|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Faith No More
God has feelings? | from SeanSwede - Tuesday, January 02, 2007
accessed 1552 times Ok guys I know you may say "oh great another one of those infamous articles by Seanswede" but, I hope you all out there could get down with me about this one...and yes some of you have already thought of this so please just save the comments about that. I would like to pick apart this God concept a little. I realise that he has a bit of a problem with his feelings. He is a jealous God for one and he can get angry etc. The funny thing is that we who are supposidly part of his creation can actually play with Gods feelings by making him mad sad or glad right? The question is, if God is God then he shouldnt give a shit about anything that may go wrong or even right for that matter because he is God right, all mighty all knowing and the great big creater. He can just wave his little wand and everything becomes all better again. I just think that it all sounds pretty stupid. It says in the bible all over the place about Gods feelings and his tantrums etc. He`s not a very cool headed God if you ask me. He lets himself get pissed off at his own creation. That tells me that he is abviously not the one in control because he cant even controll himself.
He has feelings and he acts after his impulses. Kind of remindes me of a child who gets angry when things dont go right with his toys and he throws it around or breaks it apart out of frustration.
Sorry folks it just doesnt really float.
So the bottom line is that God the concept of God is a flawed one.
There is not God.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from sar
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 16:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I enjoyed that article. You start by saying that the concept of god is flawed and so there is no god. You seem to be referring to the traditional Christian, and possibly Jewish and Muslim, concept of god. The fact that their concept of god is, as you believe, flawed, does not mean that there is no god, under other concepts of god.
(reply to this comment)
| from jolifam77
Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
My take on this god thing is as follows: First before defining god, it is important to define how we conceive of "god" in the first place. Once we understand how the mind works and how we conceive of things such as "god" we can conclude that such conceptions are basically meaningless and basically not deserving of much thought after all. To understand how the mind works you have to look at what is thought itself: neuronal pathways sprouting here and there in a maze of circuitry aka your brain. The brain starts out at childhood very vigorous sprouting hundreds and thousands of new neurons every day. As you get older the rate of new neurons sprouting decreases until when you die of old age, you barely are able to sprout new neurons at all. Now examine this process. it's very much like a machine which wears out with time. The purpose of this machine, the brain, is control the body, and make sense of the world around it so that it can control the environment to suit the body's purposes. When it can't make sense of stuff, it comes to the best conclusions it can. Hard questions like "how did we get here" inevitably get answers such the bright idea that something called "god" put us here, etc.
Now, I don't really see any reason to worry about god if it weren't for fear of what happens in the after life.
But, seeing as how all thought comes from physical neuronal activity, how can anyone suppose that our identity continues to live on after death? Plato says of death, that it's like falling into a long, endless, dreamless sleep. And that's exactly what it is. it's over. Finito! your neurons decompose and so does your identity. To think that your thinking mind continues to think in some immaterial form is pretty far fetched, because your neurons determine your state of mind. To translate all those billions of neuronal mappings into some spiritual immaterial form some how is, well that's what you'd have to believe actually happens, i.e. a physical to spiritual mapping has to take place, because it hasn't been your spirit that's been thinking. your brain has been thinking. your spirit, if you had a spirit, would have no mental state because the mental state is in the configuration of those neurons. And a spirit with no mental state is a spirit with no identity. Sans such an impossible physical to spiritual transition, you would retract into "nothingness" or nirvana or something, which I see as basically being dead, the end.
So, the upshot is the brain and thus you are just a machine, and ideas of god and heaven and the after life etc, are stories we invent to answer questions that haven't been answered so far by science. Your machine will wear out, you will die and that's the end, so there's no need to worry about god. I think that is a reasonable way to look at it.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From jolifam77
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 17:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
My mistake, it was Plato quoting Socrates, and yes his undecided but puts 50% chance in it being a "dreamless sleep."
But to you, my true judges, who voted for my acquittal, I would speak while yet we may. I have to tell you that my warning daemon has in no way withstood the course I have taken, and the reason, assuredly, is that I have done what is best, gaining blessing, death being no evil at all. For death is either only to cease from sensations altogether as in a dreamless sleep, and that is no loss; or else it is a passing to another place where all the dead are - the heroes, the poets, the wise men of old. How priceless were it to hold converse with them and question them!
Your insult was very harsh though, and I think if you knew what I was referring to in my vague memory of reading this passage, you would not have judged so quickly. So I say to you my true feelings, go dig a hole and bury yourself in it, asshole.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 18:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
The passage you quote is hardly relevant. Plato entire ontology is tied in with the concept of reincarnation. Furthermore, he consistently makes references to "the gods".
Lastly, using the term "either" does not denote a "50% chance". I suspect that English is not your native tongue. If so, "go and sin no more". If not, leave these matters to your betters. (Myself and Parmedides)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 15:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Why do the intellectually disadvantaged among us insist on pretending to be smart while disecting questions that were resolved several centuries ago?
Go read a book and stop wasting bandwidth and disk space.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from SeanSwede
Friday, January 05, 2007 - 23:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
ALOT OF YOU GUYS HAVE MISINTERPRETED MY ARTICLE. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR
I AM NOT IN NO WAY INSINUATING THAT THERE IS A GOD. BECAUSE THERE ISN`T PERIOD.
CLEAR ENOUGH?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Jesus Crust
Friday, January 05, 2007 - 16:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
What shite is this? Doth God ("Hosanna in the highest") make mistakes? Doth he have feelings? Doth God ("Hosanna in the highest") exist.
Well Swedie, allow me to dispel the rumors for thee. God ("Hosanna in the highest") doth surely make mistakes, he created thee, oh thou little ingrate. He also sent me to earth to be crucified for thee. And what thanks do I get from thee? Bupkis! Yea I get naught but lip from thee. Granted crucifixion art not what I signed up for when I agreed to come hither and dwell amongst the children of men. Yay, I remember the day well when God ("Hosanna in the highest") came forth unto me and said unto me: "I beseech thee, go forth and dwell amongst the children of men. Thou shalt have a good time as the Israelite women are loose as hell, if thou catheth my drift." I can assure thee he never mentioned crucifixion.
Anyhow, back to the discussion. Doth God ("Hosanna in the highest") have feelings? I can assure thee that he is quite annoyed at thee for posting such contradictory crap. Make up thy mind. Doth thou believe in God ("Hosanna in the highest") or not? If so, great, repent and thou shalt be saved blah blah blah. If not stop referring to him in such a manner that thou doth suggest his existence. If he is to have feelings he must therefore exist. So if annoyance art a feeling then rest assured he doth have them. I'd bet thee he'd feel my foot up his ass. I sweated blood for shites sake. Remember "Abba father" and all that. Sorry, yay it seems I am still sore vexed over it.
Behold here we are again at: "Doth God ("Hosanna in the highest") exist?" Verily I say unto thee, God ("Hosanna in the highest") doth not care whether or not thou doth believe in him. God ("Hosanna in the highest") shall be fine either way. Just make up thine own fucking mind and stop posting crap. Yay, such would be a blessing to both God ("Hosanna in the highest") and the children of men.
Selah.........
(reply to this comment)
| from Phoenixkidd
Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sean don't you know that "God's way are not our ways??" and "The mind of God is too great to comprehend???"
This means that no matter how much we will try to reason or put God's feelings, ways or even "reasoning" into context we will utterly be baffled and mystified. Just as we are utterly baffled and mystified by people in loonie bins, Psychizofreniacs, and radical suicidal Muslims etc...
(reply to this comment)
| From What?
Friday, January 05, 2007, 11:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
No Phoenix,
God is a figment of the human imagination which is why he is incomprehensible. We don't understand our own species, so how can we understand an illusion that was created as a way to keep the simple minded afraid of going against the tide of society and to control the acts of the majority of the commoners. Plus, our illusion of 'God' changes as we change, so it will never be difinitive because if never existed in the first place.(reply to this comment) |
| | From ange
Friday, January 05, 2007, 11:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think Phoenixkidd was being sarcastic there.
Incidentally however, I have been reading a very interesting book lately called “Simulations” by Jean Baudrillard. He has some very interesting theories including a discussion of God being a simulacrum - a replication of something of which there is no original. He says that’s why you get iconoclasts, because when you take away the image of god, then it is revealed that there is nothing behind it. He’s a very interesting guy, really worth a read.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ange
Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 15:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, the question of God's feelings is certainly secondary to the question of his existance. And I have always had the idea that I hope he doesn't exist, cause if he does, I think he has it in for me.
To continue with my current obession with Jean Baudrillard though...I'm very interested in his ideas of God as simulation. Re-reading my comment I realise I didn't do him justice. Here's what he actually has to say:
"What becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, what it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or is it volatilized into simulacra which alone deploy their pomp and power of fascination – the visible machinery of icons being substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God? This is precisely what was feared by the Iconoclasts, whose millennial quarrel is still with us today. Their rage to destroy images rose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of effacing God from the consciousness of men, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God, that only the simulacrum exists, indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum. Had they been able to believe that images only occulted or masked the Platonic Idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroy them. One can live with the idea of a distorted truth. But their metaphysical despair came from the idea that the images concealed nothing at all, and that in fact they were not images, such as the original model would have made them, but actually perfect simulacra forever radiant with their own fascination. But this death of the divine referential has to be exorcised at all cost.
It can be seen that the iconoclasts, who are often accused of despising and denying images, were in fact the ones who accorded them their actual worth, unlike the iconolaters, who saw in them only reflections and were content to venerate God at one remove. But the converse can also be said, namely that the iconolaters were the most modern and adventurous minds, since underneath the idea of the apparition of God in the mirror of images, they already enacted his death and his disappearance in the epiphany of his representations (which they perhaps knew no longer represented anything, and that they were purely a game, but that this was precisely the greatest game – knowing also that it is dangerous to unmask images, since they dissimulate the fact that there is nothing behind them).
All of Western faith and good faith was engaged in this wager on representation: that a sign could refer to the depth of meaning, that a sign could exchange for meaning and that something could guarantee this exchange – God, of course. But what if God himself can be simulated, that is to say, reduced to the signs which attest his existence? Then the whole system becomes weightless, it is no longer anything but a gigantic simulacrum – not unreal, but a simulacrum, never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference. "
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from shikaka
Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 18:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you, Sean. That pretty much mirrors what I was saying to a friend of mine the other day. He's a christian, and we get into raging debates about God. The last one was about "God's plan", or the lack thereof. I asked him if he believed every word of the bible. "Yes." So I informed him that he believed God had his entire life planned out already, from the moment he was born till the momnet he takes his last breath. he agreed. I told him then that rape, for example, must be part of God's plan, as many rapes result in pregnancies. Furthermore, that reduces us to nothing more than slaves, as we essentially have no free will, we are following a prewritten "program".
My friend then backtracked, and said that God knows what will happen, but he doesnt plan it. That seems like a satisfactory answer, but then the simple truth becomes clear. if that is the truth, then God is nothing more than a twisted, deranged psychopath, a mad scienteist with an experiment gone horribly wrong. That God is a fucking sadist, and I want nothing to do with him.
(reply to this comment)
| from ......
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 12:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
This should make for an interesting debate ;)
STATEMENT-Victim bashing is illogical.
It suggests that the individual is fully responsible for everything that happens in his/her life - an existential perversion which can lead to a narcissistic psychological condition.
It does not take into account that individuals excel in understanding and action in some things, not all things.
In competition, if one person wins over another, it is not necessarily the fault of the loser. The winner is more talented on the day.
The loser did not necessarily choose to fail.
Victim bashing, ridicules both parties in competition. It does not honour the skill of the winner and it demeans the loser.
Applying this to people who have inadvertantly got involved in MLMs like Herbalife or Amyway, cults or unethical high demand groups and LGATs, suggests that it is not the fault of the "victim" when things go bad. The group is highly skilled in what it does best - namely portaying a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Not all of us excel at philosophy or business to immediately understand the nature of the "wolf" which so often turns the fault on its victim when things go wrong.
If you are a victim of a high demand group, DO NOT blame yourself. They are highly skilled at what they do - operating within an unethical frame of reference while the majority of us believe in truth and fairness
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Rain Child
Wednesday, January 03, 2007, 12:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Doesn't that reduce the person who got into the mess to the role of victim? I don't see how that's very respectful to them as a person, and I don't see how that apathetic approach would help anyone. It's much more empowering to claim responsibility, as that also implies that you have the strength to pull your life back together.
PS, we didn't 'get into it', we were born into it. So in a way, we are true victims, although I do not see myself that way.(reply to this comment) |
| | from lisa
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 16:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Didn't someone once say that you can't not beleave in God if your this angry with him?
(reply to this comment)
| from aisling
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 09:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was under the impression that god's relationship to us, at least in christianity, was akin to that of a father to his children. It's a father who knows best, who knows the pros and cons of every outcome and maybe tells his children but they are ultimately able to make those decisions themselves. If god decided everything for us it would be pretty boring. We wouldn't develop as human beings. How could he judge if we were good or bad? Free will is important. Naturally, he's sad when we make bad decisions or don't listen to his will. God can learn from us, in the Bible he seems to be learning all the time. The flood was a great big temper tantrum but he learned something about human behavior from that, same thing with the tower of Babel, and then finally sent Jesus as a last ditch effort to save mankind. Maybe god created us as an experiment and is watching our behavior and learning immense things about life far greater than we could ever understand.
That's my christian answer. To take the other side of the coin, if humans made up God and who he is, doesn't it seem natural that he would be made in our image? Much like we claim to be made in his? If you want a God you can relate to it has to be something you can understand, something with feelings and emotion. Having emotion doesn't make him less omnipotent. You're claiming he doesn't exist based on concepts we have developed.
You can't prove God doesn't exist anymore than we can prove he does. Give it up already.
(reply to this comment)
| from Fish
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 06:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
As usual Sweed, your reasoning is flawed. I can get emotional about something Ive created, be it something Ive wrote or even something I'm trying to fix. I can be angry, proud, bored or annoyed. This is illogical as I could easily simply destroy the item in question or turn off my computer, but I still show emotion. If this is fairly common behaviour in humans, than why would it be so strange to find it in our supposed creator? Granted it is irrational behaviour, but you of all people should know that behaving irrationally sadly does not negate ones existence.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, January 03, 2007, 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was just taking a shot at Sean's attempt to use "god's mistakes" to prove that "god is not". If god is a product of human imagination, he "is not" therefore he cannot err. If we created a entity (god) that "made mistakes" we in fact created a flawed (god), therefore we humans made the mistake when creating him. To make a mistake, one must be capable of making a decision or judgement. If god makes mistakes, he must "be", in which case Sean's ardent athiesm would have to be horridly wrong. IMO his theory is arguing against itself.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, January 04, 2007, 04:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uhhhmmm. If you believe God makes mistakes, you believe God exists. You can't believe God does make mistakes (and is responsible for the results thereof), while claiming you passionately believe he does not exist. The idea that God makes mistakes does not eliminate but rather, confirm belief in his existence. The phantom diety has no will nor power to alter so much as the direction the Khepher nigroaeneus decides to roll. IMO Sean's argument that because God makes mistakes he can't exist is self contradictory. The argument is flawed, biased, and illogical.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, January 03, 2007, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although I'm not sure if it's 'technically' accurate, I understand the distinction he is making, using 'genetics' and 'hereditary' to represent the nature vs. nurture elements respectively.
I've selected the last (none of the above) option, however, as although I would put 'hereditary' as closest, I maintain my belief that it is a combination of the two, and ultimately a 'choice' (if subconsciously at times) that makes the final determination of characteristics.
Additionally, I don't agree that we can define either 'goodness' or 'badness' in any consistent way, as these are societal constructs, and while I would attribute slightly more significance than the penultimate option, I think they have to be assessed within the context of the relevant culture/society to have any meaning. Therefore, the 'artificial' nature of these concepts overlaps the 'hereditary' option of what is passed on through 'parents, culture, society'.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]