Big Think

Jeff Delano on July 22, 2008, 4:15 PM

I love my concept of “God”. I don’t have to prove it’s existance to you because I don’t care about converting others like the theists and atheists do.

HerbieP on July 22, 2008, 5:30 PM

Then why bother telling us about it Jeff?

Jeff Delano on July 22, 2008, 5:41 PM

Because people have lost faith and now cling to mainstream dogmatic science. I don’t want others to have my exact belief that’s for sure, but everyone should love and respect everyone.

sciencesaves on July 22, 2008, 7:21 PM

JD, Only theists need to recruit, there is no need to “convert” anyone to anything. Non-believers simply expose religions false promises and exaggerated claims. Whether people recognize the fallacies or not, is up to them.

Enlightenment is the key to survival of our species.

dennis ilic on July 22, 2008, 7:26 PM

ss, some people still need it. So why give them a hard time about it?
Beyond emotional comfort? Sometimes when a person has a broken leg they need a crutch for a little while.
It’s not so much that ‘God is a concept’ as it is ’what’s wrong with a person’s concept of God’?
Does it hurt anyone? Does it help anyone?
If the answers are no an no. Time to redefine.
If the answers are yes and yes. Time to redefine.
If the answers are yes and no. Well, your really got that one fuck up.
And finally if the answers are no and yes. God bless ya.

roakes, “One doesn’t need faith to arrive at that realization”. Which One does and which One doesn’t?

Love and respect

Bryan Cridlebaugh on July 22, 2008, 9:20 PM

RO, no one on Earth understands God, for now.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on July 22, 2008, 9:21 PM

Whoops, I meant Mike. ;)

dennis ilic on July 22, 2008, 9:29 PM

RO, I couldn’t agree more.

Musycks on July 22, 2008, 9:44 PM

John Lennon said.. ‘God is a cocept by which we measure our pain’.. then he said it again.

I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in Jesus, I don’t believe in Baal, I don’t believe in Mithras, I don’t believe in Zeus, I don’t believe in Thor et al.. I just believe in … love and respect.

HerbieP on July 23, 2008, 3:45 AM

Originally man made gods in his own image and the image of nature around him. He made gods out of the animals he hunted and the animals that hunted him, gods out of his ancestors and those who had peopled the land before him. Gods were understandably physical, like people but with superpowers. They had our character flaws and occasionally our strengths, their behaviour served as lessons and metaphors. The early Hebrew god emerged from among these pantheons. Initially he was a desert god among many angry, loving, partisan, a war god. As the Hebrews became more sophisticated their god changed, he retreated from physicality into mysticism. Eventually he claimed to have created man in his image. Somehow now instead of gods that reflect us the three major religions have a god that we are meant to emulate. The problem is with a god who is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient how are we meant to interpret being made in his image or his loving nature? The concept of the god has been removed from human comprehension to universe spanning power and scope and yet we are required to accept that he feels to simple domestic emotions that we do. This leads to all the incomprehensible claims about love that I have seen on this site. Love is a small scale domestic human emotion that leads to confusion of parenthood on chat shows, divorce courts, marital infidelity, decisions about altruistically donating a kidney, small acts of kindness. All these things born out of the experience of a limited human life lived amongst peers, shared with friends and family. The emotion is confused occasionally switches with hate, selfishness and betrayal it is a struggle and that is its nature. I have absolutely no idea how any of this could possibly relate to a universe spanning being who never has to take a dump.

Musycks on July 23, 2008, 3:59 AM

HZ.. it’s goes way beyond emotional comfort for some.. if that comfort is found at the expense of your dignity is that okay?
If we agree that self delusion is unedifying, then can we disregard the capacity for suspension of critical thought and just say anything is fair game?
Xtians spit on most of the rest of the world who can’t get to heaven/paradise under their exclusivist model.. the inclusivists twist and turn on the contradictions of their own teachings…
when the debate gets tough… they disappear like an illusionists assistant… the pantheists will admit any and all comers, no matter how whacky the idea and end up in an incoherant blather.
where is reason? is any delusion better than none? which ones?

never underestimate the ability of humans to construct the result they want, no matter what the information tells them… in science sometimes, but in religion always.

weigh the comfort of religion against the damage it’s done as a weapon of divisiveness and hatred and in in holding us back as a species… not even close my friend.

Musycks on July 23, 2008, 4:20 AM

Herbie.. you’re an educated and literate man.. but history, which reveals religions man made origins, means nothing to our deluded friends… as Basil Fawlty said.. ’don’t mention the war’..

sciencesaves on July 23, 2008, 9:40 AM

You two approach brilliance.

Comprehension of history reveals the truth, and from that wisdom, enlightenment.

Nice postings.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on July 23, 2008, 12:26 PM

HP, “Love is a small scale domestic human emotion that leads to confusion of parenthood on chat shows, divorce courts, marital infidelity, decisions about altruistically donating a kidney, small acts of kindness.”

That’s it? That’s love?

A wide spread friendship or a brotherly-sisterly kind of love will make this world a more comfortable place to live. That’s big.

I hope you are feeling better.

dennis ilic on July 23, 2008, 12:50 PM

HP, sorry to be the one that has to break this to you… but… we are ‘The Dump’. Don’t feel too bad, or too special. All matter is ‘The Dump’. In the humble opinion of this turd.
As for love, it is the greatest human emotion, that is all. And while this human is alive, I will try to have that emotion over any other more often, that is all.
Loved your little rant by the way. Dump, funny shit. I have always been a sucker for scatological humor. Not literally.

muse, for all your questions, apply them to:
Does it hurt someone? Does it help someone? Results chart located 9 or so comments before.
Side note: it is quite possible that I am no longer a pantheist. If I can remove the concept of God from my mind and still see all the awe in all things natural, does that mean I’m still a pantheist. If I can help someone only if I do not involve the concept of God, am I still a pantheist? I don’t think I am.
But I still believe that if someone needs the concept of God to get out of the funk, I will not deny him that.

HP, just thinking, you mentioned something about the Hebrews evolving their concept of God, I think a lot of the youngsters today, (myself included a month or less ago), are trying to evolve the concept of God today by incorporating and synthesizing a hodge podge of theoretical physics and mysticism.

Oh, I guess I should also say, Musycks, you won. (Maybe it’s because I’m closer to 36 now than 35, and everyone over forty seems to be no god, and everyone under 34 seems to be yes god). I just found out there’s no Santa Clause.

ss, just one thing to remember, history is written by the spoilers.

Musycks on July 23, 2008, 11:23 PM

RO.. ouch on Herbie’s behalf! talk about kick a man when he’s down… bloody Geelong supporter!

and HZ.. you are now an ex-pantheist methinks? we might need a new category just for you?
if not welcome to the dark side, at least welcome to the murky side!
(wasn’t that where the Beatles came from?)

dennis ilic on July 24, 2008, 12:17 AM

I love the Beatles.

HerbieP on July 24, 2008, 2:33 AM

RO you mean ‘were’ you cleaning up the physics lab? See I did pay attention in some English classes.

Sorry, the paragraphing is the least of my worries. By the way i love your short pithy paragraphs.

sciencesaves on July 24, 2008, 8:32 AM

hz, The “spoilers” being those who record fiction instead of facts?

A group of control-freaks comes to mind…

dennis ilic on July 24, 2008, 9:23 PM

muse, I think I would prefer my own category. I think I’ve just taken a step closer to the middle.

Musycks on July 24, 2008, 11:20 PM

hey RO… any relation to William Faulkner?!… now you got me doing it!

HerbieP on July 25, 2008, 1:54 AM

Well being compared to Faulkner isn’t bad.

Fortunately we moved some funds into soft commodities last year and have recently acquired some farming infrastructure funds. The property portfolio is fine, rents still come in, just no buying and selling for a while. Come to that the dividends are relatively unaffected too – we’re not total return.

As a permanently endowed trust we can just sit tight. A five year horizon doesn’t seem too long when you’ve been around for 380 years.

HerbieP on July 26, 2008, 4:49 AM

RO we are actually forbidden by charity law to speculate for capital improvement. The Charity Commission still regard securities as income generating investments. Of course any contemporary portfolio includes hedge funds and commodity exposure now (hence a degree of indirect shorting and futures). Still it’s a very different kind of investment to day trading. We never get the full benefit of boom but then we can’t go bust either.

All of this clearly crazy when you consider how we make money by churning the property portfolio.