I like your post and its obvious that you have done some thinking. But man took advantage of others belief in a God earlier in our history however,
and enslaved people using religion as the tool. Religion doesnt have the best track record. It has created much misery, unfairness and suffering while
not really providing anything good in return.
Therefore we dont see the point of religion anymore. It just makes it easier for others to control our minds, and since human nature is to exploit
others, we dont want that for ourselfs.
We need to take responsibility for what happens to us and not think there is a purpose to misery. If you have misery in your life, you can work to
make it better. You. Not God.
[edit on 1-8-2009 by Copernicus]
Why humans need a physical god., page 1
Topic started on 1-8-2009 @ 05:06 PM by Xtraeme
I'm not a religious person, but I think the fundamental problem with the question
"What will it take for you to Stop Believing in a diety!?" is that a
belief (i.e. faith) is not falsifiable in any situation.
Somewhat strangely being a life-long agnostic (neither theist or atheist, as I don't think belief should factor in to the question, though I sympathize with deism) I was able to rationalize why humans would benefit from a god.
It stems from the Sartrean concept of scarcity. To gain a full understanding of my view of scarcity and how it affects the human condition see here.
(Note: if you don't read the treatise linked above you may fail to accept the primary corollary that makes this logical argument true ...)
Working from the belief that scarcity implies a class system and therefore a mode of moral reasoning I thought to myself, "If the Christian God exists then when he stated that man would fail on his own, he was 100% correct because scarcity is the root of all moral reasoning."
Consider that many millions upon millions of years from now, when humanity has the ability to fundamentally convert matter to energy and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions; and when man has the ability to replicate & create anything whether it be cloning an exact copy of yourself, creating a planet, or summoning in to existence a TV or what-have-you:
Scarcity will still exist.
Why? Because there is no way to replicate the exact instance of the original Earth. Put another way. There is only one original NY. Even if we can recreate Earth exactly as it currently exists and put it in another system, exactly modeled on our current solar system, there would still be only one original Earth.
Thus scarcity still exists as a concept in peoples minds and therefore future people will still need some mechanism to determine resource allocation (likely a stored social value system like money).
Then I realized "if the Christian God exists and if the abstract concept of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of knowledge is accurate," then the only way to do away with scarcity (and therefore class systems & human indignity, since scarcity necessitates a "mode of moral reasoning") is to return to our original state of ignorance.
However in the process of returning to our state of ignorance we also lose something significant, our ability to understand right from wrong. Thus a "god" if such a thing could / does exist, would perform the function of making sure things are "fair" by balancing greed / avarice, pride, envy, wrath / anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth against generosity, humility, love, kindness, self control, temperance, & zeal.
It's either that or:
Thus the concept of a god is functionally useful and I'd go so far as to say necessary because we as humans have proven time and again that any attempts to bring equality / balance has been met by a more aggressive culture exerting its primacy over the more peaceful / passive society.
For example, remember Columbus's quote?
More recently the fight over communism versus capitalism was literally a battle over a "mode of moral reasoning." Thus it was a battle over, yes, scarcity, which equates to balance of power and a means of resource allocation.
What this tells me is a fair society is never ready for a war-like society. Thus a more passive and even-handed alliance will always lose to a more aggressive people. Hence while anyone can harbor greed or a desire to exert power over someone else, humanity will fundamentally continue in its cycles of oppressions over other groups.
Q.E.D. humans need a physical god because "scarcity is the root of all evil" and is unavoidable across time and space.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
Somewhat strangely being a life-long agnostic (neither theist or atheist, as I don't think belief should factor in to the question, though I sympathize with deism) I was able to rationalize why humans would benefit from a god.
It stems from the Sartrean concept of scarcity. To gain a full understanding of my view of scarcity and how it affects the human condition see here.
(Note: if you don't read the treatise linked above you may fail to accept the primary corollary that makes this logical argument true ...)
Working from the belief that scarcity implies a class system and therefore a mode of moral reasoning I thought to myself, "If the Christian God exists then when he stated that man would fail on his own, he was 100% correct because scarcity is the root of all moral reasoning."
Consider that many millions upon millions of years from now, when humanity has the ability to fundamentally convert matter to energy and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions; and when man has the ability to replicate & create anything whether it be cloning an exact copy of yourself, creating a planet, or summoning in to existence a TV or what-have-you:
Scarcity will still exist.
Why? Because there is no way to replicate the exact instance of the original Earth. Put another way. There is only one original NY. Even if we can recreate Earth exactly as it currently exists and put it in another system, exactly modeled on our current solar system, there would still be only one original Earth.
Thus scarcity still exists as a concept in peoples minds and therefore future people will still need some mechanism to determine resource allocation (likely a stored social value system like money).
Then I realized "if the Christian God exists and if the abstract concept of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of knowledge is accurate," then the only way to do away with scarcity (and therefore class systems & human indignity, since scarcity necessitates a "mode of moral reasoning") is to return to our original state of ignorance.
However in the process of returning to our state of ignorance we also lose something significant, our ability to understand right from wrong. Thus a "god" if such a thing could / does exist, would perform the function of making sure things are "fair" by balancing greed / avarice, pride, envy, wrath / anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth against generosity, humility, love, kindness, self control, temperance, & zeal.
It's either that or:
- return to ignorance (either through genetic manipulation or some transcendent modification of our fundamental nature)
- continue to accept human nature as it is, for now and all time as far from perfect, inharmonious, and barbarous
- Or, as suggested above, have an outside actor, like a god, that we cannot touch, influence, or affect, that keeps the scales always balanced without fundamentally altering our nature; therefore leaving us with our ability to appreciate right from wrong and good from bad.
Thus the concept of a god is functionally useful and I'd go so far as to say necessary because we as humans have proven time and again that any attempts to bring equality / balance has been met by a more aggressive culture exerting its primacy over the more peaceful / passive society.
For example, remember Columbus's quote?
"They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality... " (Columbus and Beyond, pg 24)
They "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it." ... (People's History of the United States, pg 3)
"They would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (People's History of the United States, pg 1)
More recently the fight over communism versus capitalism was literally a battle over a "mode of moral reasoning." Thus it was a battle over, yes, scarcity, which equates to balance of power and a means of resource allocation.
What this tells me is a fair society is never ready for a war-like society. Thus a more passive and even-handed alliance will always lose to a more aggressive people. Hence while anyone can harbor greed or a desire to exert power over someone else, humanity will fundamentally continue in its cycles of oppressions over other groups.
Q.E.D. humans need a physical god because "scarcity is the root of all evil" and is unavoidable across time and space.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
). 
reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 06:52 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by CSquared288
why do you think the humans of the future will want a specific Earth in time? Especially so much that affects their whole mentality adversely? I guess my question is why would they want an Earth of such specifications as opposed to any earth that functioned in the same manner, if not with the same specific interactions?
My point is if everything's infinitely copyable the only thing that's scarce is the instance of the copy.
Look at something like Xbox Live. People have gamer points. These "gamer point" do nothing for the person other than provide a way to compete with friends. Amazingly people spend money buying accounts that have high gamer scores.
What's the reason for this? Competitiveness.
It's human nature.
Thus unless human nature changes the people in this theorized future would almost definitely compete for property on the original earth.
[edit on 1-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 07:02 PM by nunya13
reply to post by Xtraeme
Sadly, i agree with much of your post. Sad because of the fact that human nature is such that there has to be a duality because what is love without hate?
Sad because the negatively aligned factions will just about always prevail over those aligned with the positive for the exact reasons you put forth--because the "bad" use devious methods to exert power over those who aren't willing to go that far and so they ultimately wind up giving in. Sure, the just can win over the unjust sometimes, but the end result is the bad winning over the good. But that's the end result on the microcosm scale.
I think it's why it seems that things are getting worse and worse. It's because things are also getting much better in other areas and those who want more power have to continually dial it up a notch. And it is this that makes me believe that, from the macrocosm perspective, good ultimately prevails. It doesn't take much effort to do good. A lot of times it just happens. But those who want to prevail over good have to put a lot of time, thinking, and effort to exert more control over those who want good. The good don't want to control anything, they just do what comes naturally so there's no abundance of energies needed. But the bad have to actively find ways to overcome good.
Does that make any sense?
Anyway, I've been thinking about why some people need a physical god a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that, to put it simply, it's because people don't and can't trust themselves. They need an authority figure to be watching their every move because, left to their own devices, they can't be trusted to do good.
It's like some recovering addicts that say they NEED the rules and structure of their support groups otherwise they will "fall off the wagon". That's why they can't even hang around anyone whose drinking. Because they can't trust themselves to not do it also.
I think it's sad that the reality is that religion is needed to keep people in check. I used to think we should just do away with it. But now, I think it has to be. Think of how many people only do the "right thing" because they think God is watching them. They didn't do it because it just felt right, they did it because, ultimately, they will be rewarded for it in the end.
Think of how many times you've heard someone say, "because that's what God wants/teaches." How about they do it because it's just the right thing to do. Why do they need someone to tell them how it should be done?
[edit on 1-8-2009 by nunya13]
Sadly, i agree with much of your post. Sad because of the fact that human nature is such that there has to be a duality because what is love without hate?
Sad because the negatively aligned factions will just about always prevail over those aligned with the positive for the exact reasons you put forth--because the "bad" use devious methods to exert power over those who aren't willing to go that far and so they ultimately wind up giving in. Sure, the just can win over the unjust sometimes, but the end result is the bad winning over the good. But that's the end result on the microcosm scale.
I think it's why it seems that things are getting worse and worse. It's because things are also getting much better in other areas and those who want more power have to continually dial it up a notch. And it is this that makes me believe that, from the macrocosm perspective, good ultimately prevails. It doesn't take much effort to do good. A lot of times it just happens. But those who want to prevail over good have to put a lot of time, thinking, and effort to exert more control over those who want good. The good don't want to control anything, they just do what comes naturally so there's no abundance of energies needed. But the bad have to actively find ways to overcome good.
Does that make any sense?
Anyway, I've been thinking about why some people need a physical god a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that, to put it simply, it's because people don't and can't trust themselves. They need an authority figure to be watching their every move because, left to their own devices, they can't be trusted to do good.
It's like some recovering addicts that say they NEED the rules and structure of their support groups otherwise they will "fall off the wagon". That's why they can't even hang around anyone whose drinking. Because they can't trust themselves to not do it also.
I think it's sad that the reality is that religion is needed to keep people in check. I used to think we should just do away with it. But now, I think it has to be. Think of how many people only do the "right thing" because they think God is watching them. They didn't do it because it just felt right, they did it because, ultimately, they will be rewarded for it in the end.
Think of how many times you've heard someone say, "because that's what God wants/teaches." How about they do it because it's just the right thing to do. Why do they need someone to tell them how it should be done?
[edit on 1-8-2009 by nunya13]
reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 01:30 AM by Exv8densez
Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Xtraeme
I think it's why it seems that things are getting worse and worse. It's because things are also getting much better in other areas and those who want more power have to continually dial it up a notch. And it is this that makes me believe that, from the macrocosm perspective, good ultimately prevails. It doesn't take much effort to do good. A lot of times it just happens. But those who want to prevail over good have to put a lot of time, thinking, and effort to exert more control over those who want good. The good don't want to control anything, they just do what comes naturally so there's no abundance of energies needed. But the bad have to actively find ways to overcome good.
Does that make any sense?
[edit on 1-8-2009 by nunya13]
That makes PERFECT sense to me. I think exactly the same.
Which is why good may often seems as passive or weak. Now knowing the difference between good and bad is a whole other thing. Yet, we may have a clue we often pretend not to see. The bad is already self-destructive.
reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 02:05 AM by Exv8densez
reply to post by Xtraeme
Humm another interesting God-related thread.
What is really bothersome in your analogy is this;
Why is it that we would be ignorent in our original state? Shouldn't it be the contrary?
Saying that Adam and Eve were ignorant in their original state is an insult to God/gods because God/gods made them in his/their image remember?
When humanity will have the ability to be like God/gods or even close to, it will probably have reached the higher wisdom necessary to know that there's no need to recreate any original earth.
What is more urgent is that humanity reconnects with its higher consciousness that provides the higher potentials, before it’s too late.
.
Mod Edit: Changed code tags for quote tags.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Gemwolf]
Humm another interesting God-related thread.
What is really bothersome in your analogy is this;
However in the process of returning to our state of ignorance we also lose something significant, our ability to understand right from wrong. Thus a "god" if such a thing could / does exist, would perform the function of making sure things are "fair" by balancing greed / avarice, pride, envy, wrath / anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth against generosity, humility, love, kindness, self control, temperance, & zeal. It's either that or: 1. return to ignorance (either through genetic manipulation or some transcendent modification of our fundamental nature)
Why is it that we would be ignorent in our original state? Shouldn't it be the contrary?
Saying that Adam and Eve were ignorant in their original state is an insult to God/gods because God/gods made them in his/their image remember?
When humanity will have the ability to be like God/gods or even close to, it will probably have reached the higher wisdom necessary to know that there's no need to recreate any original earth.
What is more urgent is that humanity reconnects with its higher consciousness that provides the higher potentials, before it’s too late.
.
Mod Edit: Changed code tags for quote tags.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Gemwolf]
reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 02:22 AM by Xtraeme
reply to post by Exv8densez
I'm simply quoting Christian doctrine. Adam & Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. Thus it's fair to say that before that they were in a state of ignorance.
Assuming such a thing happened, then in our previous state we didn't know right from wrong because we were programmed to act in a purely moral fashion. Thus inherent in this state was a lack of understanding of the full range of psychological behavior.
To be created in the Christian God's image does not mean we were designed to utterly mimic the Christian God's qualities. I see nothing insulting or defamatory about this, assuming any of it's even true.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
I'm simply quoting Christian doctrine. Adam & Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. Thus it's fair to say that before that they were in a state of ignorance.
Assuming such a thing happened, then in our previous state we didn't know right from wrong because we were programmed to act in a purely moral fashion. Thus inherent in this state was a lack of understanding of the full range of psychological behavior.
To be created in the Christian God's image does not mean we were designed to utterly mimic the Christian God's qualities. I see nothing insulting or defamatory about this, assuming any of it's even true.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 09:54 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by Copernicus
No I understood what you meant. But I dont believe in a God so I started thinking about the role of religion through history and what it has done for people. But yes, if a God existed, Im sure it would benefit humanity if he were the apex of morality. Unfortunately he is not described that way in the bible though. He is more like someone who carries out a experiment with humans and gets pissed when it doesnt turn out as he wanted. Sounds very much like human qualities to me...
Consider this scenario. We have three people. One seller (P_0) and two buyers (P_1 & P_2). Now lets assume the seller has an indivisible morsel of food and this community is suffering due to famine. Lets also assume we have two buyers with the same amount of money (P_1 = P_2). Since there's no monetary inequality, the person to receive the food would either be randomly drawn in a lottery, selected due to favoritism, picked based on a majority vote, determined based on maximizing `group survivability logic` (allocate the meal to the person best likely to keep the group alive, the person who hunts / forages, or the person who most needs sustenance) or given the item based on the moral-code of the community (women & children first); to wit, modes of moral reasoning.
Now consider, is anyone of these choices "more moral" than the other? Even if there was a monetary inequality, is it more moral to simply let the stored social value system determine who gets this food rather than applying some form of moral judgment? Morality or the lack of morality (pure unregulated money) is often arbitrary and does not necessarily improve the group outcome.
Thus the mediator that I described in the OP (the need for a "god") does NOT have to be moral by subjective standards rather as a group we must innately defer and accept the decision as moral.
Otherwise there will always be disagreement and therefore barbarism. So really when I said that humanity needs a "physical god that is the apex of morality" what I'm arguing for is something we defer to without question to resolve issues that we are ourselves can never 100% collectively agree upon (because there is no right answer) without fundamentally changing our very nature or devolving in to a game of last man standing.
I think it seems far more likely that we were created by other life, whatever it may be future humans or alien species. I think the theory of evolution doesnt make sense simply because there are nothing on this planet even close to our own abilities. If you look at all other species, you find every single one of them has entire trees of similar creatures. That makes sense for random creation. But humans doesnt. Perhaps they took ape DNA and mixed it with parts of their own. It seems likely.
Chimps have the capability to reach a 2nd / 3rd grade-level of education. I remember reading something similar about dolphins, though it's argued that due to a lack of an opposable thumb they can't easily employ tools to manipulate their environment.
We also have demonstrated that Elephant's appear to be self-aware. Something previously only attributed to humans.
So I believe in some kind of purpose with us being here. There are tons of things we have no idea about. There may be 11 dimensions, time travel may be common and our observations of the physical world may give us only limited understanding of whats going on. This whole place almost seems designed, with circular planet orbits which are very unusual in the rest of the universe, where the moon is at a perfect size and distance for our tides to work etc etc. I get a strong feeling of something artificial when comparing with the rest of the universe.
I wish I could say either way. Maybe, maybe not. Though I think the easiest way to test this theory is to attempt to destroy ourselves. If there is something watching over our evolution surely it would manifest itself to prevent such an action.
Cheers,
-X
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Xtraeme]
The number 13: The Power behind it. How to Protect yourself in this spiritual war..
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Triptych Doorway, Key to the Sacred Science Spirituality of the Mother Civilization
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus
Breaking Alternative News: 13 hours ago, 47 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 13 hours ago, 47 flags
Journalist Michael Hastings dies in L.A. car crash (Single car crash??)
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 27 flags
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 27 flags
America's oldest cave paintings found, dating back 6K years
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 17 hours ago, 24 flags
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 17 hours ago, 24 flags
Amazing images of tornado near Denver International Airport at 3:24 PM CDT
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 15 flags
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 15 flags
The NSA is in so much trouble...and here is an example of how.
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 12 flags
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 12 flags
Big Brother alert: Cameras in the cable box to monitor TV viewers
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus
Breaking Alternative News: 13 hours ago, 167 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 13 hours ago, 167 replies
Journalist Michael Hastings dies in L.A. car crash (Single car crash??)
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 62 replies
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 62 replies
Cummings: Full IRS interview shows White House didn’t direct tea party targeting
Breaking Political News: 11 hours ago, 26 replies
Breaking Political News: 11 hours ago, 26 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.326 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.326 seconds
