Its up to atheists to create an enlightened god

[quarky]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

I'll be back.

[quarky]

I've started a thread of the same title in the science forum.

I'll be back to explain why.

[I Ratant]

I've started a thread of the same title in the science forum.

I'll be back to explain why.
.
Don't bother.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

I'll be back.

You gave up the game too early. You didn't sufficiently veil your contempt for people of faith.

"Guy who hates me because I don't believe the way he does wants me to change my current beliefs to match his edicts".

Good luck selling that.

[INRM]

I don't think it's a good idea to "create god". I don't think god is something worth believing in because it/he/she doesn't exist.

Religiousity is fading across most of the entire world even including the United States

[dio]

Religiousity is fading across most of the entire world even including the United States

That sounds interesting. Links?

[quarky]

Too cheap.

Engage me as an equal. I may have something to say.

[quarky]

I have no contempt for morons.

In my real life, I wipe their asses.

[Achán hiNidráne]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.

Yeah, so did the concept of "magic," which is what "god" really boils down to regardless of all twisted logic used by religious apologists. (That especially goes for the arguments of the self-proclaimed "sophisticated theologians" who just regurgitate the same tired fallacies and absurdities used by the common, backwoods, fundy preacher only with Ivy League-level vocabularies.)

As an "atheist" I would not have human affairs governed by either concept.

If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

So in order to "rise about the superstition" we have to create a new superstition?

:confused:

Are you trolling us, or are you really this stupid?

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

God, by its very nature, is a supernatural being. Thus, it is inherently "unscientific;" especially when you KNOW that you've just invented one of of whole-cloth for the purpose of placating the masses.

A "noble lie" is still a lie.

I'll be back.

Don't hurry on my account.

[MattusMaximus]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

I'll be back.

Okay, just make sure you've sobered up a bit first, m'kay? ;)

[Vic Vega]

Too cheap.

Engage me as an equal. I may have something to say.


OK. I'll hang around.

[Trent Wray]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

I'll be back. I thought the sane and rational decided on an invisible pink unicorn?

I have no contempt for morons.

In my real life, I wipe their asses. Medical field I presume? :)

[Trent Wray]

Actually, the idea of the OP was something I was sorta kinda trying to nail down with this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169814) that died.

I was wanting to find an aspect of existence that actually could qualify as a kind of god which we could anthropomorphize with our current intelligence and understanding of the universe. After mine and others posts, I boiled it down to:

* death
* time
* metabolism
* mathematics

as candidates for a "god". :)

[fromdownunder]

I've started a thread of the same title in the science forum.

I'll be back to explain why.

You are wrong. I will be back to explain why.

Norm

[Hokulele]

That assumes atheists want any sort of god in the first place.

[blobru]

How about a god that lets everyone straight into heaven? :halo: So long as you have the power to make people good and happy, to ameliorate whatever faults were tending to make them bad or unhappy, eternal judgment seems perverse: like the guilt, bureaucracy and torture in a Kafka story. (Drawback for this 'enlightened' religion: no carrot & stick to curb the wicked in this life...)

Or there's always the god who doesn't want to be believed in, of course, who loves only the atheists' lack of faith -- but that would be ironic and cruel, perhaps; not at all enlightened. :)

[Trent Wray]

If there were ZERO concepts of god existing, and we were all atheist by default, I wonder if this idea would be different.

I mean, suppose some concepts of the paranormal/superstitious still existed. But people viewed spirits as dead humans, etc and so forth ... with limited power. There was no god in charge of them. Even concepts of the afterlife lacked a "god", for the various global cultures that considered the afterlife possible. Let's assume this was globally true.

Why wouldn't an "enlightened" and critically thinking, intelligent atheist not imagine the concept of a "god" and desire it? Remember ... (hypothetically) there is no already existing concept of god to compare it to (IOW, we already have plenty of god's we reject for various reasons).

[tsig]

I've started a thread of the same title in the science forum.

I'll be back to explain why.

OK my god loves those I love and hates those I hate but does it better. He's* bigger, badder and better in all ways than your little, puny god and if you don't bow down to Him* then your punishment will be eternal.


*My God is definitely Masculine, in fact, He's pretty much Me writ large.

[quarky]

People have already invented God and the various religions. This isn't going to go away, yet it is deeply flawed. Why not improve upon it, even if it means pretending?
As it is, atheists have no 'vote', so to speak, and we must deal with the collective insanity of the faithful, even though they too are pretending.

We are like children, pretending a game with our fellows. Yet the game isn't so good.

[bruto]

People have already invented God and the various religions. This isn't going to go away, yet it is deeply flawed. Why not improve upon it, even if it means pretending?
As it is, atheists have no 'vote', so to speak, and we must deal with the collective insanity of the faithful, even though they too are pretending.

We are like children, pretending a game with our fellows. Yet the game isn't so good.I think you're missing a point or two about both theists and atheists. I've never met a theist who believed he or anyone but God himself had invented God. To believe otherwise is to abandon theism. They may be wrong, and they may be fooling themselves, but they're not pretending in any useful sense of the word. If they were, it would be easier to turn them to atheism than to another religion based at the start on intentional falsehood, and a good bit more honorable.

[I Ratant]

I doubt that setting up another pretend god to combat all the previous pretenders is the way to the truth.
Just keep on showing there are no gods.

[Hokulele]

People have already invented God and the various religions. This isn't going to go away, yet it is deeply flawed. Why not improve upon it, even if it means pretending?


Because I prefer to be honest with myself, if not with others.

As it is, atheists have no 'vote', so to speak, and we must deal with the collective insanity of the faithful, even though they too are pretending.


Reality isn't something people get to vote on. Although I am often less than pleased with the actions of various people of various religions, I have no interest in "converting" them to another set of beliefs, even if it may be a set that is more benign. If they leave me alone, I am more than happy to leave them alone.

Live and let live, I say.

We are like children, pretending a game with our fellows. Yet the game isn't so good.


Who "we", kemosabe?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

My God brings chocolate cake and tea for everyone!

[Trent Wray]

My God brings chocolate cake and tea for everyone!
What must I do to be saved? :)

[Sledge]

My God has punch and pie. He asks only that you respect his authoritah.

[Aquila]

I've asked this question before, on different threads, but what is wrong in defining God by the word "zero" or "infinity", or representing the idea with a picture, mandala or mathematical symbol?

[Sledge]

If you describe God with a word that we already use for something else, you're not describing God. If you use a visual representation, you're not doing anything useful at all. I can call a rose a car, but that still doesn't mean it exists or that you'd want to use it to bring a TV home from the shops.

[JoeTheJuggler]

People have already invented God and the various religions. This isn't going to go away, yet it is deeply flawed. Why not improve upon it, even if it means pretending?
How do you improve upon a falsehood without pointing out that it's false?


As it is, atheists have no 'vote', so to speak, and we must deal with the collective insanity of the faithful, even though they too are pretending.

I realize you put "vote" in single quote marks, so I know you're not talking about any kind of literal vote (like having to do with government), but I don't know what you do mean by it. What is is that atheists have no say in?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've asked this question before, on different threads, but what is wrong in defining God by the word "zero" or "infinity", or representing the idea with a picture, mandala or mathematical symbol?

What is wrong with that is that language works by convention, and these aren't what is meant when the vast majority of people use the term "God". If you redefine a conventionally used term, you're in trouble. At best, you'll have to constantly make clear what you mean (as in "the Deist 'God'").

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can call a rose a car, but that still doesn't mean it exists or that you'd want to use it to bring a TV home from the shops.

Though the Bard assures us that it would smell as sweet! ;)

(In seriousness, I agree with your point. Language works by convention. If you make up new meanings for existing words, you're not likely to communicate very well without a lot of extra effort.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

If what you say is at all true (and it's not), then why not actually go for it? Why not go to the seminary or divinity school and infiltrate the churches of the world?

What do you have to gain from attempting to redefine "God" (in a way that most believers almost surely will reject anyway)?

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

To take up the task of morons* is unscientific.

*ETA: And we could easily make my statement true as a tautology by defining "the task of morons" as "unscientific tasks" such as defining gods.

[Trent Wray]

I've asked this question before, on different threads, but what is wrong in defining God by the word "zero" or "infinity", or representing the idea with a picture, mandala or mathematical symbol? If we are "at the mercy" of zero or infinity, then I think those concepts would be a non-anthropomorphized god.

If we came from one or the other, we could also claim zero or infinity as our origin as well I suppose, and thus zero or infinity was our "creator".

But as JoetheJuggler said, the majority of people on the planet would be unclear on this concept. They would most likely want some"thing" or some"one" to relate to. Not a concept.

[Sledge]

Sorry, I don't see what useful purpose is being served by referring to God as zero, infinity, or Mr Terrence Higginbottom of 32 Acacia Road. Yes, you can navel gaze all day and come up with all sorts of dull reasons to equate one with the other, but at the end of the day you're still talking about the same thing.

[Trent Wray]

I can see a purpose in this sense ... equating "god" with something so null as zero or infinity might take the "person" out of god for some people. Not many, but some. Those who hear the word "god" and immediately conjure an image of zeus/jesus/white beard/seven armed elephant chick /etc. could perhaps benefit from realizing that god is "nothing". It could lead towards an atheistic view, perhaps ... since zero and infinity are not "things" or people.

Or it could create a more blank slate for some, to remove the concept of a "watchful god" from their lives. Instead of believing they are always being watched, recorded, and judged by some invisible being ... they could equate god with absolutely nothing at all perhaps, in a "tangible" way, mathematically speaking I suppose.

But outside of this thread? Probably not a whole lot of use :)

[Trent Wray]

Now, what I do still think might actually be useful and practical, is to equate the concept of "god" with some aspect of life that we are at the mercy of, and an aspect that we have strong feelings and reactions to. An aspect that effects us both objectively and subjectively. That's why I still like the idea of death being a "god". In some ways, the believer finds death to be infinity, while the unbeliever finds death to be zero ...

[Pardalis]

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

As JoeThe Juggler said, anyone who will take up this task is an unscientific stupid moron.

So there.

[Sledge]

I can see a purpose in this sense ... equating "god" with something so null as zero or infinity might take the "person" out of god for some people. Not many, but some. Those who hear the word "god" and immediately conjure an image of zeus/jesus/white beard/seven armed elephant chick /etc. could perhaps benefit from realizing that god is "nothing". It could lead towards an atheistic view, perhaps ... since zero and infinity are not "things" or people.

Or it could create a more blank slate for some, to remove the concept of a "watchful god" from their lives. Instead of believing they are always being watched, recorded, and judged by some invisible being ... they could equate god with absolutely nothing at all perhaps, in a "tangible" way, mathematically speaking I suppose.

But outside of this thread? Probably not a whole lot of use :)So why not go with the simpler and more accurate "God doesn't exist"?

[Hokulele]

Now, what I do still think might actually be useful and practical, is to equate the concept of "god" with some aspect of life that we are at the mercy of, and an aspect that we have strong feelings and reactions to. An aspect that effects us both objectively and subjectively. That's why I still like the idea of death being a "god". In some ways, the believer finds death to be infinity, while the unbeliever finds death to be zero ...


I am not sure why most people need something to call "god". Does it have to do with making one's life more meaningful, something to blame when things go wrong, something to thank when things go right? Maybe I am missing something really obvious, but I have never understood the whole concept of a "god-shaped hole in one's life".

[Trent Wray]

So why not go with the simpler and more accurate "God doesn't exist"? Because it's not always that simple :)

To say "God doesn't exist," is fine and dandy. Until you meet the other 5.9 billion people who believe in a god. It might work fine for you, but for them it's not always so simple.

There would be a small portion of the population that would reach the conclusion there is no god through critical thinking and logical thought. But, for many it is essentially part of their reality. And for many others, it's like a drug (look at KK for example). To expect people to quit a drug cold turkey is not only unrealistic, but it's not always healthy. Perhaps the most compassionate thing to do is instead of taking cigarettes out of their mouths, you remove the nicoteine (sp?) a little at a time, but let them continue smoking. Or you substitute the cigarettes with donuts or something else that is addictive in some form or fashion. In other words, you wean them.

Giving them something that they can all share and view in common, such as "death" might work. It didn't work in the ancient world, but the ancient world had a much larger gap than we do now. The gaps are closing, and the god of "death" might not be associated with a lot of other naturally, explainable things. Plus .... we have ways to cheat death scientifically. It could help those who still cling to the notion of god to see "mankind prevail" and eventually swap their unreality out for the real one, in a healthy manner ---- rather than jumping from a fire pit into a frozen lake, so to speak. A smooth transition to "reality" would be ideal, I would imagine.

But anyway ... I don't seriously think this is plausible :). Just for the sake of this thread.

[Trent Wray]

I am not sure why most people need something to call "god". Does it have to do with making one's life more meaningful, something to blame when things go wrong, something to thank when things go right? Maybe I am missing something really obvious, but I have never understood the whole concept of a "god-shaped hole in one's life". Yes.

I asked KK a few questions last night while she was posting, and in everyone of her answers I saw: "my life is depressing and full of chronic pain and going nowhere." God is her crutch, her hope that gets her through each day and takes her mind off of focussing on her misery and perhaps her loneliness and a myriad of other things. Is it ideal? No. But who is going to reach out and relieve her pain and loneliness, etc and so forth? It is essentially hoping there is "more" and that an orchestrator is behind the "more" so that something more acceptable and enjoyable can come from one's life. And there is also that sense of "suffering in vain." If someone is suffering day in and day out, and has no nurturing aspect to their lives, it could seem almost meaningless to continue suffering. Especially if you lack an understanding of valuing your own life, or valuing another's, etc and so forth. A sense of justice can bring a person hope, "I am not suffering for nothing. I can still contribute and God will recognize me."

I don't think everyone needs to have an invisible god/lover/protector/nurturer/judge/justice emitter, etc and so forth. But it's a coping mechanism I think that can prove very useful. The danger, though, is placing hopes and such on unrealistic goals and expectations. That can be bad outcome of using god as a crutch, because you never end up walking at all as your hopes become too much of a ridiculous fantasy (i.e. the mother ship will rapture me out of this war).

And then of course there are those who seek power and manipulation and use god as an excuse to meet out their own cruelty on others, need for control, whatever. I'm not really talking about those types though.

ETA: and in my opinion, the need for "god" stems not only from the need we have for certain amounts and type of societal support and nurturing, but also authority figures. Parents play a role, siblings play a role, friendships, bf/gf, husbands wives, mentors and proteges, etc and so forth. I think many people use god to fill those roles they lack in their lives and/or need and want. And of course, the sad part comes when they actually have "good" parents/spouses/etc ... yet they still use "god" to trump the real person in their life ...

[Hokulele]

I hadn't thought about the authority figure aspect, but that may be because I had good parents. I can sort of understand the "crutch" mentality, but why something discorporate and intangible? For example, philosophical Buddhism can work equally well as a crutch for dealing with misery and suffering (which is why and how it got started in the first place), but people went and added a bunch of, IMHO, unecessary supernatural garbage to Buddhism, including various gods/goddesses. As another example, there are certain parts to Jesus' message that work equally well whether or not he had any direct relationship to the Jewish god. Why add that bit in?

Why god?

[Aquila]

What is wrong with that is that language works by convention, and these aren't what is meant when the vast majority of people use the term "God". If you redefine a conventionally used term, you're in trouble. At best, you'll have to constantly make clear what you mean (as in "the Deist 'God'").

If the facts about world religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, were taught
in high schools in Europe and America (as Richard Dawkins and others have suggested) then I think we would see less of this misunderstanding over the word "God".

[Trent Wray]

I hadn't thought about the authority figure aspect, but that may be because I had good parents. I can sort of understand the "crutch" mentality, but why something discorporate and intangible? For example, philosophical Buddhism can work equally well as a crutch for dealing with misery and suffering (which is why and how it got started in the first place), but people went and added a bunch of, IMHO, unecessary supernatural garbage to Buddhism, including various gods/goddesses. As another example, there are certain parts to Jesus' message that work equally well whether or not he had any direct relationship to the Jewish god. Why add that bit in?

Why god? Because they do not have the tangible to begin with, or they do not trust it.

If you ended up alone on a deserted island, would you ever befriend a coconut?

One of the problems, imo, is that the invisible becomes the lean-on for so long, that when trustworthy and worthwhile real and tangible opportunities come a person's way, they may pass it up all together.

And as far as Buddhism, well, culture plays an aspect obviously in what kinds of god/gods/lackofgods gets added to and taken away from a set of beliefs.

I think, more or less, people needs and wants are pretty straightforward. Both the way we relate to the real world and the imaginary world we create are human's attempts to have those needs/wants fulfilled. That having been said, it's all a bunch of misdirection from whatever needs/wants are driving a person during a time of their life, imho.

[bokonon]

I am not sure why most people need something to call "god". Does it have to do with making one's life more meaningful, something to blame when things go wrong, something to thank when things go right? Maybe I am missing something really obvious, but I have never understood the whole concept of a "god-shaped hole in one's life".
From what I've seen:

More meaningful - check.
Something to blame when things go wrong - not usually. Something to please so things will get better when things go wrong, maybe.
Something to thank when things go right - check. Lots of my old Bible-belt friends on Facebook post things like "Thanks for helping me find my keys, Lord. Couldn't've done it without You! You so awesome!"

In addition, I think a lot of people get satisfaction out of the idea that there's something keeping track of all the unseen and uncelebrated goodness they do. I think I get the same satisfaction from being "good for goodness' sake", but I don't really know. Maybe if I thought I was earning brownie points on my celestial scorecard, I'd be even more full of myself.

[INRM]

I think this is a very bad idea to create an intentional falsehood, especially of this magnitude

[Marduk]

I am not sure why most people need something to call "god".

Max Von Sydow is my God
:o

[Trent Wray]

I think this is a very bad idea to create an intentional falsehood, especially of this magnitude This makes me wonder if throughout history we have had any "successful lies" on a large scale.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the facts about world religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, were taught
in high schools in Europe and America (as Richard Dawkins and others have suggested) then I think we would see less of this misunderstanding over the word "God".
Nope. I'm quite conversant with those religions, especially Buddhism.

You were asking what would be wrong with redefining the English word "God" as "zero" or "infinity" or an image or a mandala or a mathematical concept. I told you what was wrong with that. It's an abuse of language. The word "God" is not conventionally interchangeable with any of those terms or concepts you suggest.

If you want to use the word "God" to mean those other things, you'll always have to explain what you mean, because that's not what the word means conventionally.

[Lord Emsworth]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.

I'll be back.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and the truthfulness of the Bible. There is archaeological evidence, there are fulfilled prophecies, scientific facts, like the cosmological fine-tuning, the complexity of the brain and so on and so forth that cannot be explained by random chance.

Really, the sane and rational answer is already God; whereas, atheism is the mad superstition that worships random chance with Darwin, Dawkins, Stalin, and Hitler as their High Priests.


Srsly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it's not always that simple :)

To say "God doesn't exist," is fine and dandy. Until you meet the other 5.9 billion people who believe in a god. It might work fine for you, but for them it's not always so simple.

I don't follow your logic here. Surely you're not saying the number of people who believe in a proposition makes that proposition true?

But, for many it is essentially part of their reality. And for many others, it's like a drug (look at KK for example). To expect people to quit a drug cold turkey is not only unrealistic, but it's not always healthy.

Just to be clear, the "it" you're referring to here is people's belief in a proposition that is false, right? (That is, that belief is an essential part of some people's reality and is like a drug for other people--not God?)

Anyway, I think if we went around explaining why the evidence points to the fact that God doesn't exist, fewer people would become addicted, and some of those who think that belief has to be part of the reality might realize it doesn't.

I organize an atheist group, and one of the things we do is have a monthly meeting at a coffee house that's sort of like an AA meeting. Just personal sharing mostly about growing out of a religious upbringing and gradually or suddenly becoming atheist. For many of us, the example of one version or another of a Free Thinker in our lives made a huge difference.

Perhaps the most compassionate thing to do is instead of taking cigarettes out of their mouths, you remove the nicoteine (sp?) a little at a time, but let them continue smoking.
Just as a matter of fact, producing lower tar and lower nicotine cigarettes has been proven to be no solution to cigarette addiction. (Smokers tend to smoke more "lite" cigarettes and draw harder on them to get similar nicotine levels.) At any rate, your analogy is breaking down here. Wrong thinking isn't really like a physical addiction in this way. There is no point in tapering off by switching really false ideas for other false ideas.

And the best solution, it seems to me, is good education. Inventing an in-between or less objectionable God is not good education. It's merely substituting one falsehood for another.

[MattusMaximus]

We all might as well be arguing about atheists "inventing" leprechauns to "believe in"... it makes about as much sense to me.

[quarky]

Suppose there was a religion that was not incompatible with atheism; that had no tenants of alienation or racial superiority; that had the normal benefits (tax breaks,for instance) of the big religions; and had the ability to move people away from some of the more disturbing fundamentalist religions.

Wouldn't this be an improvement in the overall human condition?

(I've come down with a flu, and I'm not able to express myself well at this time.)
I don't think that pretending is the same thing as dishonesty or deception. Its more along the lines of creative adaptation...and in the case of this argument that I'm struggling with, it would clearly have the goal of an improvement over what we have.

An analogy might be this:
We are stuck with the collective harm that drug addiction brings to our world, even though we aren't addicts ourselves. To create a better drug that would lure addicts away from the nastier ones, would be an improvement. However, for this type of strategy to be effective, the new improved drug would need to remain illegal to 'convert' the junkies.

[Sledge]

An analogy might be this:
We are stuck with the collective harm that drug addiction brings to our world, even though we aren't addicts ourselves. To create a better drug that would lure addicts away from the nastier ones, would be an improvement. However, for this type of strategy to be effective, the new improved drug would need to remain illegal to 'convert' the junkies.
That analogy is terrible. Why would the drug need to remain illegal? Addicts aren't mainlining heroin to "stick it to the man."

[Trent Wray]

I don't follow your logic here. Surely you're not saying the number of people who believe in a proposition makes that proposition true? That's not what I'm saying at all. Although this response is something that I don't understand ... it's very similar to the response I get from a believer when I say, "no, i don't believe the bible is the word of god," and they look at me as though I'm suggesting there is no god ..... it's almost impossible for them not to make the jump in their minds from point A to point C.

I'm not suggesting the total number of believers in a thing makes it true. I'm saying it's a part of reality though, that has to be dealt with. If one little girl believes pink unicorns exist and communicate to her via telepathy, that is her reality. It's not the other 6 billion peoples, but it's hers. Perhaps only her parents will have to deal with that "reality" she faces, and find a way for her to cope and themselves to cope as well. Hopefully that illusion will resolve at some point. However when the majority believe in some form of collective illusion, it effects those who don't. It only makes it "real" in as much as it is something you have to deal with, in-spite of it being an illusion.

Just to be clear, the "it" you're referring to here is people's belief in a proposition that is false, right? (That is, that belief is an essential part of some people's reality and is like a drug for other people--not God?) Yes that's what I'm saying. But why is it so important for you to make the distinction .... you personally?

Look .... I kind of view this issue like perhaps, a "TV profiler" would. When I'm dealing with believers, I find it more useful to "get inside their heads,", put myself in their shoes, stare down the same darkness they are to understand why they are doing it, etc and so forth. This isn't true of every believer I come in contact with, obviously, but those that are close to me or part of my family or those I love very much I do try and consider in this way. Rather than just drawing a line in the sand, I try to understand why they're standing on their side of a line they have drawn, content to be adversarial over an invisible illusion. When I walk that line, I wonder at the same time why atheists are content to stand on their side as well. I understand why if it comes down to strangers, or violence and oppression (i.e. Crusades, etc) ..... BUT ....... when it comes to those you care for, I understand less and I'm not sure how to reconcile the two sides, if they are even reconcialable (sp) in the first place.

Anyway, I think if we went around explaining why the evidence points to the fact that God doesn't exist, fewer people would become addicted, and some of those who think that belief has to be part of the reality might realize it doesn't. Sure this might work, but I can't envision that happening more efficiently than giving addicts some methadone in exchange for their heroin on a mass scale. Converting a large population to a common enemy, a common god, a common antiGod etc and so forth can be a great tactic for promoting unity and a unidirectional growth.

I organize an atheist group, and one of the things we do is have a monthly meeting at a coffee house that's sort of like an AA meeting. Just personal sharing mostly about growing out of a religious upbringing and gradually or suddenly becoming atheist. For many of us, the example of one version or another of a Free Thinker in our lives made a huge difference. Okay ..... you're actually defining why I would consider a world-wide "god swap" a decent idea.

The need for fellowship amongst like minded, group support, group growth, community, etc and so forth. Many of you had a free thinker IN YOUR LIVES that helped to make the difference for you .... and this helped to lead you out of the delusion, into a reality where others were experiencing the same thing.

What about those who do not have a "guide" to help them? Are they just SOL? And you can say, "well ... the evidence is everywhere. All they have to do is google," ... but you're taking for granted one of the basic, fundamental reasons the average believer believes what they do in the first place. TRUST. They trust those who have told them the lie, or they trust the lie and therefore those who reinforce it, etc and so forth. If they had a free-thinker in their lives, perhaps they did not TRUST them. You were lucky, perhaps, if you had a trustworthy free-thinker who helped to guide you.

Are you going to be willing to help earn the trust of those who are essentially huddling in a dark corner, clinging to their illusion out of fear for reality? Probably not. You would probably do what most of us would do .... focus on our loved ones and try to be a "good example" on some level to the rest.

But when 5.9 billion people in the world (estimate for effect) are all huddling in the same corner, reinforcing each other's illusion, trying to live by a reality where the guides are untrustworthy in their eyes, it becomes a very difficult task for the "guides". It's like trying to rescue a jew from a concentration camp, or keep one safe from being taken into one. What if you could send a "flyer" into the camp which would be easily snuck past the guards, and help "transform" those in the camp to eventually organize themselves on a mass-scale and free themselves much quicker ..... helping to prevent generations of children from having to wait on their "trustworthy guide" to come along and lead them out into reality?

It is more or less a moral/ethical issue, not a logical one .... and thus we have differing sides. And it greatly depends on your POV of the believers .... are they the victims in the camps, or are they the oppressive Nazis?

Just as a matter of fact, producing lower tar and lower nicotine cigarettes has been proven to be no solution to cigarette addiction. (Smokers tend to smoke more "lite" cigarettes and draw harder on them to get similar nicotine levels.) At any rate, your analogy is breaking down here. Wrong thinking isn't really like a physical addiction in this way. There is no point in tapering off by switching really false ideas for other false ideas. My analogy was off the cuff and not dependent upon the actual data supporting ciagrette addiction :). And it only breaks down depending on your POV of wrong thinking.

And the best solution, it seems to me, is good education. Inventing an in-between or less objectionable God is not good education. It's merely substituting one falsehood for another. Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a complicated issue. It is easy to claim what works for one person, when that thing is what worked for you. But we do not all work the same :)

[bruto]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and the truthfulness of the Bible. There is archaeological evidence, there are fulfilled prophecies, scientific facts, like the cosmological fine-tuning, the complexity of the brain and so on and so forth that cannot be explained by random chance.

Really, the sane and rational answer is already God; whereas, atheism is the mad superstition that worships random chance with Darwin, Dawkins, Stalin, and Hitler as their High Priests.


Srsly.I find almost everything in the above post arguable at best, ridiculous at worst, and yet it might well serve as the best counter-argument yet against the original post.

Quarky, Lord Emsworth is utterly convinced that his belief is true. Lord Emsworth does not want an easy lie or a nicer story. Your proposal is an insult to theists, that they should be so shallow, and to atheists that they should stoop so low.

[Trent Wray]

I find almost everything in the above post arguable at best, ridiculous at worst, and yet it might well serve as the best counter-argument yet against the original post.

Quarky, Lord Emsworth is utterly convinced that his belief is true. Lord Emsworth does not want an easy lie or a nicer story. Your proposal is an insult to theists, that they should be so shallow, and to atheists that they should stoop so low. Ah, but what about the shallow believers and atheists :). The "middle class" of the lot, who aren't fundie minded atheists or fundie minded believers, but can afford to play with the rules of the road because perhaps they value something above and beyond both pov ...

[bruto]

Ah, but what about the shallow believers and atheists :). The "middle class" of the lot, who aren't fundie minded atheists or fundie minded believers, but can afford to play with the rules of the road because perhaps they value something above and beyond both pov ...I'm not sure I understand your point. You seem to imply that those whose beliefs are not at one or the other extreme would be more willing to accept convenient lies. I am willing to believe that they might be more willing to accept reason and argument, but I fail to see how this makes them any less inclined to seek what they believe to be true, rather than what they believe to be comfortable, pretty or fashionable. Not to say there aren't plenty of shallow people of shallow faith out there, and no doubt they're already willing to follow whatever lies and silliness they find to their taste, but joining the charlatans, opportunists and liars who already manipulate them would have little effect on those who are more careful about what they think and believe.

[Trent Wray]

I'm not sure I understand your point. You seem to imply that those whose beliefs are not at one or the other extreme would be more willing to accept convenient lies. I am willing to believe that they might be more willing to accept reason and argument, but I fail to see how this makes them any less inclined to seek what they believe to be true, rather than what they believe to be comfortable, pretty or fashionable. Not to say there aren't plenty of shallow people of shallow faith out there, and no doubt they're already willing to follow whatever lies and silliness they find to their taste, but joining the charlatans, opportunists and liars who already manipulate them would have little effect on those who are more careful about what they think and believe. My point I was trying to make is best addressed in what I highlighted above. Let me explain.

In my own experience (with both myself and others I've known), I find that those in the "middle" are looking for what they believe to be true. Indeed. But often times, I think what they are looking for is not found completely either in the "silliness" they choose to believe or the "objective reality" they acknowledge and see. They are actually looking for "something more" and are not content to be at one extreme or the other because that "something more" is not to be found there, at least in their minds.

A good example of this would be love.

If I adhere to a strict standard of "no falsehoods", I am likely to act in an unloving way towards others at some point. My children perhaps, a family member, etc and so forth. In fact, I posted this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165973) to see at what point the truth/lie no longer mattered to an unbeliever, and found the results to be wonderful, imo. Many unbelievers claimed they would lie through their teeth to comfort a dying loved one, etc and so forth. I personally think this is loving and compassionate. And although love and compassion may be subjective, for me, it is a "higher truth" that can prevail over fact/opinion, atheism/theism, etc and so forth. I've found that placing love above truth/lie at many points in my life to be beneficial for both myself and others. Not always though ... there is a risk involved.

Likewise, a believer who adheres to "no falsehoods" would most likely do something unloving and un-compassionate as well. Obviously :) Especially taken to murderous extremes, of course. I asked many believers the same scenario/question that the thread I linked to in this post asked, and most of them said they would tell their dying friend whatever they believed to be true, regardless of whether or not it comforted them. To me, this shows a lack of compassion and love. To tell your own dying child in their final moments that you believe they might go to hell ... is beyond repulsive to me. However, one of those same people that answered this way, regularly, bends and breaks their own "spiritual rules" not just for themselves, but out of "love" for their children on a daily basis.

And so, imo, what I found was that in many ways nonbelievers showed a love and compassion towards people in opposite ways situationally that a believer did. It is almost like peaks and troughs, canceling each other out when compared to each other per circumstance (I'm over generalizing of course).

So .... I see the middle ground people who aren't sitting at the extremes more willing to bend the truth and accept lies and play within the confines of objective/subjective because perhaps they are searching for a "higher truth". Love, peace, hippy stuff, etc and so forth. The charlatans come along and try to manipulate them, often occupying the same territory. It would be harder to manipulate those at the extremes .... because they are already "set". But if those in the middle could perhaps form a sort of common ground, or compromise .... then perhaps a "higher truth" could be attained. One that pleases the ethics and morality of both believers and non. For now, though, I don't see the "need for god" going away in many people's lives quickly. But to take steps in that direction, baby steps might need to be taken. Idk. Just my op :)

[JimBrown257]

I have a suggestion for this new god you propose making up: One thing that all the other ten million made-up gods have lacked is a cool car of vehicle of some sort. All the great made-up characters have cool vehicles. Batman had the Batmobile, Knight-Rider had Kitt, Kevin Costner had that awesome sailboat in Waterworld. If Jesus had a badass corvette that could go under water and had machine-gun turrets I might have been able to buy into the whole christianity thing as a child.

I mean, if you are going to make up another god to plague mankind with, start endless wars over and encourage superstition and ignorance, you should at least make up one that they can make cool action movies about.

[Hokulele]

Suppose there was a religion that was not incompatible with atheism; that had no tenants of alienation or racial superiority; that had the normal benefits (tax breaks,for instance) of the big religions; and had the ability to move people away from some of the more disturbing fundamentalist religions.


This matches all but the last statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[bruto]

My point I was trying to make is best addressed in what I highlighted above. Let me explain.

In my own experience (with both myself and others I've known), I find that those in the "middle" are looking for what they believe to be true. Indeed. But often times, I think what they are looking for is not found completely either in the "silliness" they choose to believe or the "objective reality" they acknowledge and see. They are actually looking for "something more" and are not content to be at one extreme or the other because that "something more" is not to be found there, at least in their minds.

A good example of this would be love.

If I adhere to a strict standard of "no falsehoods", I am likely to act in an unloving way towards others at some point. My children perhaps, a family member, etc and so forth. In fact, I posted this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165973) to see at what point the truth/lie no longer mattered to an unbeliever, and found the results to be wonderful, imo. Many unbelievers claimed they would lie through their teeth to comfort a dying loved one, etc and so forth. I personally think this is loving and compassionate. And although love and compassion may be subjective, for me, it is a "higher truth" that can prevail over fact/opinion, atheism/theism, etc and so forth. I've found that placing love above truth/lie at many points in my life to be beneficial for both myself and others. Not always though ... there is a risk involved.

Likewise, a believer who adheres to "no falsehoods" would most likely do something unloving and un-compassionate as well. Obviously :) Especially taken to murderous extremes, of course. I asked many believers the same scenario/question that the thread I linked to in this post asked, and most of them said they would tell their dying friend whatever they believed to be true, regardless of whether or not it comforted them. To me, this shows a lack of compassion and love. To tell your own dying child in their final moments that you believe they might go to hell ... is beyond repulsive to me. However, one of those same people that answered this way, regularly, bends and breaks their own "spiritual rules" not just for themselves, but out of "love" for their children on a daily basis.

And so, imo, what I found was that in many ways nonbelievers showed a love and compassion towards people in opposite ways situationally that a believer did. It is almost like peaks and troughs, canceling each other out when compared to each other per circumstance (I'm over generalizing of course).

So .... I see the middle ground people who aren't sitting at the extremes more willing to bend the truth and accept lies and play within the confines of objective/subjective because perhaps they are searching for a "higher truth". Love, peace, hippy stuff, etc and so forth. The charlatans come along and try to manipulate them, often occupying the same territory. It would be harder to manipulate those at the extremes .... because they are already "set". But if those in the middle could perhaps form a sort of common ground, or compromise .... then perhaps a "higher truth" could be attained. One that pleases the ethics and morality of both believers and non. For now, though, I don't see the "need for god" going away in many people's lives quickly. But to take steps in that direction, baby steps might need to be taken. Idk. Just my op :)

You seem to be confusing discretion in human relations with a willingness to accept false beliefs as if they were true, and equating the questions of faith that most people would consider central to the meaning of their lives with the little white lies we tell to make social discourse more convenient. I suppose there are some people who find no difference there, but I would suggest that their beliefs are so transient and trivial that they need not be addressed with any more thoughtful response than "************."

[PixyMisa]

I've asked this question before, on different threads, but what is wrong in defining God by the word "zero" or "infinity", or representing the idea with a picture, mandala or mathematical symbol?
It's meaningless drivel, that's what's wrong.

[Trent Wray]

You seem to be confusing discretion in human relations with a willingness to accept false beliefs as if they were true, and equating the questions of faith that most people would consider central to the meaning of their lives with the little white lies we tell to make social discourse more convenient. I suppose there are some people who find no difference there, but I would suggest that their beliefs are so transient and trivial that they need not be addressed with any more thoughtful response than "************." What I'm saying is that human's can be confused about what is actually central to their faith in the first place, and they confuse the difference between those little white lies with the bigger ones. The fundie might see no difference in any type of lie, but there are different types of lies. The mistake many make is they attach the transient and trivial to the central meaning, and so to call it ************ goes right down the nerve system of the trivial to what isn't trivial. And thus, I got the response I did from you LOL :)

[blobru]

Suppose there was a religion that was not incompatible with atheism; that had no tenants of alienation or racial superiority; that had the normal benefits (tax breaks,for instance) of the big religions; and had the ability to move people away from some of the more disturbing fundamentalist religions.

Wouldn't this be an improvement in the overall human condition?

(I've come down with a flu, and I'm not able to express myself well at this time.)

Maybe the "god" of sneezes? Gesundheitism (sorry you're sick, quarky). :o

I don't think that pretending is the same thing as dishonesty or deception. Its more along the lines of creative adaptation...and in the case of this argument that I'm struggling with, it would clearly have the goal of an improvement over what we have.

I think liberal branches of traditional religions are already trending in this direction: once you stress that some of it's a myth, folks are free to pick and choose whatever bits they want; the bible [for one] becomes a sort of tarot deck, taking its cues from the reader's life and self-examination. As most folks are pretty decent, they tend to zero in on beneficial messages of charity, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. This fragmentation and dilution of modern religion into individual belief systems seems a big improvement, social adaptation, perhaps; so I'm not sure we need to reframe and repackage it (even if we somehow were able to).

An analogy might be this:
We are stuck with the collective harm that drug addiction brings to our world, even though we aren't addicts ourselves. To create a better drug that would lure addicts away from the nastier ones, would be an improvement. However, for this type of strategy to be effective, the new improved drug would need to remain illegal to 'convert' the junkies.

OTOH, liberal religions might not appeal much to fundamentalists, eh? A god that was fundamentally inclusive, accepting all behaviour except cruelty and intolerance, would sure be a nice change; however, the appeal of an exclusive, intolerant, punitive god may go deeper than rational argument, even in the mouth of a new and improved opposite god, could ever reach.

[Trent Wray]

the bible [for one] becomes a sort of tarot deck, taking its cues from the reader's life and self-examination. As most folks are pretty decent, they tend to zero in on beneficial messages of charity, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. This fragmentation and dilution of modern religion into individual belief systems seems a big improvement, social adaptation, perhaps; so I'm not sure we need to reframe and repackage it (even if we somehow were able to). Interesting idea, the bible as a tarot deck ...

[devnull]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and the truthfulness of the Bible. There is archaeological evidence, there are fulfilled prophecies, scientific facts, like the cosmological fine-tuning, the complexity of the brain and so on and so forth that cannot be explained by random chance.

Really, the sane and rational answer is already God; whereas, atheism is the mad superstition that worships random chance with Darwin, Dawkins, Stalin, and Hitler as their High Priests.


Srsly.

Rbbsh.

[Eddie Dane]

People create gods that fit their opinions, or they choose a god that is designed for their market segment.

Look, an Afghani dirt-farmer believes in Allah. And he knows which opinions Allah has on a number of issues. Now by some incredible coincidence, the opinions of the dirt-farmer and Allah overlap entirely.
The dirt-farmer knows that he and Allah agree on women, homosexuality, tradition, pork etc etc. etc.
It never occurs to him that God might have a slightly bigger horizon and would thus be more likely to hold opinions of a someone with a higher education.

Also, your idea has been tried during the French revolution.
That means it was backed up by a political group with great control over society and near genocidal violence.

These are usually factors that make religion a success story.

[quarky]

That analogy is terrible. Why would the drug need to remain illegal? Addicts aren't mainlining heroin to "stick it to the man."

It wasn't a great analogy, but the drug would need to remain illegal so that its converts needn't see a doctor to obtain it. A decent doctor would necessarily prescribe in a rational manner, which would be alienating to the junkie's inclinations.



Back to the o.p.:

A fantasy meme or mental construct with a consensus is not necessarily a non-real thing. For an atheist to be able to embrace such a thing wouldn't imply an abandonment of logic or a plunge into deception.

True, though, that the idea would have little appeal to fundamentalists. It would, however, begin to out-number them...assuming atheists were willing to climb on board.

As it is, in the U.S. anyway, its a bit scary to even admit to being an atheist in public. What if we didn't have to, because we could claim to being theists...by way of redefining the terminology?

[Sledge]

It wasn't a great analogy, but the drug would need to remain illegal so that its converts needn't see a doctor to obtain it. A decent doctor would necessarily prescribe in a rational manner, which would be alienating to the junkie's inclinations.Then the analogy remains terrible because you haven't fully explained what you're thinking. Now the drug has to be prescribed? Why?
Back to the o.p.:

A fantasy meme or mental construct with a consensus is not necessarily a non-real thing. For an atheist to be able to embrace such a thing wouldn't imply an abandonment of logic or a plunge into deception.

True, though, that the idea would have little appeal to fundamentalists. It would, however, begin to out-number them...assuming atheists were willing to climb on board.

As it is, in the U.S. anyway, its a bit scary to even admit to being an atheist in public. What if we didn't have to, because we could claim to being theists...by way of redefining the terminology?
So this would be a way for atheists to avoid having the courage of their convictions? I'm not seeing how that's an improvement on the present situation. Atheists would still be lying about what they believe, they're just using a different lie.

[Trent Wray]

As it is, in the U.S. anyway, its a bit scary to even admit to being an atheist in public. What if we didn't have to, because we could claim to being theists...by way of redefining the terminology? Although I can understand why methadone is given to heroine addicts, and why trying to convince a patient with dementia what is "real" isn't always the most useful (and why it's more useful to create a different illusion for them sometimes) .... I don't understand the desire behind this comment. My first reaction is that it's cowardice. It doesn't appear to stem from a desire for a logical solution, rather it seems demoralizing to the atheist.

[I Am The Scum]

Here's my analogy for the thread.

Imagine I have a friend who really likes hardcore death metal. I have been tasked with buying a CD for said friend. I don't like death metal. I think it's stupid, and he'd be much happier with classic rock. So my plan is this: I will buy him an Eagles album, and, using a Sharpie, write "DEATH METAL" on the case.

The only way this can possibly work is if my friend is extremely gullible, and has an addiction to the "death metal" label, and not the music itself. If you think this is analogous to your average Christian, in that they only follow the banner of religion because there are so many other people doing it and they want to look cool, then you are the extremely gullible one.

[bruto]

Here's my analogy for the thread.

Imagine I have a friend who really likes hardcore death metal. I have been tasked with buying a CD for said friend. I don't like death metal. I think it's stupid, and he'd be much happier with classic rock. So my plan is this: I will buy him an Eagles album, and, using a Sharpie, write "DEATH METAL" on the case.

The only way this can possibly work is if my friend is extremely gullible, and has an addiction to the "death metal" label, and not the music itself. If you think this is analogous to your average Christian, in that they only follow the banner of religion because there are so many other people doing it and they want to look cool, then you are the extremely gullible one.I think you've about nailed it. Quarky seems to think that theists are so stupid and gullible that lying to them would be a favor, and Trentwray seems to believe that any hint of moderation or rationality in theism is a lapse in the quest for truth that makes them willing to accept lies as a matter of policy.

[quarky]

Hoo boy. I wish i wasn't presently ill with flu. I've dug a philosophic hole that I presently don't have the mind strength to get out of, but I assure you that its not cowardice I'm getting at here, or even deception.

Here's another analogy:
Politics.

We all have a vote. In a functioning democracy (or an idealized one) we elect a president. The superstitious and uneducated have as much influence as the intelligent.
When the enlightened, or educated don't vote, the influence of the others dominates the outcome.

The meme of god is similar. God may as well be real for those that believe. Real world effects radiate from such abstract beliefs...effects that we all have to live with, whether we believe, or not.

Atheists, perhaps wisely, have chosen not to play. Hence, our influence on the meme is non-existent. The god we end up with, unreal or not, manages to direct real peoples thoughts, desires, and even their votes.

There may as well be an actual sky-daddy, because of this influence; because of people's imaginations. Rather than playing a role in the redesign and upgrade, in a strategic manner, we can only stand back and look on in disgust, as the collective fairytale runs roughshod.

It doesn't matter if god exists or not. During an inquisition, its real enough to cause bloodshed. Furthermore, its my belief that religious leaders are mostly atheists of a very cynical sort whom use religion as a tool of manipulation. They have an upper hand over the flocks. They have un-due power to effect changes in the real world, especially in regards to after life and its various rewards and punishments.

Meanwhile, we are mostly helpless to do anything about it.
Technology certainly helps, yet in the U.S., with all our technological sophistication, there is a good chance that our next president could be elected by the collective sheep.

[Lord Emsworth]

Rbbsh.

Orly?

[Trent Wray]

I think you've about nailed it. Quarky seems to think that theists are so stupid and gullible that lying to them would be a favor, and Trentwray seems to believe that any hint of moderation or rationality in theism is a lapse in the quest for truth that makes them willing to accept lies as a matter of policy.Wrong.*







* my first one word post! except for this part of course :(

[Pup]

Real world effects radiate from such abstract beliefs...effects that we all have to live with, whether we believe, or not.

Atheists, perhaps wisely, have chosen not to play.

Since when? In fact, one can see religions slowly changing their gods in response to non-religious pressures. Gods who used to speak literally about the earth's creation, be offended by women's rights, and condone torture and slavery are changing their tunes, and becoming more metaphoric, less prejudiced and more in line with current ethics.

[bruto]

Wrong.*







* my first one word post! except for this part of course :(I should hope so, but if you mean something else you've not managed to convey it clearly.

[Trent Wray]

I should hope so, but if you mean something else you've not managed to convey it clearly. Perhaps you're not able to understand what I was trying to say :)

[godless dave]

The concept of god has had an enormous influence in our world.
If the sane and rational amongst us are able to rise above the superstitious madness, and have an influence, within the majority; i.e., the theistic, then we must create God.

To leave this task to morons is not only stupid, it is unscientific.


How do you think all these religions got started in the first place? Some well-meaning, patronizing people who thought of themselves as sane and rational thought they'd give some guidance to their less-educated, less-sophistocated brethren, and in their condescending wisdom they thought the best way to do that was to cloak it in the mythological language those people already used.

It didn't work out so well.

[godless dave]

I've asked this question before, on different threads, but what is wrong in defining God by the word "zero" or "infinity", or representing the idea with a picture, mandala or mathematical symbol?

Nothing. And if you redefine "vegetable" to include "bacon", then I eat plenty of vegetables.


There would be a small portion of the population that would reach the conclusion there is no god through critical thinking and logical thought. But, for many it is essentially part of their reality. And for many others, it's like a drug (look at KK for example). To expect people to quit a drug cold turkey is not only unrealistic, but it's not always healthy. Perhaps the most compassionate thing to do is instead of taking cigarettes out of their mouths, you remove the nicoteine (sp?) a little at a time, but let them continue smoking. Or you substitute the cigarettes with donuts or something else that is addictive in some form or fashion. In other words, you wean them.


Or, you tell them that smoking is bad for them, explain, give them examples of ways to quit, and then sit back and mind your own business while they make their own decisions about how to live their life.

I don't have the right to wean anybody off anything. I'm an adult; they're adults.

People have already invented God and the various religions. This isn't going to go away, yet it is deeply flawed. Why not improve upon it, even if it means pretending?
As it is, atheists have no 'vote', so to speak, and we must deal with the collective insanity of the faithful, even though they too are pretending.

We are like children, pretending a game with our fellows. Yet the game isn't so good.

You remember that Star Trek episode where the guy tried to use the "good" parts of Nazi practices to build a better society? You might want to watch it again.

[quarky]

Well, I didn't see the Star Trek episode, and I sure don't have Nazi sympathies.
Nor is the O.P. some sort of fanatical cause for me.
Really, it was a spur of the moment philosophical idea, which I took the chance of expressing here. When I told my wife about it this morning, she mentioned Unitarians, and wasn't that sort of what they were about? Or Quakers?

Or, more cynically, isn't this what L.Ron was up to, and isn't it simply another brand of sleeze?

Probably.

Yet, in the movies, we don't think of spies, like James Bond, pretending to be something they aren't, for the sake of avoiding nuclear war, villains. No, they are heroes.
Still, i must yield to the popular opinion here that this idea is half-baked, at best, and down right wrong at worst.

Being as I trust my own motives, I overlooked the obvious: More corruption.


I remain grateful for the responses, especially the good ones.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If one little girl believes pink unicorns exist and communicate to her via telepathy, that is her reality.
And the antecedant to "that" is the belief, not that pink unicorns are in anyway part of anyone's reality.



Yes that's what I'm saying. But why is it so important for you to make the distinction .... you personally?
Because there is a big difference between the reality of people believing things that don't exist and the reality of those things. At least twice now you worded it ambiguously. When you say X believes in something and that's part of his reality, the most logical way to parse this would be that you're claiming that what X believes is real and exists, not that the belief is real and exists.


Rather than just drawing a line in the sand, I try to understand why they're standing on their side of a line they have drawn, content to be adversarial over an invisible illusion.
That's a misrepresentation of what those of us who don't think it makes sense to invent a "God-lite" are saying. And it's presumptuous of you to imply that those of us who don't want to invent a "God-lite" or whatever don't try to understand why people believe things that aren't true.


Sure this might work, but I can't envision that happening more efficiently than giving addicts some methadone in exchange for their heroin on a mass scale.
I already addressed this. Your analogy fails because belief isn't really the same as physical addiction in this way. And if you claim it is, the analogy just masks question begging.


And what makes you think you have the power to change someone else's concept of God anyway? I think it's more honest to tell people what you believe and teach them the critical thinking skills that led you to those beliefs than to attempt to manipulate theirs. (I also think it's presumptuous and patronizing to attempt that.)


[quote]What about those who do not have a "guide" to help them? Are they just SOL?
That sounds chillingly like arguments missionaries used to make.

My analogy was off the cuff and not dependent upon the actual data supporting ciagrette addiction :). And it only breaks down depending on your POV of wrong thinking.
No. It fails because no kind of thinking or belief is actually like a physical addiction in this way. There is no evidence that any like a methadone treatment for beliefs would work. (And again, if you claim it's so, you're just begging the question.)

In fact, it sounds like you're proposing some sort of deprogramming or re-eduction program. I prefer to let people think for themselves. So I voice my own ideas and opinions, but I let them take responsibility for their own ideas and opinion.

It is easy to claim what works for one person, when that thing is what worked for you. But we do not all work the same :)
All the more reason not to invent your God-lite as a methadone treatment for God-addicts. It seems to me your approach presumes that people all work the same.

And by the way, to make the analogy more accurate: you don't detox a heroine addict with heroine. Yet you're proposing to cure God-addicts by keeping them addicted to a different idea of God.

[Trent Wray]

Because there is a big difference .... *polite snip* And by the way, to make the analogy more accurate: you don't detox a heroine addict with heroine. Yet you're proposing to cure God-addicts by keeping them addicted to a different idea of God. Summary ---- we disagree on certain points. You are presuming things in what I said, claiming I'm being presumptuous, etc and so forth. I'm not saying what a believer believe is real ... only that their belief itself is real. I was also more or less being a devil's advocate anyhow, as I don't personally believe it would be ethical to create a "new god" for believers to herd them in a new, deluded direction. BUT ... I can see how one could see it as advantageous for certain types of believers.

That is why I still like the heroine/methadone analogy. I have experienced those who are "addicted" to their beliefs and they have looked to me to help them out. What never worked was trying to get them to quit cold turkey and being an example that existed on the other side of the tracks from them. What did work was slowly allowing a progression out, almost holding their hand over time like someone going through withdrawls. Now I didn't give them "a new god" to replace their old one. But what I did do was work within their framework, belief, and reference as though it were more or less real .... working backwards from that. So in some ways, it was like helping to "deprogram" someone.

And yes, the key was that these individuals looked to me for assistance. I did not hunt them down, scheme a way to impose what I thought they needed to think on them, etc and so forth. I was not an "atheistic missionary" out looking to convert others experimentally.

But, like I said, I can see how someone could see a benefit behind the idea of creating a god to herd others in the direction they want to go. However, and if I was being the devil's advocate before I am not here: I think it is unethical to manipulate others against their will. I know and understand that various forms of manipulation are inescapable in society ... but to purposely set out and attempt to do what the OP proposed is unethical imo. If a group of people want to get together and create a lie for themselves, let them do it in the privacy of their own cult. But to impose it on others who never asked for it in the first place just because they are gullible enough to be tricked is what a snake oil salesman does :)

And yet there is still that line we come to where ideals meet reality ...

[blobru]

... Still, i must yield to the popular opinion here that this idea is half-baked, at best, and down right wrong at worst.

Being as I trust my own motives, I overlooked the obvious: More corruption.

I remain grateful for the responses, especially the good ones.


Well, quarky, I enjoyed it, whatever your motives, as a little utopia-building, which is basic to philosophy. If theism is inevitable (never mind whether it is or not), what sort of god would be best (produce the best society)? Nothing wrong with that as a thought experiment. It may not be practical (utopias as a rule aren't), but that's not how you do philosophy, necessarily. Define "god", define "best" (enlightened?), then have a go: see where your definitions lead.

Every utopia, if that's what you're after (approximately), has to come up with a way to eliminate conflict. One cause of conflict is, arguably, religion. So, by various means, utopias transform religion, and the object of religion [the 'addiction', in your analogy]: some rationalize it (excise those parts which cause conflict, else institute a Noble Lie); some transform it (replace God with Reason, Beauty, Love, Pleasure, Duty, Wisdom, what have you); some perfect it (unite everyone under The Only True God[s]); some eliminate it (assume it'll wither away, or outlaw it); etc. The best solution so far, though it's far from ideal here in the real world, appears to be to ignore it: to let people believe what they want individually; and keep 'utopia' (secular democracy, as close as we're likely to get anytime soon, or ever) collectively free of its potential for cruelty and intolerance.

Are there better solutions? More enlightened gods / religions / utopias? Can't think of any offhand. But it never hurts [too much] to ask. If there was 'corruption', eh... it may have been in assuming (hoping?) this might all be practical somehow. That's no way to run a utopia. ;)

[godless dave]

Well, I didn't see the Star Trek episode, and I sure don't have Nazi sympathies.
Nor is the O.P. some sort of fanatical cause for me.
Really, it was a spur of the moment philosophical idea, which I took the chance of expressing here. When I told my wife about it this morning, she mentioned Unitarians, and wasn't that sort of what they were about? Or Quakers?


And Jesus. And Mohammed. And Buddha. All created religions that degenerated into the same old superstitious claptrap in no more than two hundred years, usually less.

[quarky]

I live in the bible belt. To not belong to a church; to not be a Baptist here is very alienating. There is no chance of holding an office or being hired to teach. Its rather intimidating, yet one doesn't want to roll over and play dead.

I certainly get the feeling that many of the theists in my area, and possibly most of the men, are simply going along with the program because its too big to fight.
My atheism is equated with immorality, though I don't have an inner sense of immorality anymore than the locals have an innate inner morality.

Its quite frustrating. I know people that have simply caved in; they pretend at theism to get along. Perhaps I'm looking for a less distasteful compromise.
Obviously, I don't have a plan.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the local collective mind-set is political:
The church people overwhelmingly vote the same, usually against their self interests.

I feel rather helpless in this game. Hence, this thread.

[Trent Wray]

I live in the bible belt. To not belong to a church; to not be a Baptist here is very alienating. There is no chance of holding an office or being hired to teach. Its rather intimidating, yet one doesn't want to roll over and play dead.

I certainly get the feeling that many of the theists in my area, and possibly most of the men, are simply going along with the program because its too big to fight.
My atheism is equated with immorality, though I don't have an inner sense of immorality anymore than the locals have an innate inner morality.

Its quite frustrating. I know people that have simply caved in; they pretend at theism to get along. Perhaps I'm looking for a less distasteful compromise.
Obviously, I don't have a plan.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the local collective mind-set is political:
The church people overwhelmingly vote the same, usually against their self interests.

I feel rather helpless in this game. Hence, this thread. That's a tough place to be at.

I could easily tell you to "move". But, why should you have to move? If you love your home, and there are things there you value, why should you have to move? You shouldn't.

And yet .... if you feel alienated, and that alienation is overwhelming you or getting the best of you .... then perhaps you should move to somewhere less oppressive. I think it all depends on what is most important to you. And the things that are most important to us change over time.

What is most important to you, right now in your life? Why should you stay and why should you move? What are your options?

If you are drawn to the people who alienate you, why? This is perhaps the toughest one ... when we care about others who crap on us. There is a time when this is worth sacrificing for, and there is a time when it is not, imo. And it all depends, for me at least, on how I define sacrifice.

[quarky]

Yeah, moving to a hipper zone is an obvious cure. So far, I haven't because I've spent the last 20 years building a homestead which is absolutely gorgeous. House and land are paid for; the place borders a fabulous river and is surrounded by 2000 acres of unspoiled hardwood forest.

Also, my wife's family is here, and I'm getting too old to start over. There's also a bit of a feeling that giving up on a backward area is like losing a battle, or abandoning having any positive influence.

Wouldn't mind doing a home swap for awhile though.
Thanks for your words, Trentway.
You're an interesting chap.

[Trent Wray]

Yeah, moving to a hipper zone is an obvious cure. So far, I haven't because I've spent the last 20 years building a homestead which is absolutely gorgeous. House and land are paid for; the place borders a fabulous river and is surrounded by 2000 acres of unspoiled hardwood forest.

Also, my wife's family is here, and I'm getting too old to start over. There's also a bit of a feeling that giving up on a backward area is like losing a battle, or abandoning having any positive influence.

Wouldn't mind doing a home swap for awhile though.
Thanks for your words, Trentway.
You're an interesting chap. My pleasure :)

[blobru]

I live in the bible belt. To not belong to a church; to not be a Baptist here is very alienating. There is no chance of holding an office or being hired to teach. Its rather intimidating, yet one doesn't want to roll over and play dead.

I certainly get the feeling that many of the theists in my area, and possibly most of the men, are simply going along with the program because its too big to fight.
My atheism is equated with immorality, though I don't have an inner sense of immorality anymore than the locals have an innate inner morality.

Its quite frustrating. I know people that have simply caved in; they pretend at theism to get along. Perhaps I'm looking for a less distasteful compromise.
Obviously, I don't have a plan.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the local collective mind-set is political:
The church people overwhelmingly vote the same, usually against their self interests.

I feel rather helpless in this game. Hence, this thread.


quarky, I misread your motives earlier. Sorry about that. This is obviously more than just an academic exercise. Which means I probably won't have much if any practical advice to offer. I tend to suck at things that aren't academic exercises. However:

It seems to me you're looking for a way to say the word "God" with enough conviction to convince your neighbors (not that you're a baptist, necessarily, but that you share a lot of the same core [human moral] values). Well, if they really won't listen unless you say it, and it's that important to you they do listen, I wonder if a private substitution trick might help, such as Einstein, who had a religious awe at the observation of order in nature, used to do when he talked about "God" (and meant order in nature). What fills you with awe? Nature, order, imagination, life, humor, kindness...? What if when neighbors get to talking about God and it's your turn: "darn right I believe in God [nature]! and that Jesus is the son of God [imagination]; and in my way, I pray to God [humor] everyday." They hear you say the word, and feel more in common with you; you say the word, and even if dodging a bit, mean approximately what they do most of the time: outside the church, that is, in their day-to-day lives. Maybe you won't be attending services together, but you might get an invitation to the church picnic. Where the pie and chicken can almost make you a believer, if you're not careful.

Anyway, I have very little expectation this is a workable plan, and less that you will ever try it. As I said, I suck at this. I basically just wanted to say hi, and hope you're over your flu. :)

[quarky]

quarky, I misread your motives earlier. Sorry about that. This is obviously more than just an academic exercise. Which means I probably won't have much if any practical advice to offer. I tend to suck at things that aren't academic exercises. However:

It seems to me you're looking for a way to say the word "God" with enough conviction to convince your neighbors (not that you're a baptist, necessarily, but that you share a lot of the same core [human moral] values). Well, if they really won't listen unless you say it, and it's that important to you they do listen, I wonder if a private substitution trick might help, such as Einstein, who had a religious awe at the observation of order in nature, used to do when he talked about "God" (and meant order in nature). What fills you with awe? Nature, order, imagination, life, humor, kindness...? What if when neighbors get to talking about God and it's your turn: "darn right I believe in God [nature]! and that Jesus is the son of God [imagination]; and in my way, I pray to God [humor] everyday." They hear you say the word, and feel more in common with you; you say the word, and even if dodging a bit, mean approximately what they do most of the time: outside the church, that is, in their day-to-day lives. Maybe you won't be attending services together, but you might get an invitation to the church picnic. Where the pie and chicken can almost make you a believer, if you're not careful.

Anyway, I have very little expectation this is a workable plan, and less that you will ever try it. As I said, I suck at this. I basically just wanted to say hi, and hope you're over your flu. :)

You're a sweetheart. As you may have noticed, I'm not spiritually bankrupt nor lacking in humor. But I'm talking about Biblical literalists here. You know; like these 250 million year old fossils in my creek were put here, by god, 5000 years ago...to test our faith, or confuse us, or make idiots of us. The mindset of limiting the wonder of life; of reality, for the sake of not going against the vague and edited words of the freaking Bible!

For reasons I also don't understand, this also implies hating gays, blacks, and now, even Latinos, as they have moved into the hillbilly country to do the horrible manuel labor of growing tobacco and gutting chickens in the Cagle's factory.

Otoh, these salt of the earth sorts, mostly uneducated, are quite wonderful when encountered one by one. Its the collective influence that is disturbing, and it boils down to the damn bible.

The back roads of Appalachia have billboards with big warning signs:
Jesus is coming, and he pretty much hates guys like you and me.
These signs, in case you haven't seen them, have big clocks; a minute from midnight.

How this all translates into the local mind is rather irrational, but we're pretty sure that we hate Obama and other commies; fags; liberals; vegetarians; small cars, etc. My county had the highest % of Bush votes in the country; twice. Because Jesus. And abortions. And them trying to take our guns.

And so forth.

yet, they will grow your food and fix your car for cheap and call you "honey" at the diner. There's some innocence in it. I actually get along fine with them, but mostly because I don't bust their asses or get involved in political discussions; I'm not dark skinned or gay; I keep to myself.

Strange world.

[tsig]

You're a sweetheart. As you may have noticed, I'm not spiritually bankrupt nor lacking in humor. But I'm talking about Biblical literalists here. You know; like these 250 million year old fossils in my creek were put here, by god, 5000 years ago...to test our faith, or confuse us, or make idiots of us. The mindset of limiting the wonder of life; of reality, for the sake of not going against the vague and edited words of the freaking Bible!

For reasons I also don't understand, this also implies hating gays, blacks, and now, even Latinos, as they have moved into the hillbilly country to do the horrible manuel labor of growing tobacco and gutting chickens in the Cagle's factory.

Otoh, these salt of the earth sorts, mostly uneducated, are quite wonderful when encountered one by one. Its the collective influence that is disturbing, and it boils down to the damn bible.

The back roads of Appalachia have billboards with big warning signs:
Jesus is coming, and he pretty much hates guys like you and me.
These signs, in case you haven't seen them, have big clocks; a minute from midnight.

How this all translates into the local mind is rather irrational, but we're pretty sure that we hate Obama and other commies; fags; liberals; vegetarians; small cars, etc. My county had the highest % of Bush votes in the country; twice. Because Jesus. And abortions. And them trying to take our guns.

And so forth.

yet, they will grow your food and fix your car for cheap and call you "honey" at the diner. There's some innocence in it. I actually get along fine with them, but mostly because I don't bust their asses or get involved in political discussions; I'm not dark skinned or gay; I keep to myself.

Strange world.

Stay out of corn fields.

[Trent Wray]

You're a sweetheart. As you may have noticed, I'm not spiritually bankrupt nor lacking in humor. But I'm talking about Biblical literalists here. You know; like these 250 million year old fossils in my creek were put here, by god, 5000 years ago...to test our faith, or confuse us, or make idiots of us. The mindset of limiting the wonder of life; of reality, for the sake of not going against the vague and edited words of the freaking Bible!

For reasons I also don't understand, this also implies hating gays, blacks, and now, even Latinos, as they have moved into the hillbilly country to do the horrible manuel labor of growing tobacco and gutting chickens in the Cagle's factory.

Otoh, these salt of the earth sorts, mostly uneducated, are quite wonderful when encountered one by one. Its the collective influence that is disturbing, and it boils down to the damn bible.

The back roads of Appalachia have billboards with big warning signs:
Jesus is coming, and he pretty much hates guys like you and me.
These signs, in case you haven't seen them, have big clocks; a minute from midnight.

How this all translates into the local mind is rather irrational, but we're pretty sure that we hate Obama and other commies; fags; liberals; vegetarians; small cars, etc. My county had the highest % of Bush votes in the country; twice. Because Jesus. And abortions. And them trying to take our guns.

And so forth.

yet, they will grow your food and fix your car for cheap and call you "honey" at the diner. There's some innocence in it. I actually get along fine with them, but mostly because I don't bust their asses or get involved in political discussions; I'm not dark skinned or gay; I keep to myself.

Strange world. You know, that is one of the scariest things to me about living in the South, personally ---- that strange, otherworldly dichotomy that goes on. One moment you're talking to someone who is extremely polite, thoughtful, going out of their way for you. The next moment they're telling you, "Oh yeah, I had the best tasting watermelon the other day. Bought it from some colored folks down the road. Couldn't believe how tasty it was, considering." And yes, I had that conversation not to long ago.

Last year, I was talking with a young Indian girl during India's Independence Day equivalent, and I asked her what her anthem sounded like. She began to sing it softly, when an old coot of a gentleman walked up and told her the only song she should be singing were english songs. When I told him what she was singing, he said she should only sing our anthem or get out. He then asked nicely where the coffee was! I gave him some attitude back (which made things worse) and then he mentioned how he had served tours in the war for our freedom, and told us if we didn't like his attitude, he had a gun in his truck outside. I put the ahole in his place and called security.

It's like living in a bizzaro world, watching people switch between polite citizens to Nazi zombies oblivious to the value of human beings.

[quarky]

for what its worth, I had a neighbor that hates Negroes, eve though he's never known one.
I had a black friend over, a marine at that, and this neighbor showed up.

His innate politeness and friendliness ruled the moment. He knew how to behave. The negro hating nonsense gave him no quarter.

If it had been 4 of them, drunk, possibly different.
We look for avenues to express our hate, in a socially acceptable way. In a loving way, even.

Ain't it strange.

[Trent Wray]

for what its worth, I had a neighbor that hates Negroes, eve though he's never known one.
I had a black friend over, a marine at that, and this neighbor showed up.

His innate politeness and friendliness ruled the moment. He knew how to behave. The negro hating nonsense gave him no quarter.

If it had been 4 of them, drunk, possibly different.
We look for avenues to express our hate, in a socially acceptable way. In a loving way, even.

Ain't it strange. You see, this kind of behavior would not be tolerated at Disney World :)

[blobru]

You see, this kind of behavior would not be tolerated at Disney World :)


Hey... maybe... a revival of the Mickey Mouse Club, :idea: but with an appalachian mascot instead! would straighten folks out:

Who's the leader of the hicks
that praise minorities?
H-I-double L B-I-double L Y-G-O-A-T
Hillbilly Goat, :goat (we're him and he's us!)
Hillbilly Goat, :goat (better than Jesus!!!)
forever let us wave the klan good-bye... :ghost:

Then again, maybe not (I really do suck at advice). :(

[Trent Wray]

Hey... maybe... a revival of the Mickey Mouse Club, :idea: but with an appalachian mascot instead! would straighten folks out:

Who's the leader of the hicks
that praise minorities?
H-I-double L B-I-double L Y-G-O-A-T
Hillbilly Goat, :goat (we're him and he's us!)
Hillbilly Goat, :goat (better than Jesus!!!)
forever let us wave the klan good-bye... :ghost:

Then again, maybe not (I really do suck at advice). :(
All of a sudden I envisioned sing along time with a "Hickateer" and dueling banjos ---

http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae174/trentwray/deliverance.jpg

[blobru]

All of a sudden I envisioned sing along time with a "Hickateer" and dueling banjos ---

http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae174/trentwray/deliverance.jpg


Eat your heart out, Justin Timberlake! :p

[Arcade22]

Atheist and liberals need to replace what they have destroyed. You can't just destroy, you must also create and replace.

Pure liberalism and atheism just leads to moral oblivion.

[quarky]

Atheist and liberals need to replace what they have destroyed. You can't just destroy, you must also create and replace.

Pure liberalism and atheism just leads to moral oblivion.

Post 666! Spooky.

[bruto]

Post 666! Spooky.Not half as spooky as the sentiments within the post! Much as I disagree with the proposition that starts this thread, I certainly sympathize with you if this is the culture you find yourself in the midst of.

[Eddie Dane]

Atheist and liberals need to replace what they have destroyed. You can't just destroy, you must also create and replace.

Pure liberalism and atheism just leads to moral oblivion.

Says he, who lives in one of the most atheist and liberal countries on the planet.

[Sledge]

Arcade22 feels his country is being destroyed by people who aren't REAL SWEDES!!! His definition of a real Swede seems to be him and... er... people he likes. So I wouldn't go expecting his views on atheism to be any saner.

[quarky]

Not half as spooky as the sentiments within the post! Much as I disagree with the proposition that starts this thread, I certainly sympathize with you if this is the culture you find yourself in the midst of.

yeah. Hadn't encountered him before; assumed it was spoof.

Arcade 22? have you considered moving to Appalachia?