Is god insane and are we products of insanity?
frozentoast
The thought that we are such a product is scary isn't it? But then
examine all that religions have brought to us.
Prophets who preach hate. Mohammed
Teachers who are the only way. Christians
Men and Women who follow fools. Jim Jones
Of course this list is infinite and no doubt that it will continue to
grow as long as some idiot believes god has all the answers.
If god does exist and he has all the answers then why in the hell did
he give us brains?
fairywi...@gmail.com
of "there's god in the world" will relieve people's pain to some
extent. I think people with a belief is much better for its
psychological health. Anyway, sometimes life is too hard for us to live.
luv2h8
Lee
I can't answer that one, but am I the only one thats see's the
strangeness in disbelivers of God railing against God?
Ian Pollard
>
> I can't answer that one, but am I the only one thats see's the
> strangeness in disbelivers of God railing against God?
Actually, Lee, I think you've hit upon a more interesting topic than
the sibject of this thread.
Maybe I can explain?
Sometimes I challenge supersitions in a outright kind of way; i.e.,
how can you belive this when then is no evidence for it? However,
sometimes it's also fun to say: okay, if you do insist in believing in
this god, despite the lack of evidence, then how do you rationalise
worshipping a being with a well-documented propensity toward hatred,
genocide, misogyny, rape, jealousy, etc...?
xxxianxx
Lee
Heh I like, that surly though it only works on some not all concepts of
God.
Ian Pollard
Yes and no. For me, I find it's more to do with certain religion's
concept of "God" being deliberately hard to pin down. You know,
they're the perennial moving target: dodging questions, obfuscating,
muddying the waters. If science or logic seriously challenges a
previously sacrosanct piece of doctrine, it is conveniently redefined,
and human error is blamed for misinterpreting the original notion.
Mormonism does this all the time; for example, its racially unsound
doctrine about not allowing black priests.
The non-Abrahamist religions are maybe more difficult to use that
approach with. Although, when they start to get too new-agey they
become increasingly irrelevent; i.e., why not just admit that, with
the increased panderings to modern thought, inclusiveness, and
tolerance, that you are one step away from admitting a form of
agnosticism or atheism.
Cut out the middle-man/deity and concentrate on a secular humanistic philosopy.
xxxianxx
Lee
Heres a question for you, in your experiance would you say that your
outlook, I.E. whether or not you tend towards religion or away from it,
depends largely on what you feel about the subjective/objective nature
of truth?
Yaqub
> If god does exist and he has all the answers then why in the hell did
> he give us brains?
A sensible question indeed.
If we believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing, just and
merciful God. We must acknowledge that He is in control at all times.
May I suggest that we all believe that returning to God's house is the
goal for mankind. If so, God could easily take us all home anytime he
likes. But He does not.
The only sensible reason for this seeming lack of action on His part is
that He has something specific in mind. Is it something we must
believe? Yes. Is is something we must do? Yes. But why can we not
see it clearly. I mean all of us, in agreement with each other?
The most complex issues have the simplest answers sometimes. God does
not mind that we follow different religious paths. He could easily
erase all but one if only one were the true path. He does not. Why?
Simple. All religions are possessed of great truths, each to specific
groups on Earth.
This diversity is not what impedes our return. Indeed, it is the means
of our return. The challenge before us, given us by God, is to realize
the simplicity of our task.
We need only accept our differences and treat each other in a decent,
Godly fashion. We should not attempt to get each other to change
religions if in so doing someone is made to be uncomfortable.
God has created us all as we are. He is the author of our emotional
uncertainties. It is His hand in creation which gave us the ability to
think and reason. It is the message of Jesus (praise be upon Him) that
we give to each other that which we would receive from them.
If a man is happy and content in his religion and if he finds the means
therein to live a Godly life, he is doing exactly what God wishes we
do. This man will have the wisdom to know that other of God's children
of differing faiths have exactly the same opportunities to serve. Each
in his own house, shall be master. No man is the master of his
neighbor.
What we have that is of the Father is our minds and souls. What we
have that is of the animals is our competitiveness. I humbly suggest
to all that we cannot fully develop our minds in recognition of God's
will while we spend vast amounts of emotional energy in competing with
other religions.
If a man is violent, look at the man and not his religion. If a man is
a criminal, look inside that man for the cause. Do not be quick to
blame Satan for we are less than perfect with his assistance. Study
the man. Discover the secrets of his painful life. Expect that within
any religion there will be those who misuse scripture in selfish ways.
Do not blame scripture when a man is involved. God gives us many
prophets who provide Holy Books for us to use as guides. In each there
may be found verses which seem to contridict His message of peace.
There is good reason for this which will be known to he who brings
himself to the portal of wisdom througe self-improvement.
In order to meet the challenges God puts before us we must only become
harmless and generous in thought and deed. No more is required.
When we accomplish this, we will have prepared ourselves for our
destiny. We will return to the Father's house, together. The many
divisions in the Earth do not exist in Heaven.
God will bless each of us who lives quietly in the midst of turmoil.
Like the petals of a flower, each of us is released in his own time.
Imagine, a Holy Temple within which Christians, Jews and Muslims
worship together. Each from within his own religion. All in unison.
Why is this so difficult for us to consider? We all agree that there
is only one God so, we must all worship Him. The name of God is of
consequence only here on Earth. Religions only exist here on Earth.
Our competitiveness exists only here on Earth.
God does not cause us to understand this because it is of such great
importance that we learn it for ourselves. This is the accomplishment
that God waits for. He waits for His children to awaken and to come
home by their own will.
Yaqub
Ian Pollard
>
> May I suggest that we all believe that returning to God's house is the
> goal for mankind. If so, God could easily take us all home anytime he
> likes. But He does not.
I don't believe that. Why do you believe that?
> The only sensible reason for this seeming lack of action on His part is
> that He has something specific in mind. Is it something we must
> believe? Yes. Is is something we must do? Yes. But why can we not
> see it clearly. I mean all of us, in agreement with each other?
What on Earth are you talking about? Please present some evidence to
support these fantastical claims about "God" and "returning to his
house".
> The most complex issues have the simplest answers sometimes.
Or, in your case, the simplest questions have the most complex answers. :)
> God does
> not mind that we follow different religious paths.
Says who? I could point you to scriptures of the three main Abrahamist
religions that clearly command their believers to kill non-believers,
or demonstrate God himself getting involved and slaughtering
human-beings in a jealous rage.
Who says you're right and they're wrong?
> He could easily
> erase all but one if only one were the true path. He does not. Why?
His non-existence would be a factor I expect.
> Simple. All religions are possessed of great truths, each to specific
> groups on Earth.
For the purposes fo conflict, war, prejudice, intolerance, misunderstanding?
> We need only accept our differences and treat each other in a decent,
> Godly fashion.
Doctrinally impossible!
> God has created us all as we are.
Now there's a non statement.
> He is the author of our emotional
> uncertainties.
Ah, so he's some kind of prankster God?
> If a man is happy and content in his religion and if he finds the means
> therein to live a Godly life, he is doing exactly what God wishes we
> do.
> What we have that is of the Father is our minds and souls.
What do you mean bu soul? Do you have any evidence for its existence?
> What we
> have that is of the animals is our competitiveness. I humbly suggest
> to all that we cannot fully develop our minds in recognition of God's
> will while we spend vast amounts of emotional energy in competing with
> other religions.
So your humbly conclude that ignorance is acceptable? Does that make
there's superstitious concepts a little easier to swallow? :)
> If a man is violent, look at the man and not his religion.
Even if he was clearly commanded, by doctrine, to kill? Have you read
the Old Testament? Have you read the Qu'ran?
Obviously not.
> When we accomplish this, we will have prepared ourselves for our
> destiny. We will return to the Father's house, together. The many
> divisions in the Earth do not exist in Heaven.
Please provide some evidence for the following concepts:
[1] a "heavenly" Father
[2] his "house", or heaven
Why do you believe these things exist? How can you talk with such
authority about things which you cannot actually know?
> God will bless each of us who lives quietly in the midst of turmoil.
> Like the petals of a flower, each of us is released in his own time.
Ah, religious indoctrination 101: appeal to the emotions, the
intangible; therein in lies the route to the suppression of human
intellect and questioning and thus the facilitation of the acceptance
of nonsense. It's a new agey take on getting people to believe in
something for which there is no evidence. I guess it's more pleasant
than the old fashioned way of scarring people into believing, or
bribing them with ideas of heavenly rewards.
> Imagine, a Holy Temple within which Christians, Jews and Muslims
> worship together. Each from within his own religion. All in unison.
> Why is this so difficult for us to consider? We all agree that there
> is only one God so, we must all worship Him. The name of God is of
> consequence only here on Earth. Religions only exist here on Earth.
> Our competitiveness exists only here on Earth.
First, how can you know that there is somewhere other than Earth and,
second, how to you know these very specific facts about it?
> God does not cause us to understand this because it is of such great
> importance that we learn it for ourselves. This is the accomplishment
> that God waits for. He waits for His children to awaken and to come
> home by their own will.
If your will is strong enough, how about suicide? Would that be a
fast-track route to "accomplishment"?
xxxianxx
Ian Pollard
Nevah!
> Heres a question for you, in your experiance would you say that your
> outlook, I.E. whether or not you tend towards religion or away from it,
> depends largely on what you feel about the subjective/objective nature
> of truth?
It's clearly a factor. For example, what a faith sufferer would
consider to be a Truth (i.e. a doctrinal one), for me, is no such
thing. It's a subjective truth, which, in their realm of madness, is
acceptable and something to live your life by. Outside of that bubble
it's not a truth at all; the metrics are far tougher in the objective
world.
Another issue is motive. People who are embroiled in religious
nonsense are unwilling to consider escape, because, without this
superstition, their whole world falls apart. If there is no afterlife,
then the mess of their life suddenly becomes real to them and they
can't cope. The truths, for these people, are probably even
considered, by them, to be objective; if enough of humanity can be
brainwashed into believing this shit, then they feel justified in
their own reality-dodging.
xxxianxx
Lee
> It's clearly a factor. For example, what a faith sufferer would
> consider to be a Truth (i.e. a doctrinal one), for me, is no such
> thing. It's a subjective truth, which, in their realm of madness, is
> acceptable and something to live your life by. Outside of that bubble
> it's not a truth at all; the metrics are far tougher in the objective
> world.
So you yourself wold not place any trust in any subjective truth?
>
> Another issue is motive. People who are embroiled in religious
> nonsense are unwilling to consider escape, because, without this
> superstition, their whole world falls apart. If there is no afterlife,
> then the mess of their life suddenly becomes real to them and they
> can't cope.
Heh I'm sure that you belive this to be the case, but have you
objectifed it?
Personly I question my faith on a daly basis, I belive for many
reasons, and I can asure you that my strenght of charector is such that
if objective prove of God's non existance ever came my way I would
definatly be able to cope. Haveing a belife in God obviously gives me
a sense of meaning and a sense of peace, but there are to my mind
pleanty of other things in my life that give me this.
So on the surface this would appear to be a subjective belife of yours?
> The truths, for these people, are probably even
> considered, by them, to be objective; if enough of humanity can be
> brainwashed into believing this shit, then they feel justified in
> their own reality-dodging.
Ian, Ian, now I'm getting to know you better, and I actualy like you,
and I can see how you feel about the religion thing, but the langue you
use when talking about religouse belifes and religous people is mildly
insulting, but I guess you know that.
So instead of going down that route let me ask you, how do you know
that religous people dodge reality?, or indeed suffer from faith, or
are in a realm of madness?
Ian Pollard
>
> So you yourself wold not place any trust in any subjective truth?
It depends on the individual case. For example, some cutting edge
science needs to make certain assumptions in order to work. If you're
working in a field like this, a lot of the "truths" you deal with are
necessarily subjective; they would not stand up to regular objective
qualification. The best we can do is look at (and for) mutually
supporting, though equally subjective truths, and see what we have. I
think there is an amount of common-sense needed to make this judgement
about whether or not a subjective truth is worth anything.
It helps to look at the motive of the idea. That's always a good qualifier.
> Personly I question my faith on a daly basis, I belive for many
> reasons, and I can asure you that my strenght of charector is such that
> if objective prove of God's non existance ever came my way I would
> definatly be able to cope. Haveing a belife in God obviously gives me
> a sense of meaning and a sense of peace, but there are to my mind
> pleanty of other things in my life that give me this.
Your motives for believing are, I admit, more difficult to understand;
mostly because, the more I read, the more I wonder why on Earth you
believe it. As you say, you have identified plenty of other things in
your life that can offer you peace and a sense of meaning. I don't see
your need to deviate from these tangibles (whatever they are for you).
It just seems incredibly dishonest to your intellect and your humanity
to not deal with life and existence on its own natural terms.
To quote Douglas Adams, "isn't it enough to admire the beauty of the
garden without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
> So on the surface this would appear to be a subjective belife of yours?
Not at all. The natural, observable, world, is the only objective
metric we have. The more learn of it and its laws, the greater our
ability to hold to account things in the realm of the subjective. Some
subjective truths, ultimately, may be pulled into the objective realm
of knowledge. Others won't.
> > The truths, for these people, are probably even
> > considered, by them, to be objective; if enough of humanity can be
> > brainwashed into believing this shit, then they feel justified in
> > their own reality-dodging.
>
> Ian, Ian, now I'm getting to know you better, and I actualy like you,
> and I can see how you feel about the religion thing, but the langue you
> use when talking about religouse belifes and religous people is mildly
> insulting, but I guess you know that.
I do know that. What's wrong with attacking an idea or a mode of
thought? I strongly believe -- and I'm not alone in our still liberal
democracy -- that it sets an awfully dangerous precedent to seek to
put human ideas (even religious ones) on an equal footing with
immutable human characteristics, like race, gender, sexuality, etc. To
say I can't attack someone for believing in Russell's cosmic teapot is
just plain wrong. To say I can't attack someone for being disabled is
fair enough.
If I ever insult you as a person, then I do sincerly apologise. I like
you too and I always find your posts interesting. When I first started
posting here I knew nothing about Sikhism, so I can thank you for
prompting me to read about it.
> So instead of going down that route let me ask you, how do you know
> that religous people dodge reality?, or indeed suffer from faith, or
> are in a realm of madness?
Well, faith is, by absolute dictionary definition, a belief in
something despite a lack a evidence. That is a delusion in anyone's
language, isn't it?
The reality dodging is very common in religion, and I say that as a
formerly religious person. There's a lot of examples of this. From
Jesus to Buddha, it's pretty well a common theme in religion to teach
that this world is merely a prequel to something to come. One should
not be overly concerned with one's lot in this life. To seek wealth,
or glory, or power, would, in point of fact, inhibit your ability to
enter heaven or reach enlightenment. In a sense, the greatest possible
achievement for us, is in direct conflict with our very natural human
desires.
I embrace my human desires. Which means, yeah, I crave money, sex,
creative self-expression; in a sense, I know and indulge my own
Nietzschean will to power. This seems to be more real, more
quantifiable, more natural.
xxxianxx
Lee
> It depends on the individual case. For example, some cutting edge
> science needs to make certain assumptions in order to work. If you're
> working in a field like this, a lot of the "truths" you deal with are
> necessarily subjective; they would not stand up to regular objective
> qualification. The best we can do is look at (and for) mutually
> supporting, though equally subjective truths, and see what we have. I
> think there is an amount of common-sense needed to make this judgement
> about whether or not a subjective truth is worth anything.
I totaly agree, to consider truth to be totaly objective, or for that
matter totaly subjective does not marry up with my lifes experiance.
You mention two things that I find interesting though, common sense,
and motive. Both in my book highly subjective.
Common sense for example is anything but common. When we say things
like 'how stupid, it's just common sense' what we are in effect saying
is 'How can your subjective thoughts on this differ from mine, surly
what I belive is common knowledge' Where in reality if it was common
knowledge then we would not have the expresion common sense nor a need
to use it, because we would all belive the same.
Motive again is a subjective thing and will change from person to
person. We already know that my motives for my faith are not the same
as some others. Lets just take marriage for example, I bet you can
think of as many motives for getting married(or not) as I can.
So the question that springs to my mind is considering that both common
sense, and motive are subjective, then who do we know that your
subjective belifes are any truer or not, than, well lets just say mine?
> Your motives for believing are, I admit, more difficult to understand;
> mostly because, the more I read, the more I wonder why on Earth you
> believe it. As you say, you have identified plenty of other things in
> your life that can offer you peace and a sense of meaning. I don't see
> your need to deviate from these tangibles (whatever they are for you).
> It just seems incredibly dishonest to your intellect and your humanity
> to not deal with life and existence on its own natural terms.
Heh it's very simple, and I can't understand why things have to be
this way or that way? why not have thebest of both worlds? Anyhoo I
was saying it's very simple I belive because something deep inside me
says that God is.
You say I deviate from tangibles, I don't I have both objective belifes
and subjective ones, as I belive do we all. You suggest that I
compromise my intelect, I do not, I think very hard on my reasons but
as yet I have not managed to disprove God, so God still is, for me.
It subjectivly seems to you that I don't deal with life and existance
on natural terms, yet you don't know what it is that I do get from my
faith, nor what it does not give me, so whilst you can say this, it
doesn't make it true.
God for me has nothing to do with my life here, and all to do with what
happens afterwards.
My feet are placed firmly within the realms of reality, they have to
be, I have a wife, and two kids, and a bloody good job, that depend on
this.
> Not at all. The natural, observable, world, is the only objective
> metric we have. The more learn of it and its laws, the greater our
> ability to hold to account things in the realm of the subjective. Some
> subjective truths, ultimately, may be pulled into the objective realm
> of knowledge. Others won't.
Heh I would of course argue that this may not be the case, our
objective view of the world is tainted by our subjective senses which
we use to percive the world around us. Don't read too much into this
though, I merely suggest the possiblity that the way we percive some
parts of the world may not nesicarily be the way it actualy is. Colour
blindness and colour perception is a perfect example.
> I do know that. What's wrong with attacking an idea or a mode of thought?
Nothing, yet attack and insult are two differant beasts.
I can say that your ideas are plainly wrong and thus attack them. If I
tell you though that your ideas are wrong because of a deficency in the
way you think, it becomes an attack not on your ideas but on your
person. I do understand though I am reminded of the way that I
personaly attack those of the racist bent, attack the person for having
the idea not the idea.
Heh I guess I get a little oversensative at times. I'll get the reason
why later.
> I strongly believe -- and I'm not alone in our still liberal
> democracy -- that it sets an awfully dangerous precedent to seek to
> put human ideas (even religious ones) on an equal footing with
> immutable human characteristics, like race, gender, sexuality, etc. To
> say I can't attack someone for believing in Russell's cosmic teapot is
> just plain wrong. To say I can't attack someone for being disabled is
> fair enough.
I agree.
> If I ever insult you as a person, then I do sincerly apologise. I like
> you too and I always find your posts interesting. When I first started
> posting here I knew nothing about Sikhism, so I can thank you for
> prompting me to read about it.
Well thanks.
> Well, faith is, by absolute dictionary definition, a belief in
> something despite a lack a evidence. That is a delusion in anyone's
> language, isn't it?
Ummm maybe, or maybe just religious faith? When I stand at a bus stop
and look at the time table, I think ohh 5 more mins and the bus will be
here. I don't objectivly know this for sure, I place my faith in it
being the case(sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't) Is this then
delusional?
I think faith has more of role in life than you think. Even our
science can only say, well when ever I do this experiment this result
always happens, so we can say that everytime this experiment is
repeated, the result is most likly to be the same. We don't know for
sure, we place our faith in it being the case.
> The reality dodging is very common in religion, and I say that as a
> formerly religious person. There's a lot of examples of this. From
> Jesus to Buddha, it's pretty well a common theme in religion to teach
> that this world is merely a prequel to something to come. One should
> not be overly concerned with one's lot in this life. To seek wealth,
> or glory, or power, would, in point of fact, inhibit your ability to
> enter heaven or reach enlightenment. In a sense, the greatest possible
> achievement for us, is in direct conflict with our very natural human
> desires.
Heh Ian, again though this seems to be a subjective belife of yours. I
can see that your experiances have brought you to this belife, but to
equate all religous people with this mindset is clearly wrong. Further
more I would say that this is relative to religous dogma, some dogma
say otherwise.
> I embrace my human desires. Which means, yeah, I crave money, sex,
> creative self-expression; in a sense, I know and indulge my own
> Nietzschean will to power. This seems to be more real, more
> quantifiable, more natural.
To which I would add, to me. I guess then my basic question has been
more than answered. It does seem that one outlook on religion has a lot
to do with how one views the objectivity/subjectivity of truth. Umm
interesting, cheers Ian for your input.
Jugglyhead
VALIS, you'll see that he does put forward the idea that the creator
God is insane and therefore, I think, the whole universe is insane and
irrational. I don't recall the details, but it's a really
well-thought-out idea and I sort of agreed with it when I read it.
Well assuming you want to put a name on it and call it God, I guess you
could say it is insane. The whole concept of sanity is pretty insane in
itself when you think about it. Where's the measuring stick? As far as
I'm concerned, we don't know enough to judge what's sane or insane. But
then there's that whole thing about the inmates taking over the asylum,
and the real insane people are the ones who think they're sane. I would
rather bypass the sane/insane question altogether, because to my mind
it's just a pretty juvenile idea that somebody or something can either
be nuts or not. It's all just presented to us, and we might make a
judgement on the values of things, but that's not how they actually
are.
You can think God is sane, insane, or covered in peanut butter, but the
bottom line is that's only your interpretation. There's a lot of
suffering in the world, and that could lead you to conclude that God
must be insane to allow all of these perversions to occer. It could
also lead you to conclude that God is a mystery and is not necessarily
here to eliminate suffering.
If God does exist, then why would it not give us brains? Otherwise, we
would be mindless zombies completely controlled by God, and couldn't
even go to the toilet by ourselves. I can't think that that idea would
be very appealling to anyone, least of all God, unless it wanted to be
some sort of cosmic babysitter with the ultimate power-of-attorney. But
back to the main topic, the universe is irrational and doesn't fit in
with any model that we can come up with. People will tell you that it's
all rational and logical and it all makes sense, but it's just not.
What's rational and logical is a very narrow stream of human
experience, and everything else is just either mysterious or
incomprehensible. The idea of God is part of that sizeable irrational
portion of the cosmic pie. As with sanity, I think to categorise things
as irrational or rational is a bit of an understatement and
simplification. But if you want to put it in those terms, the universe
is irrational, God is a complete whacko and we're all off our trees.
I hope that made sense and wasn't too boring to read. PS: this is my
first post, so consider this an introduction.
jalabkhan
human being. God is not insane, He is simply indifferent (Samad in
Islamic jargon) to the six-foot creatures that we are. If Bush does not
bother to think what his action will bring for the Iraqis, Afghanis or
even Americans, why should God bother about us
Jalab Khan