U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2011, 11:51 AM
 
949 posts, read 879,433 times
Reputation: 110

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonitsposible View Post
God is a person created by people or is an emotional act created be people to self govern ourselves into not destroying ourselves. Similar to acts of looking left and right while crossing a road created by experience gained from others in a similar way monkeys learn to crack nuts from other monkeys.
How do you know this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 12:40 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,898,382 times
Reputation: 3192
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek View Post
How do you know this?
Carl Jung.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,333 posts, read 2,508,483 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonitsposible View Post
God is a person created by people or is an emotional act created be people to self govern ourselves into not destroying ourselves. Similar to acts of looking left and right while crossing a road created by experience gained from others in a similar way monkeys learn to crack nuts from other monkeys.

Emotions may produce acts or the acts may be responsibly self-realized to the motivating circumstance of group behaviour. So God may at first be because of an emotional act (paganism), but later upon conceiving oneself a part of the religious organization the Conscience is to for some unpredictable or reasonable way without cause to it's effect (upon the religious group) develops the standards for being consciounable to the Religion (the act is now unconditionally unmotivated in any common way). God is directly the producer of some Acts. That is may faith in religious Gods or God, of course the Christian God, God returned to Heaven to prove He will come back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 02:51 PM
 
949 posts, read 879,433 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Carl Jung.
How do you know he was right? The mind is still a big mystery to us today...for all we've learned about psychology...no one really has it figured out.

Having said that, there are a lot of people that hold to the view that God was a myth and they have no idea who Jung was. I was curious if the poster had anything to base his/her opinion on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 01:23 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 21,981,222 times
Reputation: 5074
Knowledge of Carl Jung's school of thought is not necessary for nonbelief in a god. I was an agnostic atheist before I learned anything about Jung.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2012, 12:32 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 21,981,222 times
Reputation: 5074
Regarding the preceding post: with the exception of the last nonsensical sentence, I have a feeling of deja vu all over again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 579,497 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek View Post
How do you know he was right?

Jung’s fantasies provide Academia with an excuse for its ignorance.

“Man made god” is an illogical assertion because it implies that the man made god before the idea of the god was produced.
One has to show how the god idea came to be and then decide whether man made god or god made man.

The ancient layman said: God made me!
The ancient scholar said: God made the universe too.

The ancient layman said: God raped my wife and daughter.
The ancient scholar said: God gave you sunshine and rain.

Jung and Campbell, and all the inspired brains who tried to understand mythology, they knew very well that the popular concept of god was at all times different from the scholarly concept.
The scholarly concept poses no difficulty in analyzing it: theological nonsense transformed into psychological needs.

The popular concept cannot be accepted for what it is: empirical ideas, and thus the intelligence of the scholars comes into play. “It was not the philosophers,” they say, “who endowed the gods with the powers of nature. It was the ignorant primitive people seeking to explain nature.”

The ancient layman’s “God made me,” science has now to accept and verify. We, modern people, were “made” in the Near East. Academia has only to name the makers in order that we eventually know the name of our creators!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 05:46 AM
 
39,107 posts, read 10,849,315 times
Reputation: 5088
If I understand the above post correctly (and I am not sure that I do) primitive layman explained the unexplainable as a huge invisible human doing it.

Later on laymen and intelligensia (and a lot of others) all described their gods in various ways and said they did different things.

This shows that all these god - concepts are developed in human heads and nowhere else.

Today, it is those who use evidence and reason who can explain this stuff best and perhaps Jung and Campbell had a few good insights though their stuff strikes me as so speculative that I wonder if it even qualifies as valid science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 06:03 AM
 
Location: FL
1,727 posts, read 2,176,126 times
Reputation: 1039
Wasn't science created?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 579,497 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
\If I understand the above post correctly (and I am not sure that I do) primitive layman explained the unexplainable as a huge invisible human doing it.
This assertion you base on what?
Surely not on those words of the primitive layman which managed to reach us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Later on laymen and intelligensia (and a lot of others) all described their gods in various ways and said they did different things.

When intelligentsia took over, the words of the layman were distorted beyond recognition.
The epic poems, Greek and Sumerian, contain the respective oral traditions which were too crude for the civilized ears of the philosophers, thus, they invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths: the layman, they said, did not mean what he said, he meant what we tell you that he meant !!
The layman said the god was raping a woman and then continued by raping his own daughter then his grand daughter and then his great grand daughter. Oh, silly layman! The god was not raping, he was sending archangels to offer flowers!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
This shows that all these god - concepts are developed in human heads and nowhere else.

Evidence?
You were brought up in an environment where the absurd idea of a creator god dominates and you think that in a culture where that idea did not pertain the people would be so stupid as to imagine a “huge invisible human”! The fact, however, is that they, all over the world, independently, “imagined” some human creatures not at all huge (they were making love to them) whom they fed and served as their slaves. They rebelled against those gods and forced them to leave the territory.
Where did they go? Read the Egyptian funerary texts: they climbed a ladder to the heavens. That is what the messengers (angels in Greek) told to those determinate to abolish the race of the gods from the face of the earth.

It only takes some reading in order to find out how the idea of the heavenly gods came to be.
Once the idea was produced (most probably as a joke) humanity was doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Today, it is those who use evidence and reason who can explain this stuff best and perhaps Jung and Campbell had a few good insights though their stuff strikes me as so speculative that I wonder if it even qualifies as valid science.

Correct! To qualify as valid science the archaic text should have been analyzed.
Unfortunately, modern Egyptologists continue to deceive scholars and laymen alike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top