God Is An Imaginary Friend For Grown-Ups

[whereismynotecard]

It depends on what he/she tells you to do, and whether you listen.

Ha ha. I guess so...

 

[crystalonyx]

Right. The Atheist is ignorant of his psychological substitution of God for science, generally. They want so much to have a Big Daddy like all the other good religious children, but would prefer it to be the men in white coats. What Big Daddy says goes (like the Dirt Clique, Dawkins and the rest). It's pathetic, risible and stupid.

Interesting that you start a thread on ridiculing god, and make this post.

 

[whereismynotecard]

It sure isn't a nice thing to be mean to people and make fun of their beliefs...

Just a reminder...

 

[Random]

Interesting that you start a thread on ridiculing god, and make this post.

Is it? How so? I believe I have a very good sense of irony usually, and this doesn't make it tick.

 

[Mister Emu]

Isn't it time that we as adults shed our imaginary friend and seek faith and comfort outside of an antiquated myth? Or is appeal to tradition so strong that the grip is unbreakable?

Or maybe... God's real...

 

[fantome profane]

humanity isn't ready to be without its comfort blanket just yet maby over a 1000 years but now its still in the fase where telling people it doesn't exist is like telling small childrens santa isn't real some day they will learn but its better to keep them ignorant for a while longer

Right. The Atheist is ignorant of his psychological substitution of God for science, generally. They want so much to have a Big Daddy like all the other good religious children, but would prefer it to be the men in white coats. What Big Daddy says goes (like the Dirt Clique, Dawkins and the rest). It's pathetic, risible and stupid.

Here we can see that arrogant condescension plays a part on both sides. I suspect that often this kind of over the top anger is a sign of fear and insecurity. It is a attempt to make themselves feel better by belittling another person’s position.

 

[ChristineES]

Isn't it time to move past GOD?

Ummm, no it is not time for me to past God. I don't think of God as an imaginary friend, either.
I have learned to accept that some atheists see my faith in God as "opium" or as see it as the same as believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I just don't see it that way.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

what, my imaginary friend is just as real as santa the easterbunny and god

...You have got to let that go.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Wow, thanks for all the thoughtful responses guys. See I knew this would be fun.

First let me address some recurring themes in the posted replies, then individually:

Belief in science alone constitutes a substition of belief in GOD/ science to replace GOD

God is cheap. The idea of God is very cheap. The notion of comparing a total belief in science as liken or somehow substitute for God, is a low blow.

I mean, if you're idea that believing in anything is esentially like beliveing in God, then you're right. We have to believe in something, but the fundamental difference is, one has to merit belief and the other simply relies on tradition, faith, and personal belief - all of which can't be touched.

Science has and will continue to prove itself and within the community of scientists, will continue to doubt each other until the truth prevails - even then, is tested repeadly. No such thing will occur with religion. It is accepted on face value, words of God written by men (oh how do we know they're words of God? the books these men wrote in says so - circular logic anyone?) and personal belief.

The idea of God - that it can and forever will explain anything, and that all possible realms of reasoning including science, falls under God's realm, is the ultimate **** you to society.

One merits belief, another is simply given - like divine right versus representative democracy. Both kind of sucks and has flaws, but we can see what works.

 

[Neo-Logic]

If it is normal to have an imaginary friend then the question should be, why are you abnormal?

I never argue that imaginary friend is normal. You did.

Having an imaginary friend, is in fact, the abnormal. Which is why I state that either children grow out of it "naturally" or treatment given.

This is not supported by the data. The data indicates that if the current trend in technological growth continues then we will continue to see an exponential growth in technology. There is no reason to suppose that this trend will continue because it has not be clearly demonstrated that this trend is a) recursive and b) unaffected by outside factors.

What the hell? You must be joking. Growth of technology and its future exponential growth is unproven? Unless you're an Amish teenager on leave using a computer, it's hard to fathom how one couldn't think or grasp the idea of exponential or accelerated growth.

" The Law of Accelerating Returns
by Ray Kurzweil

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."

 

[Neo-Logic]

Where 'God' is an integral part of the model of reality, though, it would be pretty hard to just 'get over' a piece of reality.

I think 'God' is pretty much here to stay.

Appeals to tradition is a logical fallacy my friend. We as a society has to trump over these and move on? Or not?

 

[Neo-Logic]

What harm does having an imaginary friend have anyway??

It's neither wrong or right. It occurs as apart of stress of to fill in a void that people cannot handle and abnormally occurs. We usually try to get people out of it.

The more important question here is that are you agreeing that God is or liken to an imaginary friend by asking this question? (Last chance to back out!! )

If you do, then wouldn't you in fact be saying that God is no more divine but self-created?

 

[Neo-Logic]

It sure isn't a nice thing to be mean to people and make fun of their beliefs...

Just a reminder...

No idea, even God, will escape the judgment of logic. Logic can be mean sometimes :yes:

 

[Father Heathen]

Right. The Atheist is ignorant of his psychological substitution of God for science, generally. They want so much to have a Big Daddy like all the other good religious children, but would prefer it to be the men in white coats. What Big Daddy says goes (like the Dirt Clique, Dawkins and the rest). It's pathetic, risible and stupid.

But unlike "god", science is a testable method that actually produces results such as medical and technological advancements, for example. How is that stupid? One is pulled out of your ***, the other is verifiable and substantiated. How can you even compare the two?

 

[Neo-Logic]

Ummm, no it is not time for me to past God. I don't think of God as an imaginary friend, either.
I have learned to accept that some atheists see my faith in God as "opium" or as see it as the same as believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I just don't see it that way.

If you "just don't see it that way" I can't touch you. In fact, logic, science, and sense, can't touch you. Hell, nothing can touch you.

Faith and belief in God or anything for that matter, is an automatic tie. It's the ultimate **** you to the other side. It's the turtle shell of impenetrability. Nothing will and can touch you if you just believe. If you want something outside of that ... well, welcome back anytime.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Isn't it funny the double standard of religion? That it doubts science and asks it to prove itself beyond a shadow of doubt, but itself, will not do so?

Take the "Intelligent Design" phenoms, who in one county, got the sticker on all science books that contains evolutionary theories to say "it is only a theory among others, and must be judged critically." (AMONG WHAT OTHERS???????? CREATIONISM???)

What would happen if we got that same sticker put on Bibles?

 

[Wandered Off]

Faith and belief in God or anything for that matter, is an automatic tie.

I'm curious... Do you think you could choose to believe in a god if you really tried? For example, could you believe - really believe that Thor is chief among deities, even for a few minutes?

 

[Sunstone]

Ooo doggies is this topic going to be fun. Hear me out before you folks start throwing holy water at me now ...

The question I want to pose is: Isn't it time to move past GOD?

Imaginary friends: For most parts, imaginary figures occur in non-schizophrenics to help cope with either a void or a stress, among other things. One might talk with the imaginary friend, listen to the imaginary friend, or heed advice. It soothes us when others fail to and its existence only based on our belief, seen or heard only by us.

For most parts, socially and developmentally, children either grow out of this naturally or are given psychological treatment to help them grow out of this. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

Moving on: Obviously, there are a lot of correlations between fundamental role that God serves in the lives of the believers and an imaginary friend serves in the life of a child (or adult?).

Although I don't want this debate to be science vs. religion, I must mention this much: science today kicks a lot of ***. With technology growing at an exponential rate, science will only advance further and at a faster rate.

Historically, the fundamentally logical duty of God and religion has been a sort of mythical system established to guide morality when laws were not firm, tying this to a system of incentives via heaven hell for example, and the idea of God, an over encompassing entity that is end all be all, easily explains any and all mysteries of the universe and justifies or punishes any actions by the social elites (i.e divine right).

Besides comfort and the need for faith, the role of God is slowly diminishing in the above duties of historical comparison. Science is slowly explaining the things only decades ago, seemed impossible.

So if you agree with my description of the duty of God - faith, comfort, and practical reasons, and that it is becoming less practical in the above described sense, then modern role of God will be left towards faith and comfort, primarily.

Isn't it time that we as adults shed our imaginary friend and seek faith and comfort outside of an antiquated myth? Or is appeal to tradition so strong that the grip is unbreakable?

You might benefit from reading Scott Atran.

 

[Father Heathen]

Isn't it funny the double standard of religion? That it doubts science and asks it to prove itself beyond a shadow of doubt, but itself, will not do so?

Take the "Intelligent Design" phenoms, who in one county, got the sticker on all science books that contains evolutionary theories to say "it is only a theory among others, and must be judged critically." (AMONG WHAT OTHERS???????? CREATIONISM???)

What would happen if we got that same sticker put on Bibles?

People who say it is "only a theory", obviously do not understand that the term has a completely different meaning in science. [link] Gravity is "only a theory".

 

[Neo-Logic]

I'm curious... Do you think you could choose to believe in a god if you really tried? For example, could you believe - really believe that Thor is chief among deities, even for a few minutes?

It's not that simple to me. Can I force myself to believe in something just cause'? No. I have to have something that's there. Substance. Something that justifies belief besides belief itself. If I didn't know anything else, most likely would believe anything anyone tells me.