:

maybe you should check your references

I’m not saying he didn’t exist. Just that there is no direct historical evidence for it.

The non religious docos I’ve seen admitted he existed through evidence.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:19:35
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1093535
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

maybe you should check your references

I’m not saying he didn’t exist. Just that there is no direct historical evidence for it.

The non religious docos I’ve seen admitted he existed through evidence.

For example the earliest gospel, the Gospel of St Mark, was written in around 70AD many years after the crucifixion. Like I said before the various letters of St Paul are dated much earlier and there is definite historical evidence that St Paul existed.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:24:18
From: The_observer
ID: 1093537
Subject: re: God

Witty Rejoinder said:


The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m not saying he didn’t exist. Just that there is no direct historical evidence for it.

The non religious docos I’ve seen admitted he existed through evidence.

For example the earliest gospel, the Gospel of St Mark, was written in around 70AD many years after the crucifixion. Like I said before the various letters of St Paul are dated much earlier and there is definite historical evidence that St Paul existed.

Keep in mind that, to me, & probably you, there were many religious fanatic nutjobs around in those days. There would be no need to invent someone like jesus when many existed in reality.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:31:26
From: The_observer
ID: 1093539
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

The non religious docos I’ve seen admitted he existed through evidence.

For example the earliest gospel, the Gospel of St Mark, was written in around 70AD many years after the crucifixion. Like I said before the various letters of St Paul are dated much earlier and there is definite historical evidence that St Paul existed.

Keep in mind that, to me, & probably you, there were many religious fanatic nutjobs around in those days. There would be no need to invent someone like jesus when many existed in reality.

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 15:34:27
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1093540
Subject: re: God

The_observer said:


The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

For example the earliest gospel, the Gospel of St Mark, was written in around 70AD many years after the crucifixion. Like I said before the various letters of St Paul are dated much earlier and there is definite historical evidence that St Paul existed.

Keep in mind that, to me, & probably you, there were many religious fanatic nutjobs around in those days. There would be no need to invent someone like jesus when many existed in reality.

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 16:22:24
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1093561
Subject: re: God

“The historicity of Jesus” is a strange term given that there could have been no living person whose life resembled the magical man in the Bible.

It’s like calling J.M. Barrie’s brother David “the historical Peter Pan”.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 16:29:09
From: AwesomeO
ID: 1093562
Subject: re: God

Bubblecar said:


“The historicity of Jesus” is a strange term given that there could have been no living person whose life resembled the magical man in the Bible.

It’s like calling J.M. Barrie’s brother David “the historical Peter Pan”.

Mo was indisputably a historical figure and he went to heaven on a flying horse.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 16:40:50
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1093564
Subject: re: God

AwesomeO said:


Bubblecar said:

“The historicity of Jesus” is a strange term given that there could have been no living person whose life resembled the magical man in the Bible.

It’s like calling J.M. Barrie’s brother David “the historical Peter Pan”.

Mo was indisputably a historical figure and he went to heaven on a flying horse.

If there was a “real Jesus”, his life & times were so unlike the Biblical character that it’s not worth worrying about him. Certainly no writer bothered mentioning him while he was alive.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2017 16:43:59
From: monkey skipper
ID: 1093566
Subject: re: God

and thank duck monday is over with..

Reply Quote

Date: 25/07/2017 06:33:12
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1093878
Subject: re: God

furious said:

  • What do you think? Do you think a telepathic truffle would make the ideal God?


Yes!

Perfect.

Reply Quote

Date: 25/07/2017 14:11:42
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1094070
Subject: re: God

mollwollfumble said:


An ideal God would be symbiotic, like the symbiosis between fungus and algae in lichen. But set up so both species can survive without the other, but both are better when they cooperate.

An ideal God would:

  • be omniscient (almost)
  • be omnipotent (almost)
  • suppress irrational fears and anxieties without suppressing fear of real dangers
  • communicate in a non-intrusive way
  • care for all animals and plants, not just humans or worshippers
  • be kind
  • always arrange for resources (human and otherwise) to be available exactly when needed
  • allow good humoured arguments and disagreements that never become violent
  • physically create plants, animals and beautiful landscapes

As well as slightly more ominous things:

  • be evangelistic
  • eliminate by exile, deadly argument or murder, those people who are intractably violent.

So god = natural selection and evolution?

Makes sense.

Reply Quote