It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New study proves someones "god" is nothing more than one's own image! Religion crumbles...

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by reasonable
reply to post by semperfortis

People are learning how the human mind works = the end times are coming.

hot damn I love ATS!

Yes, of course. ATS is the ivory tower of intellect.

Originally posted by MrDudle
Maybe he doesn't do miracles because you touch yourself at night. On a serious note, god doesn't exist, nor is there any intrinsic value in anything. And if you are telling us that by saying god doesn't exist that means we are polluting your thread then you are just closed minded!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RAWR I R MAD!!!!!!!!!!! Nah...basically dude/dudette you asked for thoughts. We give thoughts. If you don't like our thoughts then I suggest leaving?

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by reasonable

Wait -- they needed to do a study to find out that people's idea of God is based on their own thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs? I thought that is rather obvious.

People are free-thinking and always have been. I'm sure people long ago during the infancy of the christian church used their own thoughts and attitudes to form their personal beliefs, and the same is true for people today. In fact, I would have found it odd for the opposite to be true -- that ALL personal ideas about God comes from the Church.

The knowledge of this study in hand should in no way alter a believer's perception of God and religion.

I'm not a religious person, but I know people who are are at least somewhat religious, and their attitudes concerning God are most definitely based on their own attitudes. I'd be surprised if they weren't.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by PontiacWarrior

What you have presented, and to which I partly agree, is two contrasting sides of that debate.

So yes.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by reasonable

Well actually that kind of just proves the Bible was right. When it says that right and wrong are imprinted on us by God and we already know what's right and wrong. But what we do and what we know are two different things and the Bible tells us that.

Ask someone what would Jesus do? Would he kill and rape? No, of course not. What would you do, would you kill and rape? Oh of course not. So, everyone knows what's right and wrong just like the Bible tells us right? Well then, why do people still kill and rape? Hmm, something is odd here.

People go out and kill and rape and lie and cheat and steal and fight and whatever else. But then the same people will turn right around and say it's wrong. Interesting don't ya think? So why do they do it? They know what's wrong and right, but they do it anyway? Well, the Bible tells us why.

See one thing the Bible tells us that if people don't worship God that instead of worshiping nothing they will inevitably turn right around and worship themselves even if they mean to or not. That it's just our nature and we can't help it.

The reason these people say they'd do the same thing as God is because they are their own God. It's that simple. But there is also a true God that is not the same as them.

Jesus would not be just like me! WRONG! The only person that ever walked the earth that was like Jesus was JESUS! Jesus was nothing like any of us.

He would not do what I've done. He wouldn't lie or cheat or steal or get in fights or whatever else. No No no, Jesus would not do what I have done. Jesus would probably help people that I want dead. Me and Jesus, not the same. Anybody that's a Christian should know better too.

But when you worship yourself instead of the Lord then yeah, I suppose it wouldn't be all that messed up if people had the idea that their God would do the same thing as they would. But they're really just rationalizing their own sin. The Bible tells us the opposite though. That God is holy and we are sinners. It's easy to try to think God is more like you to justify what you do, but God is still God regardless.

Anyone that thinks their God would act the same as they would does not know the God of the Bible and they need to open the book again.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by tinfoilman]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by PontiacWarrior
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

That is the most parroted garbage ever! Did you come up with that all on your own?

Sometimes I wonder, if the people who say such radical things today, would in times past, be the evil one's torturing the innocent till they confess and conform to their belief. Disgusting, learn to think for yourself.


First off you can feel what you feel and think how you think but my personal relationship with "GOD" is so powerful I know he exist. As far as me posting garbage nope not here I was stating that many who try their best to disprove the lord EXIST will find out on JUDGEMENT DAY, when ironically they all will REQUEST GOD TO HELP THEM FROM SUFFERING (GOD SAVE US - GOD BLESS US ECT.) and he WILL remember all of you who felt he had to prove himself to you, which he doesnt. Your will is your FREE WILL for a reason. So that those who naturally possess the "LIGHT" inside them will outshine all of the many DIM BULBS THAT EXIST ON EARTH screaming to the CREATOR "PROVE YOURSELF", so AGAIN see you on judgment day REGUARDLESS OF YOUR ETHNIC BACKGROUND YOU WILL BE THERE "TRUST"

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:20 AM
Again, the thread author is right that the ego is a false god. And those seeking comfort and not truth worship this false god, all in the effort of creating a heaven for oneself to the extent that one creates a hell for another. "Thou shalt screw over the other, before that other shall screw over you," is a mantra of this devil. A preemptive strike, if you will. Perhaps if we viewed God as infinite love and infinite logic and infinite will reconciled into one thing, and see this God as existing an infinite distance from us, but connected to us and drawing us ever nearer, this is a proper view. We would become more and more like God, but could journey forever, if we chose.

It is my view, and I make no bones about showing it, that those with a Christ- like mentality see this. In that which we have faith, on that which we focus, it is to that destination we are headed, as we are all influencing each other in one grand dance. If people dwell on hell, then that is the house in which they shall reside. If one judges the essential person of another, rather than what could be called their spiritual alignment, then that person is also judging himself or herself, and that person will get sucked into a downward spiral. It is my view that Christ was trying to get rid of the master/slave wheel, which although revolutions occur, and the characters might switch roles, the drama remains the same.

It is my view that both religious and atheist have this nasty tendency of self-worship, that they both have this critical error in perspective. Strangely enough, the character Christ played was accredited with trying to put an end to mindless ritual, to thwart humanity's vainglorious religion. Yet, the concept was bastardized almost immediately. Ruthless whores and ruthless dominators both have this nasty tendency of usurping that which is pure, of destroying all that is beneficial in a lust for vainglory. They want to spread their glorious fabricated image, their feces, all over society. Christ tricked these "demons" posing as Godly messengers, and planted seeds which guarantee that the one shall destroy the other simultaneously. The quicker the cycle's get, the more powerful of these deadly archetypes are exposed, and subsequently rejected, by humanity. Any one with ears to hear, try to read between and beyond the lines, if you WILL.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by reasonable

The study is hardly a Silver bullet to the heart of religion. In fact I don't think it (the study) provided any new information at all. I think it goes without saying that we create God in our own image just as many religions claim that we are made in His image. These facts do not disprove the existence or non-existance of God in any way. The study only confirms that our perception of God is biased based on our own personal mind set. Hardly surprising and cetainly not a revelation.... at least not to me.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:28 AM
LOL.. I laughed so hard!

This proves Nothing!

It is very speculative.

What they are really finding is the very human tendency of people to make their perceptions about God fit their world view, and visa versa. It's a way they can validate their views in the face of God.

But it certainly Does NOT in Any Way "prove someones God is nothing more than one's own image"

Who ever came up with that title did not understand the research at all.


For those of you who don't get it, this study has nothing to do with a REAL GOD at all !

[edit on 1-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Anamnesis
reply to post by reasonable

The study is hardly a Silver bullet to the heart of religion. In fact I don't think it (the study) provided any new information at all.

Of course it didn't. It is just the excuse to start another religion flame war. No one is trying to dialog with anyone else.

If I actually thought the OP had any real respect to the topic he presented I would ask him to tell us about who the PIs were that conducted the study, what were their protocols, who where the human subjects, and which university or institution funded it. I would ask him in his own words to explain why he felt the protocol was a good one, but the truth is he wouldn't know and would probably just attempt to hit me with the billy goat's leg he is currently gnawing upon.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM
I don't know why some people seem surprised to find out that people of religious conviction are not "automatons" who are not capable of free thought.

People who believe in God are simply normal people who, like all normal people, have free will to believe in God in which ever manner they want to believe.

Religious-minded people can understand the position of the Church without feeling "forced" into strictly adhering to that stated position -- and they probably don't admonish or disapprove of the church for trying to promote its position (because it's what the church "does").

As I said, why are the results of this study a surprise to people?

The OP obviously does not understand human nature very well. For the life of me, I don't understand why people would give the OP stars and flags.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
To me true believers in the CHRIST already know who is the SON. Many of the non believing people always try their best to discredit the EXISTANCE of GOD so be it. All I can say is see you on JUDGMENT DAY AND GOOD LUCK.

Not trying to flame here, and I know that this will come off as condescending atheist nonsense, but I swear on my life there are honest questions to which I have NEVER gotten an honest answer:

If God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put it in so accessible a place and draw such attention to it? IT WAS A TEST TO SEE IF HIS CREATION DEVELOPED THE INTELLIGENCE NOT KNOWLEDGE TO LISTEN.

If God so loved humanity that he wanted to forgive them (hundreds of generations later) for the mistakes of two (long dead and gone) people, why would a God as powerful as this one opt for absurd machinations of impregnating a virgin with a child that is both His Son and Himself so that He/His Son could walk the Earth and eventually be crucified so that humanity could experience His forgiveness so long as they completely and utterly believe in the truth of this genuinely bizarre scheme? I HAVE CHILDREN AND THEY ARE ME I GAVE THEM MY BLOOD AS GOD GAVE HIS ENERGY TO JESUS. GOD WALKS ON EARTH THRU HIS SON FOR THE LORD CANNOT EVEN FIT IN THIS ENTIRE UNIVERSE.



[edit on 12/1/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:32 AM
[edit on 1-12-2009 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:36 AM
I really don't see how this scientific study is innovative.

The idea that Man created "God" in his own image is nothing new in philosophy.... Shopenhauer was the first, in modern history, to nail and develop this assertion, up to a point that no longer needs to be proven by either science or some other religion.

"God" is a concept, a mental image, that's been built by social and political institution (religion, school, family, etc) in order to reflect a certain set of phallocratic, authoritarian and, above all, arbitrary values by which the ruling elite of patriachs justifies its power over the social order. That's why it all started with kings and emperors (the first official "popes" were heirs to emperor Constantine),.

it's a very old Epicurian idea that even if a "god", or supreme entity, exists in or over this universe, it surely is above all conceptions we apply to it, with our highly limited and corrupted consciousness. Believers may be right in believing what their spiritual intuition tells them about a "Creator" entity that watches over us and possibly the universe, but intuition is no assertion, conception or anything else that is intelligible by others. Why? Because you cannot communicate an intuition, but rather a concept, and more largely a conception, and you can do this only with either words, sounds or visual representations, and all these are subject to the personal and cultural bias of the ones who produce them. So the "God" that the churches, synagogues and mosques are showing us and telling us about is nothing more than the conception made up by a bunch of elitist patriarchs who claim to have a special connection to the holy...

Just a good old tribal pattern of spiritual manipulation.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:40 AM
Man, left and right I'm seeing overzealous "Christians" ITT. Normally I just lurk around ATS but I can't stand seeing this kind of # happen. So, I'll give my two cents worth just for now, take it as you will.

I agree whole heartedly with what the OP has claimed. Keep in mind I too am what you call a Christian. Its a shame that the test posted in itself, is a test of philosophy and moral standing. If the religion itself was just that, perhaps you would have succeded.

First I'll explain my reasons for doubting your understanding. From the way most people look into God as it is in this post, it seems like most of you would see nothing more than an omnipotent vending machine. From the "Christian" standing, this machine dispenses damnation and judgment. From the atheist standing, it dispenses miracles to fix world of unreasoned death and tragedy.

The OP's original theory has been proven only by the responses he has fished, can you people see how? Because God, to the responses I've read, is something that caters to your individual whims. Even atheists, who claim to believe in no God, believe that for a God to exist, it must fit into his or her own specific factors to be made into their own blend of "Truth". Both sides have proven to believe in nothing more then their own egotistical standards.

Why do I still have faith in my God? Because despite what most factors show, he is fair. There are a lot of arguments at this point, such as the deaths from disease or murders, evil and chaos rampant throughout the world. Why is God fair? Because he has promised to give equal love to all. A world of our understanding of justice will not run in an equal love, as there will be no opportunities for evil. For a God to be fair, both good and evil must have it's chances, because freedom and fairness go hand in hand. If the bullet that made it's way into JFK was miraculously repelled, would that be fair to the assassin? God is omnipotent, but because of this he will never go back on his promises. And he promised freedom to all. This is why he never made the universe accept his existence, this is why he never goes out of his place in proving his existence, the choice is yours to make.

The second point is that God will not stop you from feeling the burdens and circumstances of your actions - we are still feeling the results of slavery and constant war. Everyone will reap what they have sown in one way or another. God may be fair, but sometimes the World isn't. The state we exist in right now has more factors than I can count that lead up to Chaos.

With my morals and philosophical standing I can conclude right now that these factors leading to Chaos equal to a standoff with God's existence. From how things are, nothing can save us from injustice. Even God's believers are just skin deep, judging people left and right. What separates those who practice what they preach, the sacrifices they made, is what measures Faith in itself. Faith is how much effort you put into accepting an answer, regardless of how pleasing it is to you at first.

If God is fair, then what you have lost can be reborn if you so decide to accept it. No other God promises to give such compensation as a gift, no other God in their promise assures his support by living in us, and no other God does NOT demand systematic worship (new testament promise).

Problem is, without believing you can't really receive, since it doesn't exist, no? I used to think that the negatives of the world was a conclusion, then reality became a two sided coin for me: the beginnings and conclusions. I mind as well believe in something promising than a philosophy of denial. I don't have a habit nor a love in destroying other's beliefs anyway.

I can't explain every detail in a 4000 char post, I can only leave this reply unfinished. Most of what I believe in is words in the Bible anyway, you won't be too interested in that, would you?

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by reasonable

I don't think this scientific study necessarily proves anything we didn't already know. It's obvious that when we try to think like someone else, we are using our OWN brain to do so, hence a slight bias. Did it really take a psychological study to open your eyes to this fact?

Wouldn't you consider the important part is that someone else is at least TRYING to think about an issue with a mindset other than their own, even if it involves personal bias? I mean, give me a break. So far, the human brain does not posses the ability to transform into another's, thus experiencing their reality. So, we must make due with what we have: Asses the other persons situation, enact the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated [I explain this because obviously you have little regard for the feelings of others and are unaware of this principle]), and act accordingly.

Whether you hate religion or not, the fact is that some people are trying to view things from an alternate perspective, and in the case of Christ-like Christians, it should be from a benevolent, loving perspective. Obviously you are at odds with this statement, but that is best left for an alternate thread.

Personal bias is everywhere and it is nearly impossible to eliminate it. Unless you are completely oblivious to your own existence, (like say, a rock) then achieving such neutrality is impossible. Like I said, at least someone is trying...

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by Chett

But people holding tight to this perspective initiates a war dance. Multiple beliefs, and then thoughts, and then actions, these all emerge from the core perspective. If one is viewing oneself as solidly right, that logically necessitates that another is solidly wrong. These two are at war with each other. Their dialogues are both lies, as they are birthed from selfish angles, and that monologue they create is no truth. It could more properly be called a devil. While I do believe that I have a more reconciled, higher-order perspective than quite a few, I know for sure that my perspective is not the end all be all. I rest on faith, as must we all, but I am also willing to evolve.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Jean Paul -

I think that your question about the infinite vastness of "God" as being capable of simultaneously embracing differing viewpoints speaks, in part, to the importance of this study. Your tone seems to discount the work being done, but your content illustrates its relevance.

The simple fact is that most people who claim to believe in God (and these days, most people irritatingly take that to refer exclusively to the Jusaism/Christianity/Islam triumverate of scriptural relgions) see their particular God as having distinct and specific views (which this study shows to be the "believer's" own).

So a "Christian" who thinks that his omnicient, omnipotent, forgiving and loving God-figure is devastated by what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom, is more oftten than not pathologically incapable of considering the possibility that their God's love extends to even raging sodomites.

This is why all Religions (note the capital R) that claim to know the true and absolute will of God (and most of make exactly that claim these days) are an insult and affront to Universe/God. These people utilize a narrow and restrictive metaphor that does nothing but imprint their own prejudices and insecurities on a system/being/concept that is beyond prejudice and insecurity.

It is these egotistical projections which the study here seeks to counter. Your far more accurate assessment of the nature of "God" is not threatened but rather is reenforced by this study.

You are mistaken my beloved brother in your inference that I have attempted to discount the study. I have spoken to the woefully under reported facts of the study and how the article written by Yong only allows us to understand what it was that Yong inferred from that study and that by posting this study, in part, by the original poster, that that inference of an inference of a study only confounds the issue even further.

Is it a given that the study was based solely on a Christian God that rejects the notion of homosexuality, that is based solely on the so called faithful so weak in their faith they must endeavor to make wrong all those who disagree with their own personal beliefs? Was this the primary definition of God being used in this study? Do you know? I certainly don't and I read several different articles on the same subject yet was unable to gleen from them exactly what definition of God the study was going by.

How can you be so certain that this study was intended to counter egotistical studies and what exactly was being countered? Was the existence of God accepted as a given in this study or rejected or was it, as it should be in a purely scientific manner a non arbitrary ambivalence towards the existence of God willing to accept the existence or accept no existence or pardoxically accepting both? It was just not clear to me what that criteria was. However, it was much more clear to me what the criteria of the original poster was and that was an attempt to discredit those who do believe in God, or at the very least those American Christians who tend to be somewhat dogmatic in their woefully limited view of God.

It remains entirely unclear to me what, if anything, this test proved or disproved but what ever tone you inferred from my post, I assure you I never intended to discount the study, nor did I feel compelled to defend the notion or prove the existence of God. I was compelled to ask pertinent question regarding the study in order to have a better understanding of what this study means not just to Epley and his peers but to the original poster and anyone else who care to weigh in.

I am not clear if the descriptions of God I offered are accurate or not, they are questions I have asked and attempted to answer but I am infallibly human in my endeavors and unwilling to say one way or the other what an accurate description of an unknowable being might be. I remain faithful, however, that God does not require my defense and I am willing at any point to accept that the existence of God is nothing more than my own personal beliefs imposed upon a universe I don't fully understand. I remain as impersonal to such matters as I would presume God remains impersonal to my own feeble and limited knowledge.

All I really wanted to communicate was that with out a standard by which to accurately and consistently define God then any test on what the will of that God would be seems to be flawed in its nature. If the test includes a very specific God that is limited to the contradictory nature of what some American Christians seem to believe God is, even then the test seems to be flawed, or at the very least, the reporting by Yong is flawed as it is unclear to me that Epley compiled a group of American Christians who all carried the exact same beliefs as to what or whom God is. Given that spirituality and a belief in God seems to be a belief of an incredibly personal nature, how could any inference into the presumed will of God not be any less personal?

Of course, these are my own biases and even prejudices and perhaps Epley was able to avoid the pitfalls of bias and prejudice when it came to this study, it was just not entirely clear to me one way or the other. I have spent the better part of the last hour attempting to find the results of the study itself but have failed to do so and am tragically bound to the interpretations and inferences of those who reported on that finding. Given that I have been inundated with the inferences of several people outside of Epley himself, I can't help but express an utter confusion as to what exactly the study has concluded.

What has intrigued me the most in regards to this study that endeavored to predict the outcome of people who inferred the will of God is that so much inference has been made on the outcome and then those inferences in turn inferred by other posters of which I then must infer their will. There seems to be an irony rich in majesty and grandeur with such an outcome and it is tragic that you inferred my original post to be one discounting the study. I am not interested in discounting anything at all and more interested in knowing what exactly is to be counted and how that all adds up.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:51 AM
Yeah let me know when religion crumbles. I won't hold my breath waiting though that just might get me to God faster than anything else. Lol

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by reasonable

Yes, this is beause every is, in fact, the One Creator. All is one being.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:56 AM
I'm interpreting this to mean that "God" or "Jesus" represent wishful thinking and projecting one's own aspiration ie imagination? This is 100% correct as all fictional activity operates along those lines. However True Religion based on real experience and association with the devine is not a false belief arrived at by pretending. True Religion is the real think and is really available and really exists. It is not the same as the social religions of make believe and marketing hype.

new topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in