For what purpose did God create the world?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Master Crimzon
So, the other night, I was thinking of a reason for God's supposed creation of the universe (yes, I indulge in that sort of philosophical and religious thought regularly). After reading many religious arguments against atheists, I've come to understand that the saner religious ones seem to believe that science is the 'how', and religion is the 'why'; I'm sure many on this forum will agree with this concept. But what about the biggest 'why' of all? What motivation would a supposedly omniscient being have for creating a world? Is it for some sort of emotional gratification? But why would such a divine being be in need of enjoyment? Is that not one of the 'limitations' of humanity? Do we exist in order to entertain God?

What I'm asking is for the religious folk of these forums to give me a logical explanation for God's creation of the universe, and hopefully substantiate it with some sort of logical fact.

Of course, I'm willing to accept the possibility that God's motivations simply exist far beyond the scope of human comprehension and are therefore pointless to debate. But would that not, in fact, be supporting the sentiments of atheists and agnostics that not everything must have a discernible 'why' behind it, because that 'why' can never be backed up with proof? I simply find it impossible to provide a motivation for God to create the universe without, ultimately, adhering to this line of thought- a line of thought that exists in tandem with un-religious beliefs.

Note: I am an atheist myself, but I was interested in targeting this question and see it from the perspective of those who do believe in religion.

Shakyamunison
Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

Symmetric Chaos
Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

If one thinks that God is omniscient and has neither needs nor desires then nothing would be gained from creating the universe because it wouldn't want anything there and it would already know everything that will/could happen and you have to go with the "ineffable" answer.

However, being omniscient and not wanting or needing anything aren't requirements for being a God as evidenced by various cultures across the world. A less than omniscient but otherwise "perfect" God might simply have been curious. An omniscient but "imperfect" God could have been lonely.

The typical Christian answer would be, I assume, that God is ineffable or (quite reasonably) that perfection is largely indefinable. Personally I'd say if there was a creator it was either "imperfect" or not all knowing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

He said that religious people believe there was a point of creation. He didn't say anything about his own thoughts on the subject.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you assume there was a creation?

The Big Bang was simply a starting point, and there is mathematical models that suggest a contracting universe before the Big Bang. If there was no creation, then a reason for creation is not needed.

But the Bible and other sort of 'religious' ideas all insinuate that God created the universe a definitive time ago. If you're religious, could you please explain your views on the creation, and infinity, and how God is intertwined with the universe?

Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If one thinks that God is omniscient and has neither needs nor desires then nothing would be gained from creating the universe because it wouldn't want anything there and it would already know everything that will/could happen and you have to go with the "ineffable" answer.

However, being omniscient and not wanting or needing anything aren't requirements for being a God as evidenced by various cultures across the world. A less than omniscient but otherwise "perfect" God might simply have been curious. An omniscient but "imperfect" God could have been lonely.

The typical Christian answer would be, I assume, that God is ineffable or (quite reasonably) that perfection is largely indefinable. Personally I'd say if there was a creator it was either "imperfect" or not all knowing.

Your point of view seems rather logical in nature, but can we genuinely call a being 'God' if that being is not perfection incarnate? Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

An imperfect God is simply not God as the main religions treat it. Indeed, I think that the Christian thought of God needing some sort of 'companionship' and 'love' simply cannot work: either God is not omniscient and all-knowing or God is a sadist.

I personally believe that, with our current realm of knowledge, we are completely incapable of deciphering any potential motivation for a higher being to create us. However, it is exactly for that reason that debating the existence of a God is a pointless and futile exercise- the 'why's' for the creation of the universe can never be substantiated or proven; God only exists as humans invent or perceive him. And I cannot believe in anything that has nothing logically suggesting it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
But the Bible and other sort of 'religious' ideas all insinuate that God created the universe a definitive time ago. If you're religious, could you please explain your views on the creation, and infinity, and how God is intertwined with the universe?

Well, I think the first question in deciding on an answer is: what does one believe about God?

...

I do not believe in the bible. The bible is a very important book, but not one of historical fact. The idea that a god created the universe is a way to establish authority. This authority is then used by that religion to control the people.

BTW I am a Buddhist.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...
He said that religious people believe there was a point of creation. He didn't say anything about his own thoughts on the subject.

My first question can be taken as a general, and rhetorical question.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not believe in the bible. The bible is a very important book, but not one of historical fact. The idea that a god created the universe is a way to establish authority. This authority is then used by that religion to control the people.

BTW I am a Buddhist.

I pretty much agree with this, and admittedly find Buddhism more compelling than any other religion, but my question was targeted more towards the Judeo-Christian believers who we see so often in the political mainstream.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Your point of view seems rather logical in nature, but can we genuinely call a being 'God' if that being is not perfection incarnate?

The word "god" moreso than any real or unreal entity is entirely dependent on what we make of it. For a long time Gods were flawed creatures.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

Yes, that just relies on your definition of what makes something better than you. Nowadays people would likely reject the idea of something as a higher being even if it was omniscient.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
An imperfect God is simply not God as the main religions treat it. Indeed, I think that the Christian thought of God needing some sort of 'companionship' and 'love' simply cannot work: either God is not omniscient and all-knowing or God is a sadist.Can we call it a 'higher being' if it is not omniscient in nature?

That is a single facet of thought about a higher power. Indeed the Bible contains more than one instance of God being surprised.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I personally believe that, with our current realm of knowledge, we are completely incapable of deciphering any potential motivation for a higher being to create us. However, it is exactly for that reason that debating the existence of a God is a pointless and futile exercise- the 'why's' for the creation of the universe can never be substantiated or proven; God only exists as humans invent or perceive him.

I would broadly agree. Too much of the subject is vague. An argument needs some manner of solid ground and on the subject of Gods few people can agree where the ground even is. But while the discussion might be futile that doesn't make it pointless, you can still end up learning something about yourself/reality in the process even if that discovery is simply that you don't believe in God (referring to a hypothetical "you", writing "one" and "oneself" is extremely awkward).

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And I cannot believe in anything that has nothing logically suggesting it.

Well, you probably could stick out tongue

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The word "god" moreso than any real or unreal entity is entirely dependent on what we make of it. For a long time Gods were flawed creatures.

At the moment, the 'mainstream religions' of the world are monotheistic ones- all religions that support the existence of a singular, omnipotent, omniscient and flawless entity called 'God'. However, when beginning to debate that actual being's characteristics and motivations, the concept of a genuinely perfect God seems to come into significant doubt.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, that just relies on your definition of what makes something better than you. Nowadays people would likely reject the idea of something as a higher being even if it was omniscient.

I dunno. I admittedly have an emotional problem with believing that there is something greater in humanity, because that would erode any hope I might have for our species to evolve on their own.

My question, again, was primarily targeted at people who do believe in an omniscient God. We don't honestly have any significant disagreement, outside of the fact that I do not believe in any form of God while you do.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is a single facet of thought about a higher power. Indeed the Bible contains more than one instance of God being surprised.

Really? But the Bible insinuates that everything is part of a divine plan- God knows everything that was, is, and will be. Therefore, God being 'surprised' within the context of the Bible would contradict its own assertion of what God is.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would broadly agree. Too much of the subject is vague. An argument needs some manner of solid ground and on the subject of Gods few people can agree where the ground even is. But while the discussion might be futile that doesn't make it pointless, you can still end up learning something about yourself/reality in the process even if that discovery is simply that you don't believe in God (referring to a hypothetical "you", writing "one" and "oneself" is extremely awkward).

I don't know, I suppose that's true.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, you probably could stick out tongue

Well, probably, but I don't want to think that I'm doing so. Lolz.

Red Nemesis
The world was created for man and man was created to tame and rule it.

That sums up the worldview and overriding cultural imperative that we all grew up with- as did everyone in our culture since its birth.

Edit: MC, you misused 'evolve'. Watch that.
no expression

Master Crimzon
Aha. So 'men killed God', basically? Try to think like an evangelical Christian for a second. I know it's an incredibly excruciating experience, but just... try to give a logical motivation for an omniscient, omnipotent God to create the world.

You're a Nazi, by the way, and you know I'm an Israeli. You ought to applaud my generally outstanding English instead of focusing upon my tiniest mistakes.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Aha. So 'men killed God', basically? Try to think like an evangelical Christian for a second. I know it's an incredibly excruciating experience, but just... try to give a logical motivation for an omniscient, omnipotent God to create the world.
Not at all. Man can still be created by god. In fact, he had to be- man is different from all the other animals. (So goes the assumption.) One notable difference is that no one is surprised to hear that god made bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves. Man is special. We're above animals, but we're not good enough: we aren't quite able to tame the world the way we are supposed to. That's where the idea of salvationist religions comes from- if we can't tame the world we live in maybe we're supposed to be better in the next one.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon

You're a Nazi, by the way, and you know I'm an Israeli. You ought to applaud my generally outstanding English instead of focusing upon my tiniest mistakes.
That wasn't Nazism. Your words and grammar/syntax were all correct but 'evolution' didn't really apply to the growth that you meant- you were looking for 'improvement' not 'gradual change'.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Not at all. Man can still be created by god. In fact, he had to be- man is different from all the other animals. (So goes the assumption.) One notable difference is that no one is surprised to hear that god made bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves. Man is special. We're above animals, but we're not good enough: we aren't quite able to tame the world the way we are supposed to. That's where the idea of salvationist religions comes from- if we can't tame the world we live in maybe we're supposed to be better in the next one.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.

But for what purpose did God desire to create a world for men to tame it? Does he derive enjoyment from seeing men fail in their quest for 'taming the world'? After all, if he is indeed omnipotent, he must have been aware and, in fact, planned that something like that would happen. Is his motivation 'just because'? But, when a conscious being is involved, there must be something behind just because, don't you agree?

God could have planned for us to tame the world in a way that we were 'supposed to'; if we are incapable of achieving that, then it is because God planned and was aware of it. Bottom line, he's an *******.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That wasn't Nazism. Your words and grammar/syntax were all correct but 'evolution' didn't really apply to the growth that you meant- you were looking for 'improvement' not 'gradual change'.

You suck.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Not at all. Man can still be created by god. In fact, he had to be- man is different from all the other animals. (So goes the assumption.) One notable difference is that no one is surprised to hear that god made bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves. Man is special. We're above animals, but we're not good enough: we aren't quite able to tame the world the way we are supposed to. That's where the idea of salvationist religions comes from- if we can't tame the world we live in maybe we're supposed to be better in the next one.

The motivation to create the world was Man, and that answer is the rationale for all the pollution and atrocities committed in the course of our culture's history- the last 12,000 years.

That wasn't Nazism. Your words and grammar/syntax were all correct but 'evolution' didn't really apply to the growth that you meant- you were looking for 'improvement' not 'gradual change'.

I disagree! Humans are just as much of an animal as all other animals. Like you put it; "bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves" humans live in a way that works for humans. This does not make us about other animals.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree! Humans are just as much of an animal as all other animals. Like you put it; "bees live in a way that works for bees or that wolves live in a way that work for wolves" humans live in a way that works for humans. This does not make us about other animals.

Well, I don't subscribe to this belief but am articulating the cultural assumption.

As far as humans living in a way that 'works', the disconnect we're experiencing is one of perspective- namely the definition of 'humanity'. The culture that arose in the fertile crescent 12,000 years ago is not living in a way that works. It is headed to sociological and ecological collapse. The majority of humans are living this way now- using totalitarian agriculture to make a living. That way of life (civilization) definitely does not work.

If you define humanity as the entire conglomeration of people throughout the 3 million year history of our species then I have to agree- evolution arranged humans into tribes: it was an evolutionarily stable strategy. Tribalism is the only human way of life that has yet been viable.

The problem arises because we tend to think that humanity took up agriculture, while it was just one culture out of thousands that did so.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
But for what purpose did God desire to create a world for men to tame it? Does he derive enjoyment from seeing men fail in their quest for 'taming the world'? After all, if he is indeed omnipotent, he must have been aware and, in fact, planned that something like that would happen. Is his motivation 'just because'? But, when a conscious being is involved, there must be something behind just because, don't you agree?
No. The thought of salvationist religions like Christianity (and Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and Judaism etc.) is that man is the reason. God didn't create the world for the beavers or the bees, did he? No. Jesus didn't come to save bears or trees. He came to save humans. All that matters is humanity. (According to our culture.)




See, the idea is that we're supposed to tame it through agriculture- it is the one right way for humans to live. Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

It sounds like you're really just looking to reword the 'god allows evil..." argument by incorporating omniscience paradoxes. Make it sound good, alright?

inimalist
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

umm... wut?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well, I don't subscribe to this belief but am articulating the cultural assumption.

As far as humans living in a way that 'works', the disconnect we're experiencing is one of perspective- namely the definition of 'humanity'. The culture that arose in the fertile crescent 12,000 years ago is not living in a way that works. It is headed to sociological and ecological collapse. The majority of humans are living this way now- using totalitarian agriculture to make a living. That way of life (civilization) definitely does not work.

If you define humanity as the entire conglomeration of people throughout the 3 million year history of our species then I have to agree- evolution arranged humans into tribes: it was an evolutionarily stable strategy. Tribalism is the only human way of life that has yet been viable.

The problem arises because we tend to think that humanity took up agriculture, while it was just one culture out of thousands that did so.

I made no claim of susses. Humans do what humans do. If that leads to collapse, then collapse is the natural outcome.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No. The thought of salvationist religions like Christianity (and Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and Judaism etc.) is that man is the reason. God didn't create the world for the beavers or the bees, did he? No. Jesus didn't come to save bears or trees. He came to save humans. All that matters is humanity. (According to our culture.)

Well, I can say that it hardly makes sense. God wants to create the world for humans to inhabit it; but for what purpose does he do so? In what way does it benefit him that humans existence? Why would he create a world for humans to tame? Just 'because'? Because he enjoys watching humans struggle towards taming the world?

That does not make sense; wanting humans to exist 'just because' does not work.




Originally posted by Red Nemesis
See, the idea is that we're supposed to tame it through agriculture- it is the one right way for humans to live. Peoples that didn't use our style of agriculture haven't even been considered human, historically.

It sounds like you're really just looking to reword the 'god allows evil..." argument by incorporating omniscience paradoxes. Make it sound good, alright?

What do you mean with that agriculture point? I hope you don't mean to say that humanity is defined by the way we harness nature's resources, right?

As for 'God allows evil' stuff: now, let's accept the cultural viewpoint that God created the world in order to have men tame it. Let's also assume that he loves men. However, God is defined by monotheistic religions (the ones that support the 'created for men' viewpoint) as being an absolutely omnipotent, all-powerful being- he knows everything that will be, and all that will be is because God planned it. Because of this, he must have planned for humanity to fail. He must have planned for Adam and Eve to be seduced, and he must have planned for evil to rise- if all of that is true, then God simply does not love humanity. He is a sadistic being that revels in planning humanity's strive towards success and subsequently planning their (largely violent and explosive) failure. Because of this, God cannot be accepted as a being that loves human beings and created the world in order to do so- because he could simply have planned for evil to never have risen and for humanity to simply live in a constant paradise.

The religious often like to make a 'free will' argument when this is brought up, but, in fact, if an omniscient being has determined and planned everything that will be, then free will is an illusion anyhow.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'm willing to accept the possibility that God's motivations simply exist far beyond the scope of human comprehension Probably the best place to start. After all, why should the motivations of infinite consciousness be discernible to us?

and are therefore pointless to debate. Depends. Some like the exercise.

But would that not, in fact, be supporting the sentiments of atheists and agnostics that not everything must have a discernible 'why' behind it, because that 'why' can never be backed up with proof? Not sure what you're saying here. In any event, as I understand it, empirical science doesn't concern itself with "Why" to begin with.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by inimalist
umm... wut?
(I should have added 'always been...')
When the Europeans first hit the Americas, there was no thought given to equal trade. They were just savages, after all. The members of our culture set about subjugating them like it was Holy work- reclaiming 'nature' to the plow. (syntax?) Their thoughts of conversion were primarily to pacify and domesticate the natives- not to bring equals into the fold. (Flock)

The trend has been for our culture to expand, by trade or by conquest, and replace/exterminate the native way of life.

inimalist
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
(I should have added 'always been...')
When the Europeans first hit the Americas, there was no thought given to equal trade. They were just savages, after all. The members of our culture set about subjugating them like it was Holy work- reclaiming 'nature' to the plow. (syntax?) Their thoughts of conversion were primarily to pacify and domesticate the natives- not to bring equals into the fold. (Flock)

ah, now I see

the way that was worded was weird. Got the idea you were saying one of the important historical qualities of humanity was tied to a specific form of agriculture.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The trend has been for our culture to expand, by trade or by conquest, and replace/exterminate the native way of life.

and it is damn ****ing effective!

Red Nemesis
Quite the opposite, in fact. Most people consider ourselves (syntax works) ((members of our culture)) to be humanity, ignoring the fact that we are only one culture of millions of years of human existence.

inimalist
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Quite the opposite, in fact. Most people consider ourselves (syntax works) ((members of our culture)) to be humanity, ignoring the fact that we are only one culture of millions of years of human existence.

its the "we" usage

for some reason, as I'm reading, it keeps jumping between "cultural ingroup" and "human species"

but I get what you are saying. Historical propaganda.

Red Nemesis
Well, at this point roughly 99% of humanity is made up of members of our culture. That may be part of the problem. We denied them to begin with and now they are rare enough that they don't remind us very often- out of sight out of mind, right?


Almost- it goes beyond that. If you were to ask members of our culture how long they'd been living that way even before the establishment of cities in Mesopotamia they would answer 'from the dawn of time'. People tend to think that we live the way humans are meant to live. Anyone who doesn't match us has got something wrong. It is cultural imperialism taken to the next level- denying that there are other cultures.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
Probably the best place to start. After all, why should the motivations of infinite consciousness be discernible to us?

Possibly, but in any case, that fits directly in line with the atheistic/agnostic line of thought that the 'why's' for the creation of the universe- including the existence of a God- are entirely pointless to debate, being that we do not, at the moment, have any proof indicating towards any correct 'why'.

Originally posted by Mindship
Depends. Some like the exercise.

Cool.


Originally posted by Mindship
Not sure what you're saying here. In any event, as I understand it, empirical science doesn't concern itself with "Why" to begin with.

My point is that the 'why's' for the creation of the universe- like God's own 'why' and motivation- simply cannot be proven or logically substantiated in any conceivable way.

Therefore, the 'why' is a concept of subjective faith. I simply believe in what we can insinuate with our current level of scientific, pragmatic proof- that we're simply the products of a random coincidence, without any definitive meaning or reason. The 'why' is only necessarily if we're the products of a conscious being- and I cannot believe that.

Da Pittman

Shakyamunison

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no good answer to that question. It is like why does Santa Clause wear red? The only reason is because that is how he was created. Therefore, the answer to your question is, that is the way we created god. That is an easy question, it was the only color of cloth that Ms. Claus could get in stock at Wal-Mart that would cover his fat ass big grin stick out tongue

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
My point is that the 'why's' for the creation of the universe- like God's own 'why' and motivation- simply cannot be proven or logically substantiated in any conceivable way. Jeez. It's tough enough dealing with the issue of God's existence, let alone his motivation. wink Even the mystical texts say God's reasons for creation are forever unknowable.

Therefore, the 'why' is a concept of subjective faith. 'Why' has traditionally been the province of religion. Problems arise when religion tries to do science's job, or vice versa.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is an easy question, it was the only color of cloth that Ms. Claus could get in stock at Wal-Mart that would cover his fat ass big grin stick out tongue

So, Santa Cause has a time machine? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Santa Cause has a time machine? roll eyes (sarcastic) Well DUH, how do you think he gets around the world in just a day? wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well DUH, how do you think he gets around the world in just a day? wink

You would think he could have had any color then. stick out tongue

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You would think he could have had any color then. stick out tongue Ms. Claus only has a Winnebago and Santa has forbidden her going shopping with it any more after the Black Friday nightmare of 1920 mad

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Ms. Claus only has a Winnebago and Santa has forbidden her going shopping with it any more after the Black Friday nightmare of 1920 mad

What an ars.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What an ars. After dealing with billions of kids each year what you do think wink

Bicnarok

inimalist

Shakyamunison

Master Crimzon

leonheartmm
i beleive i made a thread on entirely this topic ages ago. and from what i remember, no relegious person cud give me a satisfactory answer.

now it seems, they generally avoid the debate altogether.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Perhaps, but in order to analyze God's supposed moral traits (a la 'sanctity of life'), some sort of logical motivation for the creation of the universe is highly important. Indeed, I believe that question is very similar to the question of God's existence- there will never be proof pointing towards it, and thus any logical substantiation is based on faith; I cannot buy faith-based answers, and therefore thinking about the 'why's' for the universe is a pointless and futile exercise. Understood. I see it as a conundrum. Human beings understand and demonstrate the might of logic and empirical science all the time; it's only natural we'd want to apply those same powerful, investigative tools to the biggest question going: "Does God exist?" The question is, are those tools the most appropriate? I don't know. My feeling is, they're necessary but may not be the final word.

leonheartmm
^and nuthing in the realm of the investigative can be ENOUGH for a venture like that. if indeed we assume that sum cause so alien and so outside of this physical unverse created us that even concepts themselves, much less the concepts of cause-affect/relateability/interpretation break down at that level, then POSSIBLY the only thin that cud even come close to aiding us is the abstract and logically rather nonsensical part of our emotional brain which doesn listen much to reason but has what feals like a "soul" and can contemplate concepts which dont seem tangible in physical reality and are associated with fealings themselves like rapture/apiphany/love etc. ofcourse, this is all assuming that such a power/cause/being left sumthing inside our souls which trancends the physical universe stick out tongue

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. I see it as a conundrum. Human beings understand and demonstrate the might of logic and empirical science all the time; it's only natural we'd want to apply those same powerful, investigative tools to the biggest question going: "Does God exist?" The question is, are those tools the most appropriate? I don't know. My feeling is, they're necessary but may not be the final word.

I have a very scientific approach to things, in a way that might be considered 'narrow-minded' in some circles, so I believe only in things that are supported by tangible, prove-able facts. In relation to what Leonheart said, we simply cannot trust our basic emotions in feelings- because these basic emotions and feelings are simply the work of a consciousness that instinctively attempts to find meaning in itself. These 'feelings' are all chemical and scientific in nature; we cannot trust them to be some sort of gospel, nor can we use them before scientific logic and reason.

Perhaps we were created for someone's entertainment. Perhaps we're part of a computer, programmed with all the 'laws of the universe' as we are aware of them. The bottom line, that is completely irrelevant- the 'why's' are irrelevant in human life and cannot be developed or supported by scientific rationalization.

My problem with people who attempt to give motivations for God's creation of us is that their argument typically goes as thus:

Religious Guy: "God created us because he was lonely and wanted a creation he could love. He wanted to trust us."
Atheist/Agnostic: "But... why would an omniscient, all-powerful being be hampered by such traits as loneliness and the desire for love? Is it for emotional gratification? But if that is so, then a being that desires emotional gratification is imperfect in nature. Not to mention that "
RG: "It's irrelevant why he loves us, the reasons for this are simply beyond the scope of discernible comprehension!"

It would seem as if the religious are attempting to give God motivations- but only motivation that exist directly within our ability to understand. Simplistic reasons like 'love' aren't aided by any sort of logical reasoning, and the implementation of them is inevitably attempting to judge God by human standards. But God has human emotions, then should there not be a purpose to them? Should it not have a human purpose? Or should we simply concede that the standards of such a being cannot, ever, be understood?

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I have a very scientific approach to things, in a way that might be considered 'narrow-minded' in some circles, so I believe only in things that are supported by tangible, prove-able facts. A sound approach. This should be at least part of anyone's life philosophy (whether 'proof' should be limited to what's tangible/empirical is another issue, but one we need not address here).

In relation to what Leonheart said, we simply cannot trust our basic emotions in feelings- because these basic emotions and feelings are simply the work of a consciousness that instinctively attempts to find meaning in itself. These 'feelings' are all chemical and scientific in nature; we cannot trust them to be some sort of gospel, nor can we use them before scientific logic and reason. While I certainly appreciate Leonheart's sentiment, one has to be careful when talking about 'feelings'. Emotions are one thing (a 'simpler' feeling, if you will); intuition, creative inspiration, eg (more 'complex' feelings) are something else. It is important to differentiate between the different kinds (not just degrees) of 'feelings' people can experience. This way, feelings which are primarily reflective of limbic system operations do not get elevated to 'transcendent' status, and on the same token, feelings which may be reflective of genuine transcendent insight do not get reduced, by materialist default, to just biochemical reactions.

My problem with people who attempt to give motivations for God's creation of us is that their argument typically goes as thus:
Religious Guy: "God created us because he was lonely and wanted a creation he could love. He wanted to trust us."
Atheist/Agnostic: "But... why would an omniscient, all-powerful being be hampered by such traits as loneliness and the desire for love? Is it for emotional gratification? But if that is so, then a being that desires emotional gratification is imperfect in nature. Not to mention that "
RG: "It's irrelevant why he loves us, the reasons for this are simply beyond the scope of discernible comprehension!"Yeah, I hear ya. There are a few problems here. One, this is touching on the omnipotence paradox, and paradox is always what you get when discussing infinite consciousness. There is some truth to logic/language being unable to grasp the Big Picture; hell, logic/language can't even adequately grasp quantum mechanics, so 'God' would really be outside the box. For centuries, to avoid generating paradoxes, religious studies have generally focused on discussing a particular aspect of 'God's personality', with the implicit agreement that staying in the box is necessary if any kind of human discourse is to occur.

The other thing I don't like is when people really abuse the 'God is incomprehensible' loophole to 'prove' their point. It doesn't prove anything about God; all it proves are the limits of language and logic. One may speculate what this says about God (as I like to do). But it proves nothing about God, per se.

It would seem as if the religious are attempting to give God motivations- but only motivation that exist directly within our ability to understand. Simplistic reasons like 'love' aren't aided by any sort of logical reasoning, and the implementation of them is inevitably attempting to judge God by human standards. But God has human emotions, then should there not be a purpose to them? Should it not have a human purpose? Or should we simply concede that the standards of such a being cannot, ever, be understood? Assuming such a being exists...yes, we would have to concede. We would have to concede that limited, mortal consciousness simply can not grasp, in any way, the nature, workings or motivation of infinite consciousness (that's logical, no?). So the first step would be to decide whether or not such a being could exist in the first place. Empirically, there is no solid ground for such a belief.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
A sound approach. This should be at least part of anyone's life philosophy (whether 'proof' should be limited to what's tangible/empirical is another issue, but one we need not address here)./

Yup, most certainly.

Originally posted by Mindship
While I certainly appreciate Leonheart's sentiment, one has to be careful when talking about 'feelings'. Emotions are one thing (a 'simpler' feeling, if you will); intuition, creative inspiration, eg (more 'complex' feelings) are something else. It is important to differentiate between the different kinds (not just degrees) of 'feelings' people can experience. This way, feelings which are primarily reflective of limbic system operations do not get elevated to 'transcendent' status, and on the same token, feelings which may be reflective of genuine transcendent insight do not get reduced, by materialist default, to just biochemical reactions.

As nice as the concept of feelings being little more than biochemical reactions is, I don't buy it. Even 'complex' feelings are simply more intricate reactions.

What exactly do you define as a 'transcendent' feeling, exactly? I'm rather curious.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, I hear ya. There are a few problems here. One, this is touching on the omnipotence paradox, and paradox is always what you get when discussing infinite consciousness. There is some truth to logic/language being unable to grasp the Big Picture; hell, logic/language can't even adequately grasp quantum mechanics, so 'God' would really be outside the box. For centuries, to avoid generating paradoxes, religious studies have generally focused on discussing a particular aspect of 'God's personality', with the implicit agreement that staying in the box is necessary if any kind of human discourse is to occur.

I believe that, to an extent, the concept of a God was created in order to narrow down the genesis of the universe to a concept humans can easily understand- but through greater intelligence and more rational thought, the concept of such an omniscient being begun to, in itself, stink of paradoxes and incomprehensible ideas. Quantum mechanics are incredibly bizarre to us because the human psyche and imagination are highly limited things.

Originally posted by Mindship
The other thing I don't like is when people really abuse the 'God is incomprehensible' loophole to 'prove' their point. It doesn't prove anything about God; all it proves are the limits of language and logic. One may speculate what this says about God (as I like to do). But it proves nothing about God, per se.

Exactly. If 'God is incomprehensible', then attempting to give him the most simplistic of traits like 'love' also doesn't work. If God operates out of human traits, then he must have human motivations and reasonings for these traits- it can't work both ways. One cannot say 'God was lonely' and then explain the reasoning for this as being 'beyond our comprehension'; for if that is so, then how do you explain how God is by human ideas? It makes no sense.


Originally posted by Mindship
Assuming such a being exists...yes, we would have to concede. We would have to concede that limited, mortal consciousness simply can not grasp, in any way, the nature, workings or motivation of infinite consciousness (that's logical, no?). So the first step would be to decide whether or not such a being could exist in the first place. Empirically, there is no solid ground for such a belief.

I'm going on the thought that God exists for the purpose of the debate. If that is so, then how can we possibly claim to be capable of understanding his moralistic traits? We're shackling him to the realm of the human imagination, without understood that some traits exist within humanity for a reason that cannot exist within a transcendent, omni-potent being.

I don't believe in a God, personally. This thread was designed in order to get the religion to possibly begin questioning the supposed 'traits' of their God. God values life? Then why does he value life? These are the questions I wanted people to ask themselves.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
As nice as the concept of feelings being little more than biochemical reactions is, I don't buy it. Even 'complex' feelings are simply more intricate reactions.My feeling (pun intended) is that we have to be careful with certain conclusions, however 'obvious' they may appear. There is no doubt that, at the very least, biochemistry correlates with our various feelings. But causation? This is an assumption, perhaps valid, perhaps not. In any event, correlation is the simpler proposition to start from as it avoids a default reductionist mindset.

What exactly do you define as a 'transcendent' feeling, exactly? I'm rather curious.An insight, an intuition, an understanding of how the world works based on something other (perhaps more) than linear reasoning, especially if this insight - applied to one's life - improves the quality of one's life and those around him/her. Such insight imparts perspective, humility and compassion, and a sense of peace, of connectedness with the world at large (I won't delve into the 'special effects' aspects of such insights as this would only complicate our discussion with an unnecessary tangent).

I'm sure you're no stranger to insights and their value in the broader sense, how they've been 'self-evident' to you even if you couldn't explain it logically. Transcendent simply means insights related to the Big Questions.

Exactly. If 'God is incomprehensible', then attempting to give him the most simplistic of traits like 'love' also doesn't work. If God operates out of human traits, then he must have human motivations and reasonings for these traits- it can't work both ways. Kind of like trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is generally what happens when a die-hard theist does not apply critical thinking as well as he/she should.

I don't believe in a God, personally. This thread was designed in order to get the religion to possibly begin questioning the supposed 'traits' of their God. God values life? Then why does he value life? These are the questions I wanted people to ask themselves. They're good questions, especially given how often religion and its edicts have been abused through the centuries (what I call religionism), so that a given demographic can feel superior to everyone else and therefore justified in taking life.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
My feeling (pun intended) is that we have to be careful with certain conclusions, however 'obvious' they may appear. There is no doubt that, at the very least, biochemistry correlates with our various feelings. But causation? This is an assumption, perhaps valid, perhaps not. In any event, correlation is the simpler proposition to start from as it avoids a default reductionist mindset.

Well, with our current scientific knowledge, it is impossible to associate our feelings and beliefs to be anything more than a product of our brain, which functions upon biochemistry, electric, whatever you have it. In order to assume that feelings and the human spirit are anything 'more than that', one must believe in some sort of human soul- a piece of divinity, if you will. Since there is no scientific indication to it, I do not believe in it. I also suspect this is one of the causes people still endorse creationism and shun evolution.


Originally posted by Mindship
An insight, an intuition, an understanding of how the world works based on something other (perhaps more) than linear reasoning, especially if this insight - applied to one's life - improves the quality of one's life and those around him/her. Such insight imparts perspective, humility and compassion, and a sense of peace, of connectedness with the world at large (I won't delve into the 'special effects' aspects of such insights as this would only complicate our discussion with an unnecessary tangent).

It basically comes down to thus: are all our feelings biological and evolutionary in nature, simply differing methods of survival? Or did we transcend past that, using our intelligence? I believe it is a mixture of that two: the desire for a better world is, of course, an evolutionary desire, as it creates safer grounds for reproduction and individual desires. But I would at least like to believe, that while our feelings are chemical in nature and not 'divine', that our intelligence does, after all, enable us to find greater meaning in life- or perhaps to imbue ourselves with greater meaning- than to survive and reproduce. The fact that the product of these feelings is chemical is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that these 'feelings' transcend basic animalistic and evolutionary desires.

Do you agree with my above conclusion?


Originally posted by Mindship
I'm sure you're no stranger to insights and their value in the broader sense, how they've been 'self-evident' to you even if you couldn't explain it logically. Transcendent simply means insights related to the Big Questions.

Hmm. Like 'what is the meaning of life'? Well, I believe that the intellectual development of humanity has led towards the desire of a meaning in order to feel like one has a purpose beyond continuing the species' existence.


Originally posted by Mindship
Kind of like trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is generally what happens when a die-hard theist does not apply critical thinking as well as he/she should.

Yup. However, some atheistic arguments are also ridiculous and rather narrow-minded in their nature. It's not just theists who attempt to imbue God with simplistic human traits and then run towards the 'beyond the scope of comprehension' card.

Originally posted by Mindship
They're good questions, especially given how often religion and its edicts have been abused through the centuries (what I call religionism), so that a given demographic can feel superior to everyone else and therefore justified in taking life.

Yup. I think that, if every religious person in the world comprehended that their faith is subjective, not absolute, and certainly not factual, then we would get rid of most religious problems in the world. The problem is when people force others to conform to their religious standards, and although this immediately causes people to think about 'regressive' nations, it also applies to the western world. Could you not say that Sarah Palin's political positions (just one example) are the product of theological fascism?

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Well, with our current scientific knowledge, it is impossible to associate our feelings and beliefs to be anything more than a product of our brain, which functions upon biochemistry, electric, whatever you have it. In order to assume that feelings and the human spirit are anything 'more than that', one must believe in some sort of human soul- a piece of divinity, if you will. Since there is no scientific indication to it, I do not believe in it. I also suspect this is one of the causes people still endorse creationism and shun evolution.For what it's worth, I think scientific method ('applied common sense') is applicable in studying any possible transcendent reality, as long we realize that 'proof' can mean any immediately perceived phenomenon, not just empirical phenomena. Problems arise, in fact, if we limit ourselves to only the empirical. Just like there is religionism, there is also scientism.

As for those who endorse creationism and shun evolution...somewhere down the line, common sense was apparently abandoned in the religionistic fervor to be special, no matter what.

It basically comes down to thus: are all our feelings biological and evolutionary in nature, simply differing methods of survival? Or did we transcend past that, using our intelligence? I believe it is a mixture of that two: the desire for a better world is, of course, an evolutionary desire, as it creates safer grounds for reproduction and individual desires. But I would at least like to believe, that while our feelings are chemical in nature and not 'divine', that our intelligence does, after all, enable us to find greater meaning in life- or perhaps to imbue ourselves with greater meaning- than to survive and reproduce. The fact that the product of these feelings is chemical is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that these 'feelings' transcend basic animalistic and evolutionary desires.

Do you agree with my above conclusion? Yes, I do. If you study the development of human consciousness historically, and especially how consciousness develops in a person, one notes a pattern: consciousness becomes 'higher' in that a new level of development can 'see beyond' the limits of the previous level of consciousness.

Yup. I think that, if every religious person in the world comprehended that their faith is subjective, not absolute, and certainly not factual, then we would get rid of most religious problems in the world. The problem is when people force others to conform to their religious standards, and although this immediately causes people to think about 'regressive' nations, it also applies to the western world. Could you not say that Sarah Palin's political positions (just one example) are the product of theological fascism? I suspect Palin is a closet dominatrix-religionist.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
For what it's worth, I think scientific method ('applied common sense') is applicable in studying any possible transcendent reality, as long we realize that 'proof' can mean any immediately perceived phenomenon, not just empirical phenomena. Problems arise, in fact, if we limit ourselves to only the empirical. Just like there is religionism, there is also scientism.

I believe the best regimes are absolutely secular ones, without any addition of faith-based decisions. The complete separation of church and state must be in order. Why? There is the fact that religion is not based on reality and that, no matter how you spin it, a government must focus upon pragmatism and reality; baseless faith is for the individual to decide for himself and his pursuit of happiness, but it should not be involved in large scale politics. The separation of church and state also ensures religious freedom- because how can there be religious freedom when laws are created by a specific religion, and thus that religion forces other religions to conform to their standards?

When analyzing proof, it should be based upon empirical science. If you want to conclude something else, than that is fine- but understand that it is a matter of personal faith and thus should have nothing to do with our approach to politics.

Originally posted by Mindship
As for those who endorse creationism and shun evolution...somewhere down the line, common sense was apparently abandoned in the religionistic fervor to be special, no matter what.

Whaddaya gonna do, huh? People have the Right to Remain Ignorant.


Originally posted by Mindship
Yes, I do. If you study the development of human consciousness historically, and especially how consciousness develops in a person, one notes a pattern: consciousness becomes 'higher' in that a new level of development can 'see beyond' the limits of the previous level of consciousness.

The thing is, I don't think humans are limited towards evolutionary desires and instincts at the moment. It is our intelligence that enables us to use our feelings in a different manner and calls for a deeper meaning; 'transcendent' in a completely atheistic and non-religious manner. Indeed, I believe that an integral part of liberalism is moralistic transcendence beyond primal concepts such as fear, hate, and anger.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suspect Palin is a closet dominatrix-religionist.

There's definitive proof to insinuate that Palin is the very definition of a 'Christian fascist' (do you know she attempted to get a gay book banned?). But the point is that, while Islamic religious extremism is more clear to the eye, fundamentalism from other religions- Christianity, Judaism, whatever- exists; it simply hides beneath a facade of legitimacy and silky words. A pig is still a pig if you put lipstick on it, as Obama says.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I believe the best regimes are absolutely secular ones, without any addition of faith-based decisions. You don't mean something like Nazi Germany, do you? wink The Founding Fathers of America were deeply religious men. Yes, they believed that organized religion should keep its nose out of politics. On the other hand, their concept of liberty and government included axioms of faith, ie, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator..." yada yada yada.

When analyzing proof, it should be based upon empirical science. Certainly when dealing with the empirical world.

But the point is that, while Islamic religious extremism is more clear to the eye, fundamentalism from other religions- Christianity, Judaism, whatever- exists; it simply hides beneath a facade of legitimacy and silky words. Religion doesn't kill. People do. And as you rightly noted earlier, silky words can come from anywhere, even atheists.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
You don't mean something like Nazi Germany, do you? wink The Founding Fathers of America were deeply religious men. Yes, they believed that organized religion should keep its nose out of politics. On the other hand, their concept of liberty and government included axioms of faith, ie, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator..." yada yada yada.

The Founding Fathers' personal faith is completely irrelevant; they knew it and the government had to be separated. Politicians use 'God' and 'creator' loosely, as a method of getting their point across and gripping the masses, regardless of whether they actually believe in it. Barack Obama is a Christian, but his political positions clearly have little to do with faith.

C'mon, Nazi Germany wasn't how it was because it hated religion. It 'interpreted' (perverted...?) concepts like Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical works, and while many of these works were atheistic in nature, the Nazi's racism had very little to actually do with it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Certainly when dealing with the empirical world.

Hmm-hm.


Originally posted by Mindship
Religion doesn't kill. People do. And as you rightly noted earlier, silky words can come from anywhere, even atheists.

My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?

Religion doesn't kill, but it gives people motivation and spurs them into killing. Without a motivation for an action, the action does not come into play.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The Founding Fathers' personal faith is completely irrelevant; they knew itSupposition on your part, and poorly supported at that. I'm basing my point on face value, ie, what the Founding Fathers actually wrote, not what I think they meant or knew.

My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?In the American system? Not off-hand. But I believe Communism is atheistic, and we all know how well they treat their citizens.

Religion doesn't kill, but it gives people motivation and spurs them into killing. Without a motivation for an action, the action does not come into play. If someone is intent on power and control, they'll find some rationalization for their actions.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?

Not within politics but Hitchens and Dawkins seem more interested in atheistic rhetoric and dogma than in rationalism.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
Supposition on your part, and poorly supported at that. I'm basing my point on face value, ie, what the Founding Fathers actually wrote, not what I think they meant or knew.

There's considerable evidence to suggest the Founding Fathers were not religious, including critical statements of Christianity. It's arguable that they believed in some form of a God, but they were certainly not traditionally religious and would not be interested in forming a religious country; after all, they themselves fled from religious persecution.

Originally posted by Mindship
In the American system? Not off-hand. But I believe Communism is atheistic, and we all know how well they treat their citizens.

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China and their irk are not true communist countries. Communism is a financial ideology, one that is actually a nice idea in theory but simply does not work. What led towards mistreatment of their citizens in so-called 'communist' countries was atheistic fascism, which is just as bad as theological fascism- but it's less prominent in places like the United States.

There are some atheists that believe that their beliefs are fact, and for that reason, anybody who does not conform to them (the religious) must be punished. The motivations for this and forcing religion upon others are largely similar. Instead, people must comprehend that religious beliefs are subjective, cultural, and necessary towards an individual's own Truth and pursuit of happiness- it simply must not be involved within politics.

Originally posted by Mindship
If someone is intent on power and control, they'll find some rationalization for their actions.

I personally believe that religious extremism is a form of justification for the individuals committing crimes in its name; a way of making themselves feel better about their actions and perhaps helping them to concentrate their anger. First comes the factors of reality, and then come the factor of religion. There's a reason why you do not see comfortable Muslims within the U.S supporting terrorist bombings.

Outside of that, I just watched a film called Paradise Now. One of the most compelling movies about the Middle East. It's a story told from the perspective of two suicide bombers to be, with one of its plot threads being about whether it is first caused by religious fundamentalism or socio-economic factors. Indeed, the movie's conclusion is very similar to mine- socio-economic factors lead to violent religious interpretations, which give the person the solace of being remembered as a 'saint'. It's also one of the most effectively anti-terrorist movies I've ever seen, because it is a deep inspect of the psychology that leads to terrorism rather than a demonization of terrorists as being inhuman religious extremists. It's a peon towards comprehending that behind every person is a human being- and that there is a common humanity behind us all, a humanity we can work upon in order to achieve mutual interest. To not degenerate into cynicism in the face of violence, nor surrender to feelings like hate and revenge- because that feeds the cycle of violence and gives continued justification and motivation for it, but rather learn to transcend beyond it: it's the only way to end a war.

Red Nemesis
Another view on the matter of terrorism:

Master Crimzon
I'm certain that terrorism is started by people with money, but the actual recruits and foot soldiers are the ones without it. The ones so desperate and hopeless that they turn into violence and extremist religionism, no longer viewing these things in a negative light- while money is not necessarily the only part of that situation, we can certainly see that 'terrorist countries' are significantly more impoverished than the more 'progressive' Western ones.

By the way, you ought to read how the United States indirectly financed Al Qaeda, the Bin Laden family, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, whatnot. It's interesting to see how a bit of morality and protectionism could have prevented the worldwide situation: put simply, much of the terrorism today would not exist, because they would not have the money and the motivation. I've come to the conclusion that, while military force is important, the solution to the War on Terror must be diplomatic, economic, and placed within the hands of the United Nations more than the United States, in order to secure more permanent stops to violence and genocide and to bankrupt terrorism. There is no easy solution, and the complexity of the situation is giving me a headache, but I think that, ultimately, the future of the war on terrorism lies within the hands of the world- not the U.S.

Mindship
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
There's considerable evidence to suggest the Founding Fathers were not religious, including critical statements of Christianity. It's arguable that they believed in some form of a God, but they were certainly not traditionally religious and would not be interested in forming a religious country; after all, they themselves fled from religious persecution. This I can agree with. By religious I did not mean in the formal, Christian sense exclusively. I'm sure our FFrs were not religious in the traditional sense; people who are intelligent, critical and probing thinkers generally aren't. Perhaps it would be less confusing to say that they were a deeply spiritual group whom, among other things, wished to avoid the pitfalls of organized religion in the new world; that to them, inalienable rights endowed by a creator trumped dogma, and that among these rights was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not "believe what I tell you."

Outside of that, I just watched a film called Paradise Now. One of the most compelling movies about the Middle East. It's a story told from the perspective of two suicide bombers to be, with one of its plot threads being about whether it is first caused by religious fundamentalism or socio-economic factors. Indeed, the movie's conclusion is very similar to mine- socio-economic factors lead to violent religious interpretations, which give the person the solace of being remembered as a 'saint'. It's also one of the most effectively anti-terrorist movies I've ever seen, because it is a deep inspect of the psychology that leads to terrorism rather than a demonization of terrorists as being inhuman religious extremists. It's a peon towards comprehending that behind every person is a human being- and that there is a common humanity behind us all, a humanity we can work upon in order to achieve mutual interest. To not degenerate into cynicism in the face of violence, nor surrender to feelings like hate and revenge- because that feeds the cycle of violence and gives continued justification and motivation for it, but rather learn to transcend beyond it: it's the only way to end a war. The movie sounds familiar. I'll keep a look out for it, in case it comes on cable again.
Yeah, the psychology of terrorism is fascinating, as is that of serial killing and hostage negotiating (seriously).

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by Mindship
This I can agree with. By religious I did not mean in the formal, Christian sense exclusively. I'm sure our FFrs were not religious in the traditional sense; people who are intelligent, critical and probing thinkers generally aren't. Perhaps it would be less confusing to say that they were a deeply spiritual group whom, among other things, wished to avoid the pitfalls of organized religion in the new world; that to them, inalienable rights endowed by a creator trumped dogma, and that among these rights was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not "believe what I tell you."

I still stand by my belief that 'endowed by their creator' is simply a figure of speech, in the same manner that most politicians (including Hitler, in the past) use 'God'. I'm sure the Founding Fathers were spiritual- hell, maybe they were even Christians- but they were very critical of organized religion and certainly supported the Separation of Church and State, contrary to what conservatives might want us to believe.

Originally posted by Mindship
The movie sounds familiar. I'll keep a look out for it, in case it comes on cable again.
Yeah, the psychology of terrorism is fascinating, as is that of serial killing and hostage negotiating (seriously).

It's the only Palestinian movie to be nominated for best foreign picture at the Academy Awards, and it's damn well worth it.

The psychology of violence is one of the biggest tactical advantages we can have. Because by comprehending the psychology of it, we can analyze the situations that cause it and work towards controlling them or fully alleviating them, thus resulting in a large-scale and permanent deterrence of violence level. It works far more effectively than arguing that violence ends violence- that line of thought never worked and was consistently shown to only breed more violence.

Psychologically understanding an enemy, and understanding how we can affect that psyche via controlling environmental influences, is simply integral to the war on crime and terror.

overlord
he was aroused by himself so he created man and woman

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.