What is God?

[treefrog]

I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote.

Wars are caused by what's in the human heart - envy, greed, jealousy, hate, and love of power and control. Sometimes religion is used as a excuse for these, and some religions use them more often than others, and some sections of certain religions more so than other sectors.

However, the 20th Century put paid forever to the idea that religion is the root cause of war. Secularistic humanism in its different guises killed more people under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and others than all the religious wars put together.

needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism

 

[2020hindsight]

I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote. .

re the causes of war - (many exchanges on this with Rafa - who agrees with you)
yep - I concede 90% is a bit high -
would you believe 50%

(but I'd never heard the term "imaginary friend" for someone's "god" until freefrog mentioned it )

 

[Wysiwyg]

HEY 20/20 Happy 2008

 

[refined silver]

needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism

Hi Treefrog,

Not sure I quite understand what you are saying.

I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.

Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.

 

[chops_a_must]

I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.

Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.

It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.

And because of that, most religions at their core, are humanistic in nature...

 

[2020hindsight]

Happy 2008

ditto wys , lol
here's to you mate in 2008?

may God open the gate to 2008?

riches await in 2008?
whatever


PS keep that bat straight in 2008?
don't f*** with fate in 2008??

 

[treefrog]

Hi Treefrog,

Not sure I quite understand what you are saying.

I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.

Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.

re-reading my original post i see my omission of quotation marks and just use of return to start my own comment needs clarification
the orignal should have been
"while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend"

my comment on this is .....and >90% of wars have occured because these imaginary friends don't agree - I feel well able to get by without an imaginary friend

Your definition of religion is much narrower than mine (and that of the Macq concise) that being, (ensures quotes this time),
"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

I still find it hard to cite a war, terrorist event, or political atrocity (if we are into separating them) that doesn't fit in there, including stalin, hitler, bush and co

 

[refined silver]

re-reading my original post i see my omission of quotation marks and just use of return to start my own comment needs clarification
the orignal should have been
"while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend"

my comment on this is .....and >90% of wars have occured because these imaginary friends don't agree - I feel well able to get by without an imaginary friend

Your definition of religion is much narrower than mine (and that of the Macq concise) that being, (ensures quotes this time),
"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

I still find it hard to cite a war, terrorist event, or political atrocity (if we are into separating them) that doesn't fit in there, including stalin, hitler, bush and co

If you are going to call Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot religious, when they were all as atheistic and anti-religious as possible, persecuting followers of all religions, then you are being a bit disingenous. Likewise Hitler with his perfectability of the Aryan race, hated Christianity and persecuted any church or individual that didn't roll over and give him absolute support. These people were not Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, etc, so to claim their atrocities, and killings as part of the religious total is plainly incorrect and misleading.

 

[refined silver]

It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.

And because of that, most religions at their core, are humanistic in nature...

The point is Stalin and Hitler and co were not religious, they were secular, if you prefer not to use humanist. I used humanist not as meaning interested in humanity as well, but as its whole impetus, source, ideas and meaning coming from the human sphere as opposed to outside of it.

If you classify Stalin and Mao as religious, then you lose the meaning of the word and everybody is religious, including the hedonist.

 

[treefrog]

If you are going to call Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot religious, when they were all as atheistic and anti-religious as possible, persecuting followers of all religions, then you are being a bit disingenous. Likewise Hitler with his perfectability of the Aryan race, hated Christianity and persecuted any church or individual that didn't roll over and give him absolute support. These people were not Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, etc, so to claim their atrocities, and killings as part of the religious total is plainly incorrect and misleading.

refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.

 

[gavank]

What is god.....good question but what has it got to do with trading...... as we all know , market action/ market depth is god on the equity matket.... not meaning to be sacriligeous ...... lol

go go go fdl

 

[treefrog]

What is god.....good question but what has it got to do with trading...... as we all know , market action/ market depth is god on the equity matket.... not meaning to be sacriligeous ...... lol

go go go fdl

geez gav, it should be obvious, sort out the gods and then know which one controls the shares, get on the right side etc etc

'avva good new year

 

[Rafa]

refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.

Yes, i would tend to agree... there is a case that whatever crazy beliefs that Hitler, Mao, and co beleived in can also be classified as a religion... Atheism is actually a religion, and Dawkins followers, even tho some fail to realise this, are actually part of a religious movement.

So, the above have nothing to do with God or Christianity. To a Christian, GOD is made visible to us in the form of Jesus.... and hence, to be like GOD means one SHOULD (and i empasise the word SHOULD) follow the teaching of Christ, as stated in the 4 books that were written on what Christ actually said and did (i.e. the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)... commonly reffered to as the Gospels.

Note, the rest of the bible is writings of religious people containing interpretations of God, not GOD's words directly to us. The only place that God's word is recorded directly is in the 4 books of the bible mentioned above...

Jesus, as lived in the Gospels, to a Christian, is GOD.


ps: apologies if i don't respond much after this... it is NYE after all... heading out soon...Happy New Year to you all... Cheers.

 

[Julia]

This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

 

[refined silver]

refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.

Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion.

Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God (hence your "imaginary friend" comment). So, read in context, you take a swipe at religion and "imaginary friends" which to all readers the meaning is plain, and then you claim a different definition of religion, which is not what most reasonable people would use on reading your comments.

 

[Timmy]

Atheism is actually a religion, and Dawkins followers, even tho some fail to realise this, are actually part of a religious movement.

What is not a religion then?

And Julia, thanks for the secular humanism definition, most welcome.

My answer to "what is God?" is:
Short around 6850, but covered half just below 6150.

 

[refined silver]

This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main

Thanks Julia,

This pretty much shows I was using the term correctly. Secular humanists follow a worldview of Naturalism and refer to themselves as non-religious or non-theist.

 

[treefrog]

This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main

yep, fits the dictionary definition of religion for mine

 

[refined silver]

Why on Earth would I think a thing like that?

But yes, the rest of your post there is along the lines of perhaps the most reasonable arguments for god's existence. Which is akin to the "Best of all possible worlds" theory, coined by Leibniz - which was then famously ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide (you can find out the literal translatin of that in French pretty easily). Leibniz has one of the only 2 arguments for god's existence that I think is in any way remotely possible, and although I hate to disappoint, are in absolutely no way congruent with any western religion.

But if you want to get into arguments needing the assumption of god, check out Berkeley. "To be is to be perceived" and all that jazz, really awesome stuff. Had some pretty big ding dong battles with Newton as well...

I think God answered Voltaire Himself. Voltaire at one time famously held up a Bible and said in 100 years time this book will be extinct and and only be able to be found in a museum. 100 years later The Geneva Bible Society moved into Voltaires former house and set up a Bible printing/distribution shop there.

 

[Rafa]

Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion.

Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God .

Yes, well said...