Why any god is imagination at heart

[Phaedrus]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is one conception of religion - and one surprisingly popular even among people who consider themselves religious theists.

I don't think that it is a particularly commendable or viable one. It is certainly not the only. I wonder how traditional exactly it is. Not sure.

 

[Phaedrus]

That is one conception of religion - and one surprisingly popular even among people who consider themselves religious theists.

I don't think that it is a particularly commendable or viable one. It is certainly not the only. I wonder how traditional exactly it is. Not sure.

The thing I have learned about being commendable is that I don't have to cater to another's way of thinking, especially if that way of thinking is backwards.

The thing I have learned about something being viable is that an opinion is just that, and that it in no way invalidates what I have stated.

 

[LuisDantas]

Very true.

A significant difficulty that I see in the Abrahamics is the odd distribution of responsiblity in them.

There are wise and compassionate people in them, but they tend to be neither very typical of nor very valued by the most vocal and flamboyant adherents.

It is really a shame that so many people go out of their way to abuse what is supposed to be a good thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, scratch that. I think that the real shame is that the abuse is ultimately protected by the reverence given to certain keywords and the good efforts of people who are in fact wise.

 

[Nakosis]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

Imagine is part of the human psyche. So goal/goals in life. One can of course choose various goals. Myself, I think being happy is a good. Maybe even more important than being right. Being wrong is only important when ti interferes with happiness.

Religion IMO is really about being happy. Hope, security, some confidence about how the world works, these all support one's being happy.

So religion can be a useful tool to support happiness. Folks use beliefs to manipulate their happiness.

Unfortunately people in the pursuit of happiness can easily be manipulated if you can convince them certain beliefs are required for them to accept in order to achieve the happiness they are looking for.

Some of these beliefs do not bring happiness. In fact they bring the opposite, misery. However folks have become so convinced of these necessary beliefs for happiness they are willing to overlook that.

Weird right? Folks accepting beliefs that make them unhappy to achieve happiness.

Example - homosexuality is a sin. One has to accept this belief in order to achieve happiness ends up making lots of people miserable.

So one's beliefs don't have to be true to make them happy, but if a belief is not making you happy, why hold onto it? Perhaps changing their beliefs is not something they've ever considered. It would mean sacrificing their chance at happiness.

 

[Heyo]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god.

Anthropologists think that the "god" concept is much younger, in the ballpark of 10,000 years. People before that time had most likely an animistic spiritualism. Animism is what most primitive tribes have, if they have spirituality at all.
Animism still exists in modern societies, mostly in south-east Asia as Shintoism or parallel to other religions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread moved to Religious Debates per staff consensus.​

 

[atanu]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

I did not find any support for the title of your thread. Why can’t it be said that your characterisation of theism/theists is imagination?

How have you defined God? To prove that God is an imagination, you will first need to define God. Then only you can demonstrate that such a God, as you have defined, is an imagination.
...

 

[Moz]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

Hi

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.
Imagination.
Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

This is a very simplistic argument that falls apart at any level of deeper analysis. When the issue is discussed amongst serious thinkers the evolutionary side need to introduce concepts like the "Biological Meme" as the foundation of human to human interaction and the establishment or religious concepts and not mere imagination or wish fulfillment , that argument has been successfully challenged on many fronts. It is to shallow an explanation for the universality of certain traits.
Peace

 

[1213]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.....

Sorry, I don’t believe people are that imaginative. By what I see, the “imagination” is always limited to what person has seen.

 

[epronovost]

Sorry, I don’t believe people are that imaginative. By what I see, the “imagination” is always limited to what person has seen.

While there is some truth in the idea that imagination is limited to what people have experienced, most deities do have a stupendous amount of anthropomorphic traits both in terms of depiction, but also in terms of psychology. The Old Testament God is behaving an talking very much like some sort of "supreme king". Jesus is very much like the many errant wise men that preceded him in various other myths or even in actual history. Human vision of deities is very much in line with their personnal beliefs and their understanding of the world.

 

[Willamena]

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

I was with you up to here. Imagination isn't a downfall, it just needs to be elevated to its rightful place over reality. People need to recognize it, so they stop mistaking it for reality.

 

[Muffled]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

I believe you can't prove that. Certainly the texts do not say I dreamed of God or I imagined God.

 

[Muffled]

The thing I have learned about being commendable is that I don't have to cater to another's way of thinking, especially if that way of thinking is backwards.

The thing I have learned about something being viable is that an opinion is just that, and that it in no way invalidates what I have stated.

I believe you can consider your opinion viable as long as you recognize that it is your imagination.

 

[Muffled]

Anthropologists think that the "god" concept is much younger, in the ballpark of 10,000 years. People before that time had most likely an animistic spiritualism. Animism is what most primitive tribes have, if they have spirituality at all.
Animism still exists in modern societies, mostly in south-east Asia as Shintoism or parallel to other religions.

I believe it is always possible for people to have false ideas (just read posts here) but that is not proof that God didn't reveal Himself in earlier times. There is a concept of progressive revelation but I would put that in a category of being a theory.

 

[1213]

...Human vision of deities is very much in line with their personnal beliefs and their understanding of the world.

I agree with that and that is why I believe Bible God is not human imagination. By what I see, people are too stupid and evil to imagine Bible God on their own.

 

[epronovost]

I agree with that and that is why I believe Bible God is not human imagination. By what I see, people are too stupid and evil to imagine Bible God on their own.

Really? I'm rather surprised. The Old Testament God is far from being nice by pretty much anybody's standards.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

From an anthropological and sociological perspective, the theology of god made its presence known directly from one source.

Imagination.

Man has used it to his heart's desire since the dawn of time, and people often confuse it with reality.

The first man obviously wondered from whence he had come, because we ask that of ourselves even today. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, we can understand that early man used his imagination to connect the world around him to that which he did not understand. An invisible air current moves things around; it must be a god. Today, we know it as wind. Yet, in every culture, there's a god of the winds. For obvious reasons. Men tend to attribute what they don't understand to that which is supernatural.

Christians: Yeah, god sent a hurricane to blow down your house because you're gay.
That's the Christian attribution of god to the winds. (Didn't want Christians thinking, "wait, we only believe in one god, and he's not a wind god")

With science, and literacy, god still remains non-existent. Yet, the unchanging religions keep changing their arguments to better suit defending that which cannot defend itself? Yes, apologists are not good at what they do.

In the end, imagination is its own downfall in religious matters when facing reality.

How simplistic and dumb. I take it that you have never had a transcendent experience before since you apparently understand so little of what drives people to be religious or spiritual in the first place.

 

[epronovost]

How simplistic and dumb. I take it that you have never had a transcendent experience before since you apparently understand so little of what drives people to be religious or spiritual in the first place.

I don't think transcendent experience preclude imagination. Being particularly intense emotional experiences, imagination becomes almost necessary to describe and communicate them. The collective imaginary and culture are also extremely important in how those experience are shapped and remembered by an individual.

PS: it's also good to note that transcendent experience aren't, by definition, positive. Existential dread could be an example of a bad one.