Exterminating god

[Moz]

And the many more millions killed under the pretense of religion in times past and in modern times? Why do you discount these? Do you know what I think curtailed a lot of religious-related killing and violence? Making sure that the governance of our society was secular in nature. That's what modern majority Islamic cultures in the Middle East are lacking - and look what it has got them. And "secular" does not mean "atheist." I don't advocate for an "atheist-led" government or society. I argue for one in which RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF (even the non-belief of atheism) IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN CRAFTING PUBLIC POLICY. This has proven itself the most effective means of quelling violence and unrest. Keep religion private within your citizenry. Never let any religious idea or ideal be the sole justification for anything governing the public at large. Keep your religion to YOURSELF. It is that simple. Do you think I would attack religion if people just shut up about their religiously-based views? Do you think I would care one bit if you prayed at home, or in your churches and it all STOPPED THERE? Do you think I would even know that you were religious if you didn't throw it in my face with statements like the ones you are making in these posts? Think about it now. Keep your views to yourself and I don't even have a soap box to stand on to challenge you. It is that simple.
Again - I don't advocate "no God" - I advocate that everyone keep their gods to themselves and their fellow practitioners. Keep it out of the public sphere - don't try to sway people's opinions with religious-only justification. Don't point at "bad" things going on in society and say "See? Without God, stuff like this is going to happen." Just shut your mouth and bring REAL help/solutions and valid opinions to the table. Religious justification for anything is simply not a valid opinion or critique or anything. If you have nothing else backing your position then YOU HAVE NOTHING.

But don't you see? We've already accomplished this... and right under your nose apparently. Our society here in the U.S. has all but separated church and state. Religion is kept out of government, and people are highly discouraged from legislating anything purely based on religious justifications. This was the genius of our forefathers at work - the founders of the country who saw that religion sticking its nose in the ruler-ship of a nation has caused no end of strife, conflict, persecution and suffering for many past nations and even nations in modernity. And so, our laws, as the framework of our nation's cultural morality, were crafted upon RATIONAL justifications. Not religious ones. Done. A consensus-based system of morality that is open to re-interpretation and updates as are deemed necessary. It's already been done, and it is working far better than any theocracy ever did.

Honestly, you seem to be conflating philosophical and ideological meanderings with public governance and law-bound moral prescriptions. These things are not, at all, the same. No one is going to be able to agree on the philosophical foundations of nearly anything - and so we cannot concern ourselves with that. It may be interesting to talk about, and some good ideas can come forth from that body of discussion/thought/knowledge - but ultimately all we should be concerned with is the way to keep the vast majority of people following the structure of moral principles attempted to be legislated by our laws. Making sure that structure fairly matches the culture of the people present in the country, and making sure that it keeps the peace. I don't care about your ideology nearly as much as I care that you stay off my property and keep any intent to change my law-abiding lifestyle to better match your religious convictions TO YOURSELF.

This right here proves you a fool in my estimation. Animals are far more peaceful, in-tune and commune with nature, mostly incapable of deceit, nearly incapable of experiencing "depression" or "persecution," the vast majority of species don't "go to war" - and the ones that do (like chimpanzees) are (guess what?) human's closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Point being - we should all strive to be more like animals if we want this world to turn out better with us in it. Seriously. And guess what else animals do not have? Religion. They explicitly DO NOT NEED IT. It is worthless. Toward the goal of survival it is fluff and garbage. A nothingness, and a non-consideration to animals. There is a wisdom to be found there - animals simply do not lament their lives and conditions like humans CONSTANTLY do. We're all sad and worried and wandering around looking for the "outlook" the philosophy or ideology that can "fix" it all. And there it is right in front of us. Just live and let live. Be like the animals - the ones YOU seem to look down upon as if they are some sub-species. You aren't "the top" - you're an aberration - a specific honing of mental capacity that resulted in a being who is capable of contemplating its own superiority - and strictly because it has that capacity, this species of being (humans) decided that it WAS superior! So very very DUMB.

It pretty much IS that simple, yes. Those who are capable of feeling empathy understand that they do not want to be the cause of things to others that they themselves would not have to deal with, and anybody without that empathy is going to suffer at the hands of the rest of us - who are going to lock them up, chastise and berate them and attempt to get them to understand where they are going wrong. We're going to attempt to rehabilitate them, and, if necessary, put them down if they simply will not behave themselves. Why is this deemed so awful? So terrible? This is literally the way the world has worked for A LONG TIME. But everyone is stuck with their minds in a cloud of "ideology." They can't see that the system we need is at work, all the time, right in front of them.

Hi.
So no religion in the public sphere. Okey dokey... suits me. My opinion of all politics is a pox on all their houses.
But all our foundation stories have a religious origin.
You can not have sleeping beauty without the "dragon of chaos" that the prince has to slay. That's Eden.
You can't wish upon a star without looking up to something greater than yourself. That is prayer.
Or do we still tell the stories derived from religious principles without the acknowledging the source?
What weight does that hold?
Fiction does not inspire unless it touches something deeper than mere entertainment.
Where will we learn to be moral, will we just pick it up naturally from the society around us.... good luck with that.
.........................................
If our new moral landscape has no more foundation than a personal decision of what we think is moral then there is no moral landscape and we're back to Dostoevsky.
..................................................
Your animal model for human morality is a very selective list of behaviours that leaves out a tonne of details, and the devil is always in the details. Suffice to say....The Law of the Jungle is not the law that mankind should be based on.
.......................................................

It pretty much IS that simple, yes. Those who are capable of feeling empathy understand that they do not want to be the cause of things to others that they themselves would not have to deal with, and anybody without that empathy is going to suffer at the hands of the rest of us

So there is no set morality. As long as the empathetic people are in control things will be fine. Unfortunately the empathetic ones are not usually the ones making the rules in any society that i can see.
We can go round and round on this stuff, it is all hypothetical until the pressure gets put on a person but when that happens it seems that those with religious convictions are the ones that hold to their moral convictions because they are based on unchangable foundations. Those who think they are moral beings are often, mostly, nearly always, pushed by the relentless force of the majority to toe the line even if it violated their personal code. That is the example that we have from history... it is not hypothetical.
...........................................................................................

The reason why the ancients linked the King(Government) to God was so that the King had some moral system that even he had to bow too. All you do by exterminating God is, as Nietzsche pointed out, to create "new god's" and all the ancient legends tell us that when the new gods rise they always cause havoc for mankind.
When the state becomes God and the arbitrator of morals, god help us. The "majority" is an easy beast to lead.
......................................................................
I was surprised that you would cite US society as a model for how a secular society could make moral choices.
A consensus based system is what you have is it?
.......................................................................
Updating morality as it seems necessary.... that is such a crazy idea, necessary in whose opinion?
The majority?
The academy?
Which group decides what is moral?
Ahhh..... consensus that's right. No the majority. Hang on..... majority vote can be manipulated in so many ways and the majority is nearly always 52 to 48 or something like that so it's hardly definitive..... again this is why the Nietzsche quote was so appropriate... we will not know up down forward or backwards.
.......................................................
Peace

 

[12jtartar]

If god exists and is as wicked as indicated in the Bible, humans should be looking at ways of exterminating it. Any ideas as to how it could be done?

JJ50,
Since The Almighty God is Immortal.meaning that He cannot die! It seems to me that anyone who would even contemplate trying to exterminate The Omniscient God, should himself be Exterminated. Of course God, whose Personal, Proper Name is Jehovah, is very forgiving so it is possible, because men know so little, for Him to forgive, but I would say that such ideas come close to the unforgivable sin, mentioned at Matthew 12,31,32.

 

[Spartan]

If god exists and is as wicked as indicated in the Bible, humans should be looking at ways of exterminating it. Any ideas as to how it could be done?

It's amazing how in tune with Satan your wicked beliefs are.

Richard Dawkins vs. Ravi Zacharias

Dawkins: “What do I think about God? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Ravi Zacharias responds: “Now, he (Dawkins) just finished telling us God’s a fictional character! That’s half of the point. The other half of the point is what he thinks about humanity. He goes on to say that basically, he believes in the goodness of humanity without God watching over. Either I’m confused or he is. If God doesn’t exist and all these descriptions apply, then who did these things? Who wrote the Old Testament if God didn’t inspire the words? That would be his answer. And who ordered all these things? That would be humanity. Why are you (Dawkins) so positive about humanity and so down on God when it was humanity who manufactured the God that you deny?” And who killed all those people throughout history – hundreds of millions of them, if God is fictional? It was humanity. And you – Dawkins – believe humanity is ‘good’! Atheists….

 

[JJ50]

You have no evidence that god is not a fictional character made up by the Biblical authors.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have no evidence that god is not a fictional character made up by the Biblical authors.

Why would they go to all that trouble to make-a-God? They were not making a lot of money on a novel.
Think about it. When crimes are committed, the first thing investigators look for is motive.

That said, the Bible is certainly not the *best* source of information about God.
Time marches on and so does God.

I take what is written in the Bible with a grain of salt since there is no way to know how much of it actually came from God or how accurate the depictions are. Being divinely inspired is not the same thing as being divinely revealed. The scriptures of my religion were divinely revealed and written by the Prophet Founder so I do not have to wonder if they were distorted or tampered with by human hands.

If people want to cling to the Bible forever, that's their choice, but I do not see any reason to follow an old Book since we are no longer living in those days, and the Bible was written for the days in which it was written, not for the modern age we live in.

It is no wonder there are atheists, my husband always says, every time I talk about a Christian I am presently posting to regarding what *the Bible says.* The Bible does not *say* anything; it has to be interpreted, and it has been interpreted differently by everyone who reads it, which is essentially why there are so many sects of Christianity.

All that said, I have my *issues* with God, but at least they are based upon who God really is, not upon stuff that man might have made up about God, as we see in the Bible.

Every time I think about it I am so glad I am a Baha'i. There is no doubt that I would be an agnostic or an atheist if I had never stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith 49 years ago, not that there is anything wrong with being an atheist. In many ways it is an easier life than being a believer, but I believe it will be better for me in the long run, in spite of my struggles to come to terms with God, given how much I have suffered and how much suffering there is in this world.