Whats Psychology got to say about God

[ZAMB]

In light of the topic I thought this article was interesting - "Why we let an athiest join our church" - short exerpt below...........

If there's hope of saving the world from the clutches of propaganda it will not be because we refute it rationally. If we save our world it will be because we learned how to speak about personal meaning in a way that is adaptive to natural processes and compatible with universal human rights. Nothing else will do. Hegel defined religion as putting philosophy into pictures. Strange and foreboding topics like hermeneutics and metaphysics can be taught to almost anyone if they are put in story form. While it is important not to accept these images literally, it is just as important not to reject them literally.

Because life is an ineffable mystery, religion speaks in pictures and symbols. To accept or reject the symbols literally is to miss the point from two different sides. Those who fight over whether God exists are like foolish pedestrians who praise or curse a red light as they step into oncoming traffic. The question isn't whether God exists like a brick exists, but rather "what part of our experience does the symbol 'God' reveal and what parts does it obscure?"

The problem with most religious discussions is that we are usually swimming in a sea of undefined terms. What sense does it make to ask whether God exists if we don't define what we mean by the term "God." For some it's easier to reconcile themselves to the universe by picturing a large person overseeing the process, while others reconcile themselves to the ground by using impersonal elemental images. These approaches are in conflict only when we forget what we are trying to do in the first place, which is to harmonize with the ground of our being.

http://www.alternet.org/story/34268/

 

[fela fan]

In our practice, the Buddha that we get in touch with is the Buddhahood which exists within our own lives. Buddhism is all about taking total personal responsibility for everything that happens in our lives and our environment. Sometimes this is very hard, it is so much easier to sit back and blame others - to think 'that person did that to me' than to take responsibility and think 'This happened because of something in my own life - I must find it and change it'.



I don't know about Thais - but I know that this is not traditional Buddhist practice in any sect that I have studied. I have seen it happen in converts who were brought up as christians - a sort of lingering bad habit. As I have said, it's hard to take personal responsibility rather than look for some deity to save you. But........

It is interesting that Thailand calls itself a buddhist nation, where 95% of the population follow buddhism.

Yet many many people, who do all the buddhist things at temples, making merit for example, do not take personal responsibility for their own actions. Far from it. There is way too much blame over here, something i hate. Always blaming others.

Mind you, thailand is such a contradictory country! Me and my mates reckon that most people are actually practising animists, not buddhists.

 

[fela fan]

Nah, they just use religion as a justification for their deeds.

...

They're doing what they do for economic and political reasons, not because of G-d.

That's what i meant frogw! They are anything but religious people. A religious person will never knowingly try to harm others. That hardly sums up hitler, obl, bush, blair etc!

People often say that we should keep religion out of politics. Unfortunately that masks what ought to really happen: keep politics out of religion.

 

[fela fan]

In light of the topic I thought this article was interesting - "Why we let an athiest join our church" - short exerpt below...........



http://www.alternet.org/story/34268/

"Because life is an ineffable mystery, religion speaks in pictures and symbols. To accept or reject the symbols literally is to miss the point from two different sides. Those who fight over whether God exists are like foolish pedestrians who praise or curse a red light as they step into oncoming traffic. The question isn't whether God exists like a brick exists, but rather "what part of our experience does the symbol 'God' reveal and what parts does it obscure?"


I like that. That is indeed the question as far as i'm concerned.

The writer also said that life is an 'ineffable mystery'. I know what they mean, but my take is that life ceases to be a mystery when we cease to ask questions, particularly the question 'what is the meaning of life?'.

Life is then no longer a mystery, life is simply... life!!

[Let nature be your guide, and subscribing, consciously or not, to any dogma ceases. Then, no-one can have power over you, and you will not take power over anyone else.]

 

[fela fan]

In light of the topic I thought this article was interesting - "Why we let an athiest join our church" - short exerpt below...........



http://www.alternet.org/story/34268/

Hey zamb, thanks for that link, i thoroughly enjoyed reading it! What wise words from that man.

"So I wasn't surprised when many were unhappy about the decision of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, where I am the pastor, to let a self-professed atheist become a member. But the intensity and tone of the condemnations were surprising..."

But his flock not so wise...!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This is an insult to Aldebaran, who has already explained his thoughts on the suicide bombers at length, and with great clarity, on his own thread.

How is it an insult to ask if he believes in something that's written in the holy book he subscribes to?

And who are you, his agent?

 

[ZAMB]

Hey zamb, thanks for that link, i thoroughly enjoyed reading it! What wise words from that man.

"So I wasn't surprised when many were unhappy about the decision of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, where I am the pastor, to let a self-professed atheist become a member. But the intensity and tone of the condemnations were surprising..."

But his flock not so wise...!

I found it interesting too, as I was consciously an atheist from age 11, when I was old enough to reject the 'hell fire and damnation' taught by the church that my parents belonged to. I became a Buddhist when I discovered that it was a religion/philosophy which did not demand a belief in a supreme being, [so I guess that technically I'm still an atheist] and which incorporated many things which I already believed as an atheist. The Buddhist teachings have helped me towards a better understanding of myself, but becoming a Buddhist did not mean that I had to reject previously held beliefs.
Over the years I have had interesting conversations with Christian leaders which have shown me that we can agree on some things, as well as with those who instantly doom me to hell-fire. Just as well I don't believe in a physical hell - Buddhists believe that both hell and heaven are conditions that we experience in this lifetime. Strangely enough, I have met Christians who agree with this idea.

 

[ZAMB]

How is it an insult to ask if he believes in something that's written in the holy book he subscribes to?

And who are you, his agent?

No, I am his friend - he was the person who introduced me to this MB.

As for the suicide bombers - did you even read the thread that he posted here on this topic??

 

[fela fan]

Buddhists believe that both hell and heaven are conditions that we experience in this lifetime. Strangely enough, I have met Christians who agree with this idea.

I think living in thailand over 15 years of my adult life has, ironically given my previous comments, exposed me to and instilled in me buddhist thinking. I too believe/know that heaven and hell exist here in this life.

I also like the buddhist philosophy.

But i like what i've read on gnosis too. And the wisdom of jesus. Taoism. And many others.

What i don't like is the rejection of people based on any reason. And that reason is 99% of the time couched in religious or political terms. And that rejection seems to be necessary to feed the ego, to take care of the ego. Pure love (ie the compassion sort, not the sort fixated on an object of desire) means never rejecting. I'd say that this is the answer to controlling and negating the demands of the ego.

Therefore, if one is to be a loving person, one needs to reject this vision of God being the all-powerful 'father' figure, one needs to reject this religion or that religion, and instead follow the wise words of the likes of buddha, jesus, the dalai lama, and so on. Be loving and have religiousness in oneself. And we don't need anyone to tell us how to do that, so we don't need dogma. Therefore we don't need religions or politics as they are now. Only priests and politicians need religions and politics. Or else they lose their jobs...!

 

[Sid's Snake]

This is an insult to Aldebaran, who has already explained his thoughts on the suicide bombers at length, and with great clarity, on his own thread.

That'll be a page-turner

 

[Sid's Snake]

I also like the buddhist philosophy.

But i like what i've read on gnosis too. And the wisdom of jesus. Taoism. And many others.

thing is, fela, me old mate...

You talk a lot and very sincerely about wanting to lose your ego in something because you feel, rightly, I think, that it can be a cumbersome burden, to the business of life.

And then you come out with this highly individualised, sometimes eccentric, always positive and good-natured philosophising.

However much value that philosophising has it's still a product of fela fan's ego, fela fan's inquiring mind. It's still you, you you. And stamped through with YOU, like a stick of Blackpool Rock.

I'd respectfully suggest that if ever you really wanted to start taking your ego apart and see what's inside you commit yourself to something that would truly compromise your ego in a way that for a while it might just be possible to really see what it is, from the outside as well as the in.

Bow down. Hit your head on the floor.

 

[fela fan]

thing is, fela, me old mate...

You talk a lot and very sincerely about wanting to lose your ego in something because you feel, rightly, I think, that it can be a cumbersome burden, to the business of life.

And then you come out with this highly individualised, sometimes eccentric, always positive and good-natured philosophising.

However much value that philosophising has it's still a product of fela fan's ego, fela fan's inquiring mind. It's still you, you you. And stamped through with YOU, like a stick of Blackpool Rock.

I'd respectfully suggest that if ever you really wanted to start taking your ego apart and see what's inside you commit yourself to something that would truly compromise your ego in a way that for a while it might just be possible to really see what it is, from the outside as well as the in.

Bow down. Hit your head on the floor.

Not a wrong word sid. Not one. I am me, and i'm happy with that me.

Actually on second thoughts, one thing. I'm not wanting to lose my ego, for if i did that i'd be out of society. Out of friends. Out of my family. It's simply good enough that i understand my ego. Watch over it, don't let it run rampant. Restrict its influence.

I said before that a medium like this cannot possibly reflect the reality of what we think. We need the speed of speech to deal with this topic properly. The to and fro of spoken communication, the cut and thrust of the here and now. Writing cannot live up to this at all.

 

[ZAMB]

That'll be a page-turner

Well, here's a link - to save you the bother of finding it yourself

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152746

The first post links to a blog at
http://ad-dabaran.livejournal.com/

You really should read thinks before you are sarcastic about them.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Not a wrong word sid. Not one. I am me, and i'm happy with that me.

Actually on second thoughts, one thing. I'm not wanting to lose my ego, for if i did that i'd be out of society. Out of friends. Out of my family. It's simply good enough that i understand my ego. Watch over it, don't let it run rampant. Restrict its influence.

I said before that a medium like this cannot possibly reflect the reality of what we think. We need the speed of speech to deal with this topic properly. The to and fro of spoken communication, the cut and thrust of the here and now. Writing cannot live up to this at all.

You don't have to lose your ego to give it up

You don't leave your friends, family or society. In fact, you don't lose your ego You just give it up.

Watching over it is never good enough. You have to do something that lets go of it in a way that has nothing to do with conscious control or choice, and the root of that is a serious and sustained programme of meditation.

You'd be surprised at what happens

If I was in Thailand, ah....Don't start me off

 

[fela fan]

You don't have to lose your ego to give it up

You don't leave your friends, family or society. In fact, you don't lose your ego You just give it up.

Watching over it is never good enough. You have to do something that lets go of it in a way that has nothing to do with conscious control or choice, and the root of that is a serious and sustained programme of meditation.

You'd be surprised at what happens

If I was in Thailand, ah....Don't start me off

I know sid, i know!

But let's just say that there is time and space. I can do/be something 100% for a period of time, or i can do something 50% forever. Or any degree therein.

In essence i'd say i've given my ego up in the same way i've given cigarettes up. They both keep coming back to haunt me, but only for minor amounts of time in the whole of time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, I am his friend - he was the person who introduced me to this MB.

As for the suicide bombers - did you even read the thread that he posted here on this topic??

I'm reading this thread. If he has something relevant to say on the topic, it can be said here.

And no, I'm not familiar with everything Aldebaran has said on every thread on this bulletin board.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, here's a link - to save you the bother of finding it yourself

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152746

The first post links to a blog at
http://ad-dabaran.livejournal.com/

You really should read thinks before you are sarcastic about them.

I looked at the other thread: maybe I missed it, but I don't see an answer to my question there.

And I don't have time at the moment to plow through his blog.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This is an insult to Aldebaran, who has already explained his thoughts on the suicide bombers at length, and with great clarity, on his own thread.

I've given this some more thought.

Perhaps you come from a different intellectual tradition. It's common in 'the west', to engage in freewheeling and open discussion or debate; it is considered alright to be cutting, even irreverent.

If you find the simple asking of questions as generating insult, maybe you're in the wrong place.

 

[Structaural]

No.

‘Just as a child needs its parents, so does an immature society need its gods. Freedom is always hard to bear, and the weight of self-responsibility can only be carried after a certain level of sophistication has been attained; - Stephen Goldin.

Fair enough I guess, but "realising you're perfect" does sort of imply that you, well...realise ...

Who mentioned ‘realising’? – my point is that you’d be better off accepting where you are now – thinking you’re imperfect all the time won’t do your esteem much good.

so being able to opt out of taking responsibility for one's actions is somehow a good thing?

Good, bad – all personal truths. Who’s talking good and bad? – I’m talking about responsibility and choice. You can’t opt out of your responsilbities – more importantly YOU are responsible for EVERYTHING that has happened to you unless others are messing with your choices.

yeah, sure, but that's quite a different concept to implying that everyone should do that, and that one individual's morality isn't better or worse than another.

I’m not ‘shoulding’ anything. I’m saying that everyone really chooses their own morality anyway and that choosing one authentic to you is important. Which is what you’ve done admittedly.

I'm sorry, but this "cultural laws" stuff is just bollocks. There is a universal morality which is basically not to do anything which harms another person, and obviously some people's morality doesn't work that way. sometimes the laws of society don't work that way either, because the people who make them are immoral and only care about making money or holding onto power. you're saying that the only reason why things are right and wrong is because of "culture", which is obviously not true. if you lived in a culture that promoted female circumcision, and you refused to let this happen to you, or your child, would you be doing something wrong? or what about if you lived in a culture where some people were suspected of being witches, and you actually protected one of these people in your house? i mean, you'd really be transgressing the cultural laws then, they might even think that you were trying to harm them by helping this person.

Sorry but this ‘universal morality’ is bollocks as well – you can believe it (and I might even agree with you) but you ain’t got no proof. You choose to believe in what you’ve read, that’s all.

To be honest those examples you’ve given would be carried out by ‘religious’ people – those who impose their dogma on people because of their ‘faith’ that it is correct action. I’ve been saying all along that you can transcend cultural laws (positively and negatively) – but occasionally you may get into trouble for it. Your religion is as much a part of your culture as anything else.

cultural relativism is really one of my pet hates.

Good for you . (why?) Religious dogma is one of mine.

Why did you pick Judaism and Christianity if culture has no influence – why not Buddhism?

But if you're only accountable to yourself you don't really have a reason to give a shit either, unless you're doing something that doesn't really benefit you. and sometimes the right thing to do is something that will harm you as a person, that nobody will understand why you did it, and it might make people hate you, you might suffer all sorts of consequences. and sometimes people give their lives in order to do what's right.

I really don’t understand what you’re saying here... I'll try:
What’s right for you might be wrong for someone else – this obsession with being right is such a religious thing. In reality there is no right or wrong – they are merely the absolute ends of ‘righteous’ thinking. There are actions and consequences of actions. Culture will impose it’s own idea of what’s right or wrong with its criminal and civil laws, but these are by no means ‘correct’ either, just current.

You seem to be alluding to those who need organized religion to stop them from doing wrong/evil things. Maybe they need religion because they’re a bunch of selfish, greedy, hateful people.

Most mature people of course can just put themselves in other people’s shoes.

look mate to be honest you're coming over as a bit of a twat here. i know that's not your intention, and maybe i am too, but i really don't have a problem with your beliefs. seriously. i dont care what you believe, as long as you're a nice person it's fine.

I often do – but life’s too short to worry about it. Anyway isn’t this a discussion board?

i have had experiences that confirm to me that G-d exists. fair enough - you don't believe in it. i don't know why you don't, but you don't, and that's fine.

I believe in what I know to be true – everything else is just opinion or ‘maybe’s’. I do believe in a greater reality – I’ve experiences of my own that confirm that (non – drug related as well). But I wouldn’t impose on those experiences someone else’s ‘idea’ of it. To be honest here, I’m not having a go at you, more the idea of faith in general. I don’t believe in an anthropological god who requires to be worshippped – it’s just ridiculous. But I do accept the personal validity of spiritual experience – after all you’ve experienced it and not just read it in a book.

and as I've said before I don't have an oedipus complex or anything, and i don't view G-d as some kind of substitute for my parents, and i find that pretty insulting, tbh.

Well the thread is about psychology as well…. I'm not a big advocate of Freudian thinking - I prefer Jung.

I don't "accept it with blind faith". there are a lot of things in the torah and the bible which aren't literally true or may have even been added for political reasons. some of them might not apply now, but applied in the context of the time. i know this. you have to interpret the text for every generation, and that doesn't mean rewriting it, it just means trying to apply the words in a way which people can understand as life is vastly different now than how it was in the bible.

How about just considering it a piece of literature like ‘Hamlet’ or Ulysses, full of old stories written by long, long dead story-tellers and get whatever value you need from it like you would from any other piece of literature.

"Priests" LOL. believe it or not, i don't agree with everything my rabbi says. i think about things for myself. i actually CHOOSE to believe this - my parents are atheists, i was brought up not to believe in anything. it's what I actually want to do, it's how I want to live my life, so I don't see it as "tyranny". and i happen to enjoy it and get a lot out of it.

Fair enough.

Just to clarify my take on religion. To me religion is the emotional seeking of truth, Science and rationalism is the intellectual or physical seeking of truth. So I don’t have a problem with religion per se – I have a problem with anything that seeks to dogmatise. I think going to a Music Concert or a Rave or listening to inspirational music at home is our modern religiousity not some old 2000 year old empty rituals pervaded by usually pompous old men.

 

[Structaural]

I've reread this. Are you saying that the ego is us? You say it is our 'false personality', yet i'd say that the ego is the part of us that is not us. Our ego can only exist with other people around. Our ego is society embedded in us. It is the reaction to all the other humans. Our ego is not us, nor is it false.

Nothing in life is false, it cannot be. Something is, or it is not. A lie is a lie, truth is truth, and neither are false.

What are you on about? If it is not it is false.

'False : Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.'

...anyway... in the context I meant it - yeah false personality is that which is not us - that which has been imprinted by your environment, culture, family. That part that fears and prevents us from living life so much. Some psychologists would call it the shadow.

 

[Structaural]

We don't have a lot of deity crap - Buddhists do NOT believe in a deity.

Some obviously do... talking about the Buddha's enlightenment enlightening the whole of humanity as I was commenting on.
I'm well aware that Buddhism doesn't have a diety per se - but most seekers of any philosphy have a problem with diefying their teachers.

(anyway I've a soft spot for Buddhism, though Taoism speaks to me more - its still all just old stories though)

 

[ZWord]

She must be practicing an obscure form of Buddhism different from any that I have encountered in over 20 years of study and practice. Buddhists do not worship Shakyamuni - they follow his teachings - which is totally different. Buddhism has a teaching 'Follow the Law, not the person' - and Shakyamuni was a person, who was born and died on this earth. As another Buddhist teacher said 'The real meaning of Shakyamuni's appearance in this world lay in his behavior as a human being'.

Reading Sogyal Rinpoche, in the Tibetan book of living and Dying, it was very clear to me that he believed in a deity, which he called the Self.

But that's Tibetan buddhism, which may well be very different from other forms.

 

[fela fan]

What are you on about? If it is not it is false.

'False : Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.'

...anyway... in the context I meant it - yeah false personality is that which is not us - that which has been imprinted by your environment, culture, family. That part that fears and prevents us from living life so much. Some psychologists would call it the shadow.

Don't be running off to dictionaries to solve arguments on this forum! It just won't cut the mustard.

Instead i'd be interested if you could further explain what a 'false' personality is. Because i'd say every single bit of your personality is a truth, and none a false.

 

[fela fan]

Reading Sogyal Rinpoche, in the Tibetan book of living and Dying, it was very clear to me that he believed in a deity, which he called the Self.

But that's Tibetan buddhism, which may well be very different from other forms.

Yeah, well the thais, defined as buddhists, believe in a 'god', ie something bigger than themselves.

I think i'll do some asking around...

 

[Structaural]

Don't be running off to dictionaries to solve arguments on this forum! It just won't cut the mustard.

Instead i'd be interested if you could further explain what a 'false' personality is. Because i'd say every single bit of your personality is a truth, and none a false.

I'll do what I want, don't get all 'groupist' on me. I'm not using it to solve arguments (and are we arguing here yet) I'm helping you realise what false means.

False personality is obviously my own terminology (based around Gurdjiefian terminology which I used to find interesting)

It's the part based in fear as opposed to the part based in love. All the things in life that caused a fearful reptillian brained response then become negative reactions to almost anything similar in your future life. Unless one is mindful most people will respond automatically/habitually to whatever event comes their way. This bunch of autonomic bodily responses I like to call the false personality and is built up by societal/familial imprinting.

True personality is found through being mindful and seeing each event as independent of any other and choosing to react cleverly to that situation.
A simple example:

eg. The first time person A asks out a woman - she rejects him with laughter.
The next time this person expects the same response when he asks out a girl - so already he has anxiety. If in false personality he will expect her to reject him - in fact every girl he will expect to reject him. He may even stop asking girls out.
If instead he thinks that every girl is different and to expect the same response from each and every one is ridiculous then his anxiety will lessen and he will achieve a certain sense of clarity. Even if she does reject him he can be philosphical about it. This I would call true personality - he's not fearful, he's feeling the love for all those different people

A silly and non-threatening example but I think it illustrates it and this goes for almost every experience we face. I think this false personality gets stronger over time unless worked on through mindfulness (meditation), therapy, thinking things through etc...

I think false personality shows itself in fear of change, fear of vulnerability,
fear of inadequacy, fear of missing out etc... and is usually spotted by rigidity in the body or anxiety or all out fear - it normally works through physical and emotional responses.

(sorry about the long post but I rarely have time to really engage at work so I do it all at once)

I think our fear responses are out of all proportion you see - wild animals no longer roam our environment but the same responses are there and applied to far more benign experiences like walking into a party.

 

[fela fan]

Bl...

But whatever is is, whatever happens happens. And therefore nothing is false.

There is no false personality, just guided and misguided personality.

But look, we're already depending on words and their defined meanings.

Whether one acts automatically or with considered response, either way is not false, just one is wiser than the other.

"I think false personality shows itself in fear of change, fear of vulnerability,
fear of inadequacy, fear of missing out etc..."

This cuts to the heart of it. That is nothing to do with falseness, just fear. Are you saying that fear is false? That is a patently absurd angle to come from.

Going back to the ego, the ego is nothing more than a mirror into society. Often it buries the self. I think we could agree on a lot, but we're getting bogged down over what exactly the ego is. Nothing of it is false in my book. It is all real. But it is also the bringer of many demons...

[... and those demons are not false.]

 

[fela fan]

A simple example:

eg. The first time person A asks out a woman - she rejects him with laughter.
The next time this person expects the same response when he asks out a girl - so already he has anxiety. If in false personality he will expect her to reject him - in fact every girl he will expect to reject him. He may even stop asking girls out.
If instead he thinks that every girl is different and to expect the same response from each and every one is ridiculous then his anxiety will lessen and he will achieve a certain sense of clarity. Even if she does reject him he can be philosphical about it. This I would call true personality - he's not fearful, he's feeling the love for all those different people

And to deal with this specifically, none of this is false. It is all real and true. Intelligence, wisdom, stupidity, fear, they're all real. None are false.

I'm really left wondering what you mean by 'false', hence my question earlier.

 

[Aldebaran]

you've mixed me up with someone else, coz i've made no such claims. And i never would. Where do your claims come from? Where do you get this perception from?

I explained this already. What is your definition of the word atheist?

My clear point is that by subscribing to the idea that there is a higher force than oneself allows one to absolve one's responsibilities for one's own actions. That makes doing evil possible. So in that respect i'd say that with God around, this leaves the opportunity for humans to do bad things. On the other hand if one has come to realise that there is no God, we must take full responsibility for our own lives. In doing this we achieve total freedom, and within that state of being causing harm to nature, people, others, the self, becomes the antithesis of living and being. In this state, one achieves and carries within him/her religiousness. A reverance for nature, and compassion for all living beings and things. You cannot do harm, you cannot even want to do harm.
With God around, humans have an excuse to abuse power. With him gone, power cannot be abused for the simple reason that power over others is anathema to one's existence.

Not at all and I explained this too a few times already.
It is the human nature that makes evil done by humans possible. If humans would be perfect and infallible then humans would be God.
I take full responsibility for my own life = for my thoughts and actions, good as well as bad. I am completely free to do good and completely free to do bad.
You on the other hand have a strange self- centred interpretation of “freedom”. I gave the example that by drinking only one drop of water you deprive others from having it. Where is the freedom of those you take the water from? Why do you claim to have the self-administered freedom of taking it while at the same time you deprive them from that same freedom? How do you justify your actions as “doing good” if such action only does good to yourself and harms others?
Religiousness has absolutely nothing to see with what you describe as a “state” although it is the aim of religions to guide people to be as you describe = to be a good person and to do good to others.
Abuse of humanly power has no connection with the existence or non-existence of God. It has purely to do with human nature. How do you plan to change human nature? (and once again you made the claim that if everyone simply becomes an atheist, evil is miraculously gone from this planet.)
Nature is not Allah/God, nature is the creation of Allah and hence for those who believe in the Creator of All the visible sign of His existence.

Can you not see that this allows harm and violence to be committed? That we actually HAVE to accept violent acts by others? Because God/Allah deemed it to be so. It is such a cop out by humans, such a shirking of responsibility. I'm afraid that God/allah chappy is responsible for rather a lot of evil down the years. And he was a human creation!!! And a damn fine one for those that wish to exercise power over other human beings.

How do you come to this reasoning? I repeatedly stated that humans are responsible for their own actions. That includes their reaction on the actions of others. You make of this that we “have” to accept violent acts of others and that this is a command of Allah? How?
Religion is not the same as Allah/God. It is the practice of worshipping. One can state that -at least to a certain extend- religions are thus human creations.

salaam

 

[Aldebaran]

But why? It doesn't mean that you're the same as G-d or that you have any of His powers ...

Then what does the word “image” and the sentence “made in God’s image” means to you?
Creation can never be more then merely creation. Allah is the un-created Creator. To propose that a human is like the un-created Creator is to place humans at the same level of their Creator. It is stupidity at best and blasphemy if you actually mean it that you are the image of Allah.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

How is it an insult to ask if he believes in something that's written in the holy book he subscribes to?

1. I don’t follow. What exactly would be written where?
2. Read the thread ZAMB referred to, especially what is under the link in the opening post. There is no more then just that one page on that “blog” since I created it solely for that particular thread, because editor said long opening posts are not allowed on this board. (After reading the board for some time now and some of the rubbish posted by some posters, I seriously wonder why such posting was judged as “too much” instead of what I meant it to be: informative. )
3. The existence of kohl-eyed virgins? I have no doubt that there are some amount of them walking around on this planet since kohl as make-up is used by women in my culture. How a “Canadian” connects with this picture is a riddle to me. Maybe you watch too much “Hollywood Arab” movies? Maybe you dream of 1001 nights? Do you want me to recommend an English translation to help you fill the gaps in your knowledge of Arab literature?

By the way: As far as I know ZAMB is more Western then you are. From what I read of you thus far on this board, you are a blindfolded US/Bush worshipping so called “Canadian”. I wouldn’t call that “Western” since that would be an insult to all normal Westerners, very much including my own Western half and my own Western relatives.

salaam.