-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Is An Imaginary Friend For Grown-Ups
- Thread starter Neo-Logic
- Start date
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
What I was getting at with that obtuse question is that changing beliefs is not that simple, as you said. I don't think we have direct control over our beliefs. You can't make your beliefs change directly, so I'm not sure it will be as simple as "shedding" a belief.
I shed a similar belief myself, but it wasn't a simple, conscious act. It's not that "appeal to tradition [is] so strong that the grip is unbreakable" but that changing beliefs is not as simple as we like to think. They are more than appeal to tradition.
That said, I think encouraging people to lean more on reason (in direct contrast to holy texts that specifically warn against it) is a good move.
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.
You seem not to be used to someone who believes in God yet won't debate the issue, which is good. I don't debate it since I couldn't convince you anyway. I used to debate atheists, but I found that it is just a waste of breath. What I do debate is that I don't believe God is imaginary. No, I can't prove God to you nor would I try. I have found that there are people who need physical evidence to believe that something exists-- I have to accept it. Just like you accept that I believe in God and hide in a turtle shell.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
You bring up a good point, change is hard. But first, we need to agree on defitions of things, before we can all "change." Some will not want to change just because. The same just because that they believe in something. Some will not look at evidence.
It seems that we as a society must teach logical fallacies as apart of world education for any real change to occur these days...
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Maybe god is imaginary. But the point is not whether he exists or NOT. I think the point is what this character (real, or not) inspires countless, to do great deeds, as well as bad. We must find the positive and look to build on it. We seem to find negatives and knock each other into the ground with that. It is not helping.
My statement was not "appeal to tradition." Whose trump card are we going to play? Yours? Mine? That guy's...?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I asked cardero earlier but I should really have put it to you - Tell me about one friend you have who is more than an object in your mind.Ooo doggies is this topic going to be fun.
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?
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
You seem not to be used to someone who believes in God yet won't debate the issue, which is good. I don't debate it since I couldn't convince you anyway. I used to debate atheists, but I found that it is just a waste of breath. What I do debate is that I don't believe God is imaginary. No, I can't prove God to you nor would I try. I have found that there are people who need physical evidence to believe that something exists-- I have to accept it. Just like you accept that I believe in God and hide in a turtle shell.
Oh joy ...
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Oh joy ...
What is wrong with that comment. Christine is right. There is no point debating people like you. Hardcore atheists. Mind is closed shut, not open for new theories, always has set beliefs, no room to change.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
What? The point is not whether he exists or not? For real? All right. I won't go there then.
If we will build on something, why build on something that "may or may not exist"? Let's instead build on something that we can quantify, prove, reason, and logically justify. We tried building on it the other way. What did it give us? Crusades, divine rights, monarchies.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
huh?
i think what he means is, if God is an Imaginary Freind, then prove to us, your freinds are more then just imaginary figures.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Thank you Penguino that is exactly what I mean.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
People like me? Damn, hit me where it hurts, my people-ness.
It's funny. This is the first time I've heard athiests been called closed minded, not open for new theories, always set in belief, no room for change.
Religion is not the new theory. It is the old. It's religion and some religious people that are not open to the new - science, logic, reason. Seems to confuse some people.
Always set in belief? Oh gosh. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the prettiest of them all?
No room for change?
Either that was a clever joke or you just made my day.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
People like me? Damn, hit me where it hurts, my people-ness.
It's funny. This is the first time I've heard athiests been called closed minded, not open for new theories, always set in belief, no room for change.
Religion is not the new theory. It is the old. It's religion and some religious people that are not open to the new - science, logic, reason. Seems to confuse some people.
Always set in belief? Oh gosh. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the prettiest of them all?
No room for change?
Either that was a clever joke or you just made my day.
Precisely what i mean! Not open! You will look at a Fundamentalist Christian and think religion is like that. Fact is, religion is old and new, Hinduism is always evolving, Buddhism too (if you count Buddhism as a religion that is)
I am glad you said SOME religious people.
There is no room for change with an atheist. From all teh atheists i know, the general idea is, god and religion are stories ands stupid things. But as you said, that is just some atheists.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
So you were asking me to prove whether God is an imaginary friend? Did you skip reading my initial post, and all subsequent replies?
I can only reason with logic and debate on how the two are alike. I can't prove God is a imaginary friend when God itself is not proven. The believers do not feel the need to prove anything, just believe. Therefore, aside from logic and and reason, I cannot give you proof because there is no precedence of proof for me to draw upon when it comes to God - besides faith.
I do believe I've written plenty in this thread for reason and logic's sake to your question.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
That all depends on your definition of room for change and change itself. Athiests are scientific more than anything. And in the realm of science, things are proven before believed, not believed before proof. In fact, you cannot change an athiest's mind because religion does not try to satisfy it's burden of proof on anything! Take any scientific theories - even laws of gravity. We all agree it pretty damn well works. Still, scienists are trying to constantly refute and find new ways.
Religion? Oh, yea. We believe. You don't believe? Ok. You're closed minded to us.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
So you were asking me to prove whether God is an imaginary friend? Did you skip reading my initial post, and all subsequent replies?
I can only reason with logic and debate on how the two are alike. I can't prove God is an imaginary friend when God itself is not proven. The believers do not feel the need to prove anything, just believe. Therefore, aside from logic and and reason, I cannot give you proof because there is no precedence of proof for me to draw upon when it comes to God - besides faith.
I do believe I've written plenty in this thread for reason and logic's sake to your question.
He did not that say that... Read my post again and carefully
Double post
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Right again.He did not that say that... Read my post again and carefully
Double post