POLL: God - Man or Woman?

Remove all ads!

Chev': I think the certainty that Joacqin is refering to is the metaphysical stuff...we do not cease existing after physical death, there is some ultimate purpose, everything will be alright/some entity will save us from our own folly, etc.

The sense of understanding that you refer to and the dichtomy of faith/reason only becomes a factor when two or more people who "know" God try to describe him or are asked how we might verify God's existence.


Lady Luthien: XTC? I was just listening to "Senses working Overtime" a while ago.


*Runs off to track down Ministry's "Psalm 69"*

 

Why do people keep believing so seriously to some old fairy tales? But if there really was something in the clouds (beside airplanes and weather-balloons, or maybe a few birds), it would be definitely "male." Only a strong, epitome of a MALE could get somewhere that high without needing to brush hair or buy new shoes

 

@Virne

Normally I'd be concerned over how you would survive invoking the wrath of God...except for I don't think you'll even survive invoking the wrath of women.

*steps away to avoid whatever strikes first...lightning bolt or pumps*

This trite little rhyme serves not only to evidence the existence of extreme Good, but on the converse...extreme Evil. I just love it when un-educated poets are given a soap box.

(not refering to you, Lady Luthien, only to the writers of such shallow and short-sighted prose)

 

What gender does god have... Both? Neither? Dont know. No one does. No one *can* know. And the only thing I am even less certain about is if god(dess?) exists at all. At least not in the form and shape he/she/it is presented to us by the churches.
Organized religions. The divine is too far beyond us to possibly have a grasp of it and we should not even try to confine it in a rigid faith.

 

I would agree that it is not amongst XTC's better lyrics. Groups like Ministry have done far better articulating the atheistic and areligious(even the ANTI-religious) viewpoints both lyrically and musically in songs such as The Deity, Scarecrow(why more people did not pick up on the symbolism of the crucifix and a scarecrow before 1992 is beyond me) and Psalm 69("The body of Christ came down to me/Preaching with c*** in his hands/He wants you to suck on the holy ghost/and swallow the sins of man!").

XTC's Senses working Overtime was when they were on top of their game lyrically IMO.


And all the world is football shaped
It's just for ME to kick in space
And I can see, hear, smell, touch, taste.
And I've got one - two- three- four- five...
Senses working overtime.

Trying to taste the difference between lemon and lime
the pain and the pleasure and the church-bells softly chime.


I have said it before and I will say it again. 99% of the time, a surefire way to write a bad song is to start with the intention of writng about patriotism or proselytisation or even atheism/areligiousness.

The songs "Proud to be an American" adn McCartney's recent "Freedom" are perfectly good examples of this.
Even Lennon's beautiful "Imagine" cannot hold a candle to Al Jourgenson's(one half of Ministry. The other being Paul barker) prose set to industrial grindcore stylings.

People like Trent Reznor confound me. It is hard to believe that the same guy who wrote "If I were TWICE the man I could be/I'd still be HALF of what you need!"(good lyric) is responsible for "You're God is DEAD/And NO one cares!/If there is a HELL/ I'll see you there!"(???).

Tripe isn't a small enough word.

We have always been creators of gods. Histoprically man has always created gods to explain that which he had difficulty explaining otherwise. Humnans are pattern-seeking animals and as such we don't like loose ends. When presented with questions such as "What preceded the big bang?" or "Does humanity have a 'purpose'?", we somehow find "I don't know(yet)." to be distasteful so we answer "God did it!" and "yes, God gives us purporse".

 

@ RuneQuester

I agree that patriotic drivel is usually very trite...as well as this new wave of "Christian" music...give me Taize chant anyday. But that's all a little off topic and maybe in the wrong forum entirely.

Just wanted to make a comment to your statement

You are absolutely correct on the trait you observe...but this trait in humans is not evidence of our fabrication of God but rather a fingerprint of the Creator within us, that portion of us "made in his image" that seeks a return and reunion with God. As Saint Augustine said, "Our souls are restless until they rest in you".

But this is something that we'll never agree on, as we have disagreed spendidly in the past, and likely will in the future.

If we go over to the Sensorium we can agree about music though.

 

Random thought coming out of nowhere - not a man or a woman, but a child.

But the question was probably more about male/female, but just one thought. I don't think that little boys and little girls were that different.

 

Looky this; I'm still alive. This just proves my point: there is no big pansy hopping on the clouds -or it was flattered of me calling him an epitome of a male.

So, it's clear now; there is no god and if there is, it's definitely male. I have proven my point.

 

Christianity and religion in general was invented for one sole thing in my opinion. And that is "control." Nothing more nothing less. Mankind always hungers for power. What is power? Break it down to one fundamental, and it is the influence one has over someone, or something, else. Religion was created because man wanted more power. Yet how can someone control a race of people who ultimately are always looking out for number 1, are all individuals who want different things from life and have their own opinions and morals etc. There is only one way to mass control a population of unique individuals. That is to give these unique, individualistic race, something in common and use that common ground as a basis for manipulation. Hence faith, hence religion, hence the all powerful all knowing figure that epitomises this way of "thinking," God. Religion is humanities attempt to obtain order from inevitable chaos. Religion is control.
So is God a man or a woman? God is neither. God is a means to an end.
That's my take on it anyway

Of course in modern day society Religion has evolved into something more than this...

 

God is a man, period.

There's no way a woman would let things get so [snip] up in her house for so long.

[Single asterisk profanity deleted.] - Beren

[ April 18, 2004, 19:23: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Gehn: Hate to hijack but speaking as a pretty vocal atheist, I have to disagree with you about religion. The "control" angle is just too simple and is only applicable to certain regimes(or individuals) throughout history.

Religion is, ironically enough, an evolutionary adaption and one that gave us a distinct survival advantage at one time. People who feared "evil spirits" in the night were less likely to wander into a crevasse or somesuch.

The problem is that the same evolutionary adaptions which help us at one time in a particular environ, are often harmful to us at a different time or in a different environment. Religion is proving to be such a hindrance to us right now by opposing education, scientific/medical progress, social progress etc.
This is not to say that ALL religious people or even MOST religious people behave in a detrimental manner but all t takes is a vocal minority and some degree of control or presence in the mass media(i.e. televison) outlets...

There are also religions(and brands of mainstream religions) throughout history that encourage and promote education adn/or critical thinking but these are, sadly the minority.

[ April 18, 2004, 18:15: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

How can there be no God?
If you believe there is no God then you are saying an absolute "there is no God"
but where do you get absolutes from?
how can you say there is no God then?

hope you follow that. basically you cannot prove a universal negative. The reason people say there is no God is because they cannot see or understand the evidence and they want to say there is no God because that allows them to do what they want, and live how they want.

 

You are mistaken. Atheism, at it's core, is simply LACK of a positive belief in the existence of God(s). It is a response to a theist's positive assertion that "God(s) exist(s)" or the question "Do you believe in(or alternatively "do you WORSHIP...") God(s)?".

It is akin to someone telling YOU that Fairies exist and have been stealing your socks without substantiating the claim through rules of inference/rational arguemnt or evidence. You would be logically correct in repsonding "I see no reason to believe that fairies exist OR are stealing my socks".

Exactly! Which is why the burtden of proof is on the THEIST when he asserts that God exists, jkust as it is on the person who asserts that fairies exist.

Trying real hard to be polite here but ...sorry, that is completely stupid! I do not want to give my lunch money to the school bully so maybe I should just deny he exists! Do you think that might work?
Is my lack of belief in Santa Claus or Bigfoot due to my not wanting to be subject to sorcerous pranks or attacks by garbage-smelling woodlands primates?

[ Saying the statement is stupid starts to blur the line into an attack on the poster himself. There's always a more tactful way to state your opinion. ] - Beren

[ April 18, 2004, 19:22: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Your taking my words in little bits and attacking each section, but if you look at this as a whole, you might hopefully realise that bullies do exist and I CAN prove that, but God is a lot harder to prove that He exists. By the way I forgot to say that the reason He is called the Father is because He has fatherly attributes as we see them. He is, as has been said, a spirit so you cannot say he has a gender (which is difficult to understand, so you say He because of his fatherly qualities). Oh and I can see where you are coming from, perhaps I miss stated something there, but I was tired)

What i meant for you to understand was that you believe that there are no absolutes because you are an athiest right.. but then you must absolutely believe there are no absolutes.. or something like that. That is how I heard someone argue it but I cannot really remember what comes after that.

 

Isn't this why religious wars are started?

 

As long as I don't take what you say out of context, this is the most sensible way to respond...taking one complete idea/arguemnt at a time and analysing and responding to that single idea/argument.

The point YOU made was that you thought that atheists sole motivation for not believing was a desire to not be bound by God's rules. The implication being that God's existence is obvious to those who look for him without such ulterior motives.
Therefore I took the example of something which DOES obviously exist(a bully) to show that one cannot rationally disbelieve in such things because one would rather not be constrained by those entities' demands/behaviors.

Either God exists and can be rationally infered(as the bully) OR his existence is NOT a given(to say the least) and I am correct in NOT assenting to YOUR claim.

Wrong. I totally believe there ARE absolutes(as most atheists do). I accept that I absolutely exist. I accept that I am absolutely bound by the physical laws of the universe(gravitation etc.).

OR are you refering to moral absolutes such as an objective "good" or "evil"? If so then no, I do not believe that conceptual things "exist" in the same way as WE exist.

???

 

Hardly sounds any less convenient than "there's nothing up there and you can do whatever you want and can get away with".

You can have both reason and faith, while you can't be both black and white, so the dichotomy isn't oh so perfect, and the difference lies in that you either know or believe. You don't have to believe if you know. Plus, obviously, you can't draw facts from beliefs. E.g. belief in God has no effect on His actual existence. And so on.

My two cents in the discussion of absolutism and anti-absolutism:

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement. Any authority to make such a claim also implies absolute knowledge, at least as to this particular fact. Ergo: an absolute standard, at least for this one thing. So, if a person claims absolute knowledge as to the supposed fact that there are no absolutes, the person's understanding contains an internal contradiction and can be dismissed on formal grounds before actually even looking into the matter.

 

@RuneQuester

Contrary to your claims, I’ve always found it easier to believe in “God”, or a Divine, Supreme Creator…it has always seemed much more logical and “scientific” to me than to not believe.

From our human experience we can see varying degrees of good and evil in the world…it is easy to extrapolate that observation into an understanding of the existence of infinite good (God) and infinite evil (Satan). This observation fits well into the workings of the human mind and I have always found it a bit incomprehensible to think that good and evil could begin and end with me. In fact I have always found that having good Theology was a far better tool to deal with the big “whys” in life than straight science.

Atheism is terribly dependent upon evolutionary theory to satisfy the question of “from whence did we arise” and as a result must vigorously defend the sanctity of that theory. The need to keep evolution sacrosanct has caused scientists to create things that are not there (e.g. The Oort belt…an imaginary region outside our solar system where short-term comets can spawn. The existence of short-term comets in space provided a severe impediment to the massive amounts of time required to make evolution seem plausible, as short-term comets, which are our most famous comets, have a life expectancy of 200,000 years or so. In order for us to still see Haley’s every 88 years, science had to invent a source for comets for which there is no evidence…other than “it must be there…or this theory is CRAP”).

It has also required science to ignore things that ARE there (e.g. Polystyrate fossils…fossils that penetrate through two or more geologic layers. It is quite a sight to see a fossilized tree trunk that extends through 5 geologic strata which are said to represent a billion years of time…that’s one helluva tree! The atheists and evolutionists dismiss these as wild flukes…but the fact is that there are more polystyrate fossils in existence than the entire catalog of fossils that support human evolution…by a factor of almost 10!)

Evolution and atheism requires a sweeping disregard, indeed disdain for mathematics. In order for ONE protein to form in the so-called “primordial soup” at the dawn of life, requires odds that are equivalent to winning the State lottery 10 consecutive times. When these odds are applied to the then necessary age of the earth, they become only astronomical and implausible…but when you stretch the envelope to consider the random generation of one amino acid from it’s complimentary proteins…it becomes inconceivable. That’s why mathematicians tend to view current evolutionary theory with skepticism if not outright disbelief.

It is impossible to take these mathematical truths a step further, look at the entire universe, and not see the hand of a Creator…a design and a plan by which everything was made.

These are only a few of the many examples that can be raised against atheism and its lap-dog, evolution.

We’ve had this debate before, RuneQuester, and basically agreed to just not discuss it anymore…but I had to speak out on behalf of those who do believe in God. You are good at what you do (debunking God and faith in general), but I sleep well at night with what I know and believe to be true. Pleasant dreams.

Oh yeah, and what chev said, too

 

@HS – you know I like you, and respect your (or any other ‘believers’) opinions, but as an agnostic with atheistic leanings, I have to respond:

…and that’s the problem I have – that religion seems to be the “easy” way out. “It’s God’s” will”. So I don't need to understand. But for me, if there is a God, I need to understand why he/she/it does what he/she/it does.

I don’t deny the seeming incredible odds, and I don’t pretend to be a mathematician. But when you are talking about billions of years, and a nearly infinite number of lives (I’m including single cell lives here), it seems to me that it would be very possible that something as amazing as the variety of lifeforms we have on Earth could occur naturally.

Granted, science doesn’t provide all the answers yet. But neither does religion. I’ve always thought of religion as a convenient way to “explain” (or actually not explain) that which we do not yet understand.

 

@ Splunge

As soon as I saw the "but", I knew I was in for it! I like you too Splunge, in fact you're my favorite Canadian.

I understand your rap on religion, that it seems easy to just rely upon the standard "God said so" argument. Too many people of faith fall back on that when they don't know what to say when questioned, but the fact is there is a staggering treasury of human thought that has been applied to the "hard" questions. For 2000 years Fathers and Doctors of the Church have dealt and grappled with these issues, and shed tremendous light and understanding on the human condition and experience...they rival or exceed the development of humanist philosophers. There are outstanding answers and incredibly deep thought out there.

That being said...I'd rather be in a room with a bunch of atheists and agnostics than with a bunch of "believers" who don't believe like I do...at least you don't tell me I'm gonna burn in Hell!

There is one element of Faith that is very hard for me to accept...it did not come easy at all...and that is "There is a God, and he is not me."