A Different Theory on God

[RaharuHaruha]

Before I write this, I should say that I'm skeptical that god exists.

Regardless of whether or not god really does exist, we need god. God is not a book or a church, he is not a religion or a all powerful being. God is an idea. The idea of god is not written or explained very well in the bible or the quran, it is not explained very well by Buddhist philosophies. The idea of god is simply that god is good, and god wants us to be good.

We are at an amazing time in history, one where we do not need to create our own ruler. We do not need to imagine how life should be - we don't need god. However, we should embrace the teachings of god, and retranslate them into teachings with out him.

We should be good, and we should want ourselves to be good. When you do something kind, don't do it to get into heaven, do it better the world. We do not some almighty being checking up on us - we can do it ourselves.

Whether or not god is real, always act god-like. No, that does not mean burning down people with fire.

[SadisticMonkey]

Sorry, why exactly do we need god to be good?

[Nylo]

At 3/5/08 03:41 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sorry, why exactly do we need god to be good?

This goes back to the old debate on whether or not Christians and Atheists are comparable on the "scale of morality".

I think they're both completely able to be moral agents for the good of humanity, but believe a "man of God" is more readily able to achieve this. But on the flipside, becomes a much worse agent for good morality than a "bad" atheist, because he tarnishes the legitimacy of the good he is supposed to be representing. If an atheist is bad, he is only accountable to himself. If a religious man is bad, he tarnishes the whole institution. I.E. bad Catholics fuck it up for the rest of us.

[SadisticMonkey]

Isn't the fact that Atheists act morally off of their own backs rather than to please a supreme being make them infinitely more moral when they are "good"?

[RaharuHaruha]

At 3/5/08 03:41 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sorry, why exactly do we need god to be good?

to make the world a better place. do you really want to live in a world where people randomly start to beat the crap out of you?

i don't define good as morality necessarily. i, personally, don't care so much about sex, drugs, and i even find the ideas of innocents in children a little off. i define good as not hurting someone.

so, if you still don't want to be good, i'm going to assume you have some type of mental disorder. nobody likes pain, hence, nobody should like causing pain.

[Sajberhippien]

At 3/5/08 05:12 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote:

At 3/5/08 03:41 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sorry, why exactly do we need god to be good?

to make the world a better place. do you really want to live in a world where people randomly start to beat the crap out of you?

He didn't wonder why we need to be good, just why God needs to be involved. Can't we be good anyway? Isn't it actually more "good" to do "good" things just for the sake of it than to get into heaven/achieve nirvana?

Also, I wonder: What is good? The god of the bible and quran tells us that abortion is bad, but how do we (without regard to there actually being a god) know whos suffering is more "evil": The woman's or the fetus'?

[morefngdbs]

At 3/5/08 05:12 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote: so, if you still don't want to be good, i'm going to assume you have some type of mental disorder. nobody likes pain, hence, nobody should like causing pain.

;
I'm starting to think a mental disorder applies to yourself.
Nobody likes pain...WTF
What about a Masochist -someone who obtains pleasure from receiving punishment !
I haven't forgotten Sadists -someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others !

God isn't needed for anything you've mentioned, mankind can & does horrible things to his fellow man every second of every day on this spinning mud ball.
As someone put it earlier in this thread, isn't a person who doesn't believe in god & IS A GOOD PERSON , as good if not better than one who is good for fear of god's punishment.

In my opinion anyone who questions god & is still a good person , is better than a believer of god.
I would also like to point out believing in god has absolutely nothing to do with believing in a RELIGION ! Neither does being a practicing religious person , mean in anyway that your somehow good!

the world is full of priests & Imam's who are not just wicked their ideals are evil.
So how can their followers be any better ?

[polym]

based on what you guys are saying, getting into heaven is basically a survival of the fittest. or a big competition of who acts the best in terms of being good. I don't think that presents a good image for God.

[AapoJoki]

At 3/5/08 05:12 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote:

At 3/5/08 03:41 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sorry, why exactly do we need god to be good?

to make the world a better place. do you really want to live in a world where people randomly start to beat the crap out of you?

Isn't the establishment of laws, governments, or any organized societies sufficient? We don't need an imaginary God to protect us from random violence, we need the police.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/5/08 05:12 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote: to make the world a better place. do you really want to live in a world where people randomly start to beat the crap out of you?

Are you fucking retarded?

READ WHAT I FUCKING POSTED YOU COMPLETE FUCKING MORON.

[Earfetish]

I don't think God symbolises Good. I think He symbolises 'the answer,' to hundreds of mysterious little questions. Goodness seems somewhat irrelevant, especially in Buddhism or in the Old Testament or in any polytheism.

I'd also say Christians are more likely to associate Jesus with pure Goodness. God loves us, but He can be a dick some times.

[Sajberhippien]

At 3/6/08 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/5/08 05:12 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote: to make the world a better place. do you really want to live in a world where people randomly start to beat the crap out of you?

Are you fucking retarded?

READ WHAT I FUCKING POSTED YOU COMPLETE FUCKING MORON.

Ouch, having a bad day?

[kamil-fucker]

god was created to create social control among a group of people, make people of the same religion feel connected and later on, the motherfucker was used to control people in entire nations, (think about Europa ±500-±1500).
nowadays retards believe in him because they are afraid that after there dead, there's nothing left.

[WilliWowza]

'God' has been corrupted, he no longer stands for good. Today we try to ignore the teachings of "turning the other cheek" and "being good for eachother" in favor of persecuting those who don't follow our own beliefs, it's ridiculous.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/5/08 09:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Isn't the establishment of laws, governments, or any organized societies sufficient? We don't need an imaginary God to protect us from random violence, we need the police.

There are plenty of unjust governments out there, so that kind of refutes that this is even a whole solution. For me, even if God doesn't exist, and I think this is what the topic starter was aiming at, if God does represent unquestionable good, and all of the "commandments" (we'll remove the ones that aren't good) are good and unquestionable and all people buy into it, then there is no higher power that can question these points.

I don't know that it is ever possible. Moral acts and acts of necessity often conflict. It is a nice idea though, and if there is anything to inspire you to be good in this world, I see no need to remove it. Its like have a rolemodel who can never be taken down because he is an idea and not a living person. Some people need something infallible.

I've never personally wanted or had a rolemodel, and my faith has been sketchy at best. Given these things, I'm still a really good person (imho, which is the same for most people), and I did it with out relying on anything else, but something gave me that code. For me it was a mix of romantic stories of kings and knights, Judaism, my parents, and my school/government.

[Drakim]

At 3/6/08 10:21 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/5/08 09:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Isn't the establishment of laws, governments, or any organized societies sufficient? We don't need an imaginary God to protect us from random violence, we need the police.

There are plenty of unjust governments out there, so that kind of refutes that this is even a whole solution. For me, even if God doesn't exist, and I think this is what the topic starter was aiming at, if God does represent unquestionable good, and all of the "commandments" (we'll remove the ones that aren't good) are good and unquestionable and all people buy into it, then there is no higher power that can question these points.

I think that thinking s a BIG problem. Having an unquestionable good, you are basically digging your own grave if you ask me. There is simply no assurance that the kind oh unquestionable good we choose will be perfect in the future, thus, there is a large chance of big cultural clashes which will hurt more than this unquestionable good ever will help.

In addition, you cannot be tolerant in the same way when it comes to unquestionable good. Since you are supposed to be the ultimate truth and perfect justice, any other system is vastly inferior and will cause harm unless you impose your own system in time (kinda like how we can impose democracy on a dictatorship nation).

I don't know that it is ever possible. Moral acts and acts of necessity often conflict. It is a nice idea though, and if there is anything to inspire you to be good in this world, I see no need to remove it. Its like have a rolemodel who can never be taken down because he is an idea and not a living person. Some people need something infallible.

And that will always bring about conflict and suffering. For example, many people uses the Bible as an infallible guide to truth and morality, and look what that causes today. Gay people are persecuted and discriminated, atheist are treated as if they were satanists, heck, I don't even know how they would treat a real satanist.

I've never personally wanted or had a rolemodel, and my faith has been sketchy at best. Given these things, I'm still a really good person (imho, which is the same for most people), and I did it with out relying on anything else, but something gave me that code. For me it was a mix of romantic stories of kings and knights, Judaism, my parents, and my school/government.

For me, it's all about adapting. Just as we today see the slavery of the past as super immoral, the people in the future might see something we do, like eating meat, as super immoral. You simply can't assume that we have a perfect understanding of morality today compared to all other time periods both future and past. To do so is very arrogant and ignorant.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/6/08 12:19 PM, Drakim wrote: I think that thinking s a BIG problem. Having an unquestionable good, you are basically digging your own grave if you ask me. There is simply no assurance that the kind oh unquestionable good we choose will be perfect in the future, thus, there is a large chance of big cultural clashes which will hurt more than this unquestionable good ever will help.

It is wrong to murder someone. (Murder is the planned killing of another individual)
It is wrong to steal from someone.
It is wrong to rape someone.
It is wrong to sexually harrass someone.
It is wrong to harrass someone.

It is good to teach children.
It is good to help someone in need.
It is good to provide medicine and healing to the sick.
It is good to clothe the naked. (most the time ;) )
It is good to provide work to the unemployed.
Do unto others as you would have done on to you.

These things aren't questionable from one society to another, or at least, they shouldn't be. Dietary laws, or laws on abortion and all those gray laws have nothing to do with being good, achieving your maximum potential as an individual, or helping your community grow. And those are the kinds of things that don't belong. It is perfectly possible to have a simple moral code which is defined as "good." Interpretation and expansion for personal gain would corrupt it.

In addition, you cannot be tolerant in the same way when it comes to unquestionable good. Since you are supposed to be the ultimate truth and perfect justice, any other system is vastly inferior and will cause harm unless you impose your own system in time (kinda like how we can impose democracy on a dictatorship nation).

Well, the problem is you are assuming you are good. And the entire idea of God is that it is not you, it is not human, and you couldn't impose it on anyone else if you wished to because you can't understand it. It is simply for you and not for you to give to others. You are looking at problems that exist with individuals today, and not the ideas.

And that will always bring about conflict and suffering. For example, many people uses the Bible as an infallible guide to truth and morality, and look what that causes today. Gay people are persecuted and discriminated, atheist are treated as if they were satanists, heck, I don't even know how they would treat a real satanist.

And what of a "bible" that preached total equality and that no person was more enlightened than another? If you are going to look at flawed systems, you are going to find flaws.

For me, it's all about adapting. Just as we today see the slavery of the past as super immoral, the people in the future might see something we do, like eating meat, as super immoral. You simply can't assume that we have a perfect understanding of morality today compared to all other time periods both future and past. To do so is very arrogant and ignorant.

I see the injustices today, and most of them are simply a mirror for the past. Gay rights focus on the same issues as class rights and race rights. You'll find very little new developments in justifications to discriminate against people in human history, just the ways in which those people are dealt with.

[poxpower]

At 3/6/08 02:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

It is wrong to murder someone. (Murder is the planned killing of another individual)

so you're against the death sentence?

It is wrong to steal from someone.

What if I'm poor and hungry? Fuck your stupid law, I'll steal food. You try and stop me.

It is wrong to rape someone.

Yeah that one's less ambirgous

It is wrong to sexually harrass someone.

define that

It is wrong to harrass someone.

again, define that.
Some people are really big shitheads who will claim everyone harasses them.

It is good to teach children.

teach them what?

It is good to help someone in need.

In a perfect world...

It is good to provide medicine and healing to the sick.

If only it was free

It is good to clothe the naked. (most the time ;) )

Well don't go to africa then.

It is good to provide work to the unemployed.

Ideally, they do it themselves.

Do unto others as you would have done on to you.

Unless they're assholes who don't respect that law.

These things aren't questionable from one society to another, or at least, they shouldn't be.

yes, obviously.haha

It is perfectly possible to have a simple moral code which is defined as "good."

Do you know why our laws are so fucking complicated? That's because it's NOT easy to have a "simple moral code".

Here's what I think would work:

Do what you think is good based on your own reflection.

And what of a "bible" that preached total equality and that no person was more enlightened than another?

I'd burn it in an instant

[Drakim]

At 3/6/08 02:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: It is wrong to murder someone. (Murder is the planned killing of another individual)

If I found out that somebody is going to kill my loved ones, and the police won't listen to me. Would it be wrong for me to murder this person to save my loved ones if I see it as the only option?

It is wrong to steal from someone.

Even if that person used unfair (but not illegal) means to get all the resorces, while other people starve because of it?

It is wrong to rape someone.

What if...uhm...[thinks]

There is only 30 people left on earth and a lot refuses to reproduce?

It is wrong to sexually harrass someone.
It is wrong to harrass someone.

What if you do so because somebody is doing something else that is wrong and ignoring it? Would it be wrong for me to nag somebody about his company is destroying villages in Africa to the point where he would call it harassing? Am I supposed to be a good citizen and just watch people die instead?

It is good to teach children.

Oh? So I can go out and teach children about atheism? I'm sure a lot of parents would be really happy about that.

and if you are going to only teach selective things, then, those things that we have selected depends on what time and society we live in, thus, it's still a relative based morality kind of thing.

It is good to help someone in need.

Even if they need to become strong themselves? People might never learn if you help them too much.

It is good to provide medicine and healing to the sick.

What if we are overpopulated to the point where saving a few millions will doom several billions?

It is good to clothe the naked. (most the time ;) )

Lol, just because nakedness is bad in your culture, obviously means that it's universally the truth? Nakedness isn't frowned upon everywhere in the world.

It is good to provide work to the unemployed.

What if he is a workaholic that his loved ones tries to keep away from work?

Do unto others as you would have done on to you.

What if somebody enjoys pain?

These things aren't questionable from one society to another, or at least, they shouldn't be. Dietary laws, or laws on abortion and all those gray laws have nothing to do with being good, achieving your maximum potential as an individual, or helping your community grow.

A lot of Pro-Lifers see abortion as direct murder, so they would definitely disagree with you.

And those are the kinds of things that don't belong. It is perfectly possible to have a simple moral code which is defined as "good." Interpretation and expansion for personal gain would corrupt it.

And the fact that whatever you set as the morality is horrible baised by your outlook on life and your lifestyle and society. Just look at how easily most of your points can be dismissed, and I probably live in a society very alike yours. How would somebody 800 years into the future react? Probably laughing, I think.

In addition, you cannot be tolerant in the same way when it comes to unquestionable good. Since you are supposed to be the ultimate truth and perfect justice, any other system is vastly inferior and will cause harm unless you impose your own system in time (kinda like how we can impose democracy on a dictatorship nation).

Well, the problem is you are assuming you are good. And the entire idea of God is that it is not you, it is not human, and you couldn't impose it on anyone else if you wished to because you can't understand it. It is simply for you and not for you to give to others. You are looking at problems that exist with individuals today, and not the ideas.

No, I am right :0
Because, even though I'm not assuming to be God, I'm very much assuming to be God's proxy when I believe that God speaks to me and tells me what is moral and not. It's the closest thing to being God that you can ever be. Throw in some concepts about converting people and needed salvation and you have exactly what I was describing.

And that will always bring about conflict and suffering. For example, many people uses the Bible as an infallible guide to truth and morality, and look what that causes today. Gay people are persecuted and discriminated, atheist are treated as if they were satanists, heck, I don't even know how they would treat a real satanist.

And what of a "bible" that preached total equality and that no person was more enlightened than another? If you are going to look at flawed systems, you are going to find flaws.

Exactly. And no matter how hard you try, ANY system you come up with WILL have flaws. That is why you must be critical about it, and not accept it blindly as unquestionable truth. Because, when that flaw cracks, you can't adapt, but will go down with it, and drag a lot of people with you.

For me, it's all about adapting. Just as we today see the slavery of the past as super immoral, the people in the future might see something we do, like eating meat, as super immoral. You simply can't assume that we have a perfect understanding of morality today compared to all other time periods both future and past. To do so is very arrogant and ignorant.

I see the injustices today, and most of them are simply a mirror for the past. Gay rights focus on the same issues as class rights and race rights. You'll find very little new developments in justifications to discriminate against people in human history, just the ways in which those people are dealt with.

How many people argued long in the past that eating meat was immoral? Even though human rights has always been a subject, not everything else has.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/6/08 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/6/08 02:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

It is wrong to murder someone. (Murder is the planned killing of another individual)

so you're against the death sentence?

No, I'm against the planned killing of an individual. The death sentance in a punishment, not a planned killing. It is placed before the society as a whole, as a warning long before the premeditated crime is commited. You have killed yourself by violating that law, not created more murderers.

What if I'm poor and hungry? Fuck your stupid law, I'll steal food. You try and stop me.

Then there is likely something wrong with your work ethic or the society you live in. If a society forces its population to violate what it upholds as just, moral and good then it is a society that has no right to exist and certainly does not follow this concept of "God" which we are talking about.

It is wrong to rape someone.

Yeah that one's less ambirgous

So there are at least a few things. I was just rattling off a few, knowing they wouldn't all be accurate.

It is wrong to sexually harrass someone.

define that

Initiate a moment of sexual contact or sexually explicit conversations against the will of the other party when the dissintrested party has made their position well known or said No at least once.

It is wrong to harrass someone.

Harrassment is continual mental, verbal of physical abuse. I would say that even one instance of any of these is wrong.

Some people are really big shitheads who will claim everyone harasses them.

Yeah, well, shitheads exist. What are you going to do?

teach them what?

Math, How to read and write, how to provide for themselves once they are on their own.

It is good to help someone in need.

In a perfect world...

Well, this "God" is supposed to be a representation of that, even if you'll never get it. It is supposed to be something you strive for on your own individual, personal level.

It is good to provide medicine and healing to the sick.

If only it was free

That ultimately depends on your society. Attempting to help the sick no matter the cost, is undeniably better than not trying at all.

It is good to clothe the naked. (most the time ;) )

Well don't go to africa then.

This is more of a social thing you could get around. If its a cold land you're not going to be able to survive in with out clothing, you'll get my point.

It is good to provide work to the unemployed.

Ideally, they do it themselves.

Someone has have an opening at their place of business and hire more people. But yes, ideally they look for work themselves, and I suppose you could add that to the list.

Do unto others as you would have done on to you.

Unless they're assholes who don't respect that law.

You make an exception and things become unbalanced. Leave that to society and its institutions, which would be seperate. "God" isn't human nor is it part of a human construct.

Here's what I think would work:

Do what you think is good based on your own reflection.

Thats ultimately what it comes down to if you're defining your own "God"

And what of a "bible" that preached total equality and that no person was more enlightened than another?

I'd burn it in an instant

hahaha ok.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/6/08 03:29 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/6/08 02:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If I found out that somebody is going to kill my loved ones, and the police won't listen to me. Would it be wrong for me to murder this person to save my loved ones if I see it as the only option?

Can you stop them with out killing them? Most likely. It would not be murder to defend yourself against a killer, as they clearly initiating it. Again, you have a problem with your society, not your "God".

Even if that person used unfair (but not illegal) means to get all the resorces, while other people starve because of it?

Change your laws. Again, society.

It is wrong to rape someone.

There is only 30 people left on earth and a lot refuses to reproduce?

Then humanity ends, unless you can woe them. Just because the world is ending doesn't mean you can throw romance out the door. I doubt you'd ever find yourself in that situation. :/

It is wrong to sexually harrass someone.
It is wrong to harrass someone.

What if you do so because somebody is doing something else that is wrong and ignoring it? Would it be wrong for me to nag somebody about his company is destroying villages in Africa to the point where he would call it harassing? Am I supposed to be a good citizen and just watch people die instead?

You are confusing harrassment with justice. Bring justice down upon the perpetrators. 2 wrongs =/= right.

and if you are going to only teach selective things, then, those things that we have selected depends on what time and society we live in, thus, it's still a relative based morality kind of thing.

If you are being selective you aren't teaching them, you are denying them knowledge.

It is good to help someone in need.

Even if they need to become strong themselves? People might never learn if you help them too much.

Then the way you help them might change. Instead of being an active participant you might help behind the scenes or create opportunities for them. Not everything involves direct contact.

It is good to provide medicine and healing to the sick.

What if we are overpopulated to the point where saving a few millions will doom several billions?

Making others suffer for the sake of a majority has never been right. Clearly society has other issues to address, such as population control, not allowing sick people to die.

Lol, just because nakedness is bad in your culture, obviously means that it's universally the truth? Nakedness isn't frowned upon everywhere in the world.

I was joking with that one. But take it to be the same thing as helping. If you are in brutally cold lands and you have an extra coat... see? It really is about with holding necessities more than clothes.

It is good to provide work to the unemployed.

What if he is a workaholic that his loved ones tries to keep away from work?

Then he isn't unemployed. :P

Do unto others as you would have done on to you.

What if somebody enjoys pain?

They should be shot behind the chemical sheds.

yadda yadda yadda.

[FlashCridic1124]

You realize my original post wasn't saying don't believe in god but what my idea on god was right. However, Jesus said be good, but I don't think God is as Jesus....so yeah, thats cool if your religious, good for you, you have a median in your life to help you along morally and be good person. believe me, I actually do think that can be a good thing in moderation, and you actually do have a good message, which is actually what I do believe is listen to the teachings of God and be a good person so props to you.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/6/08 10:16 AM, WilliWowza wrote: 'God' has been corrupted, he no longer stands for good.

Please, read the old testament and then tell me how god even remotely fits into any definition of 'good'.

[The-evil-bucket]

I see people killing and intimidating in the name of religion, and you're telling me I need a god to be good?

[Brick-top]

God is a mudering, vile, vindictive psychopath. He's vain, and self concious and gets revenge everychance he's see's.

It doesn't matter how you read, interpret or understand God is the source of all evil.

[samwazhere]

At 3/7/08 07:13 AM, Brick-top wrote: God is a mudering, vile, vindictive psychopath. He's vain, and self concious and gets revenge everychance he's see's.

Which is why you should all out sin and rock out with the red dude rather then meet that nutter.