Is belief in a creator a sign of weakness?

Now we could go down the logic route and say well there is no evidence etc…but this question relates to emotional need…

Slaughtz said something like…

As far as I know, I have never seen the use of the word “father” in any other scriptures outside of the modern translation of the bible. Father referring to God the creator. I would even say if you were to read the original Hebrew you wouldn’t find that word specifically…This is most likely intentionally added to justify the relationship of Jesus being the “son” with the holy spirit in order to further the trinity concept…

With that said, are the majority of people who embrace Christianity and believe in God bastards? meaning without biological fathers, therefore they are seeking a replacement, or to fill a void for something they have never had?

I would say that this isn’t the case as the majority seem to have full households, great grandparents. grandparents, mothers/father and offspring, especially if you look at the bible belt of the USA…

Also in the Quranic scriptures, it states:

There is also a concept known as Fitra, which means, according to religion, that humans are created with a natural inclination towards God.

So even if belief in God IS a sign of weakness, then doesn’t this confirm what the scriptures are saying, now this may sound like circular reasoning, but what i’m getting at is…

Why do people equate strength to the disbelief in God?

And are they deniers of such a creator and refuse to testify, and submit to his will out of egoistic arrogance?

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

In the West … and the Middle East … Scripture requires the support of temples, churches, synagogues, mosques … and a hierarchy of leadership.

In China … the temple, church, synagogue and mosque … are within. ergo: the Dao resides within the individual.

The Dao De Jing embodies two tenets … the “Dao” … and “Dao De”.

While very few Chinese people understand the “scripture” of the Dao … virtually all Chinese children are taught the expression “Dao De” .

That’s quite enough: there are so very many modern Christians who do think and feel that that’s an appropriate role for their god…
I wouldn’t call them bastards of the world, but they might think that of themselves, since they also believe in original sin and the necessity of becoming reconciled, through their own effort, splus the intercession of a sacrificed deity/sibling, with a very demanding father figure.
I would be more inclined to call them spiritual orphans of the world. Civilization both alienated humans from nature (which is figured as the mother, even while we’re raping her) and put them in thrall to the masculine/patriarchal/militaristic command-structure. This was a huge loss of status, autonomy and control for the vast majority of men. (For women, it was straight bondage and punishment.) Civilization does to men what it does to dogs: keeps them in a perpetual state of dependency, or puppyhood. So, of course they long for a better father - an authority figure above the sergeant, the department-head, the district judge, the sheriff, the governor, the king, generalissimo the fuhrer or whatever mortal man they have to obey.

There is. of course, a simpler explanation: Nature is dangerous, indifferent and implacable. Early humans were very much at its mercy. Yet, in the activities of weather, water, vegetation and wildlife, they could see - or imagine - purpose and intelligence. If they could perceive a mind behind nature, they might be able to influence the decisions of that mind. If they could just figure out what the gods want, they could maybe have their own wishes granted. So they projected their own kind of though-process onto the forces of nature: invented something they could talk to, plead with, coerce, bribe, cajole or regulate into more benevolent behaviour toward humans… that is, toward a particular group of humans.

A third - and most likely - possibility for regarding the deity as a parental figure is that early humans tended to die young, leaving a lot of even younger humans literally orphaned. People simply missed the nurturing of their mothers (and so began to attribute maternal characteristics to Nature, which provides sustenance) and the guidance of their fathers (and so they attributed paternal characteristics to source of their moral principles.)

I wouldn’t call it weakness to call one’s god a father. I would call it intellectual cowardice to defer to that imaginary character, and accept his ancient rules, rather than make rules you consider to be right for reasons you understand. I would certainly call it fraud (at the very least) to advocate and enforce obedience to such an imaginary authority without actually believing in it, the way all religious leaders do.

Yes

strength is its own creator.

Believing yes. Entertaining a thought with out believing it is where genius, intelligence and education stems. Pretty much what Aristotle said.

If you never question anything and everything you know, then you never truly know what it means to take a leap of faith into an endless abyss of uncertainty only to come up spades somewhere along the way.

Nice post, humunculus.

I pretty much agree completely, with that said, I have always had this feeling to escape into the wild where I can provide a platform for my natural self to grow, extending myself over the environment in terms of dominance by learning the way of nature equaling my survival with a deeper contentment. It seems absurd to me that we become so dependent upon a manmade concept on civilization which can potentially collapse releasing us all into the wild unprepared.

Exposing oneself to the wild is honesty, true survival where this honesty is carried through is in preparation between man and reality. Reality being a force that drags man to the premise and is confronted, this confrontation solidifies the relationship and connection to nature in sound ordering, dominance and growth may express itself as an ideal upon nature but not the negation of it especially if the ideal is manifested out of this natural circumstance…

the reality of the Ideal may produce ease where nature appears to no longer be wild or man’s wildness exceeds that of nature, or synchronizes with it.

Manni … the imagery you paint with your words is on par with DaVinci’s painting of the Mona Lisa … for me at least.

Specifically her smile … the smile that seems to say … “I know something you don’t … he he”

Manni … do you know something we don’t?

I really hope you get an enthusiastic response … your post is so rich … would be a shame if ILP members fail to inspire you to flush out some of the many “diamonds” embodied in your few words.

With her trust in DaVinci, she knew your non-existent eyes will be blessed upon perception of her several centuries after her non-existence…

I know that the force of reality I spoke of earlier, that which drags man into confrontation and if he fails to respond accordingly with the will to overcome, then the friction sweeps him away…one can only imagine what occurs afterwards, if anything at all…

Perhaps the word “flush” isn’t the most appropriate, maybe the word “deliver” is more welcoming to your mind.

Mother ≡ that which nurtures
Father ≡ that which instigates or causes.

For the moment … a few more comments on the potency of the written word … in this case the word ‘flush’.

When (insert adjective here) English readers encounter the word ‘flush’ … their memory will almost immediately retrieve all the associations/patterns connected to the word ‘flush’ … the most popular being … flush the toilet … flush away … the waste … the unwanted. For this class of thinker the word “deliver” is much more suitable.

My intention in using the word 'flush is:

[b]

[/b]

There are several brilliant “bird dog” type thinkers in ILP. Let’s hope they will “sniff” among your written words and “sniff” among your unwritten words … the words between the lines … and flush out stuff the casual observer would otherwise miss.

Where are all the modern era Ralph Waldo Emmerson(s)? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson

Not even any “desktop” Emmerson(s)?

What a shame!

Manni … looks like you’re a rare breed … you’re on your own.

Well not totally on your own … you got me … OK you’re on your own. :smiley:

beliefs per se, are not signs of a “weakness”,
but what is the effect or point of a belief can be a sign of weakness…

now many use this belief in god as a crutch or as a means of showing
dominance and use of god in this fashion is a weakness…
if you need a belief in god to maintain your self worth, then that
is a weakness or if you use your belief in god to show how superior
you are, yes, that is weakness… and most people use god in this way…

the question I have always asked is this, would you still believe in god
even IF there was no punishment for non belief?
most people have belief because of the punishment aspect of
religion and that is weakness… holding a belief because you would
get punished for holding another belief… that is weakness,
so it comes down to the reason, WHY, does someone hold that belief
that makes it a weakness or a strength…

Kropotkin

Manni … you should be encouraged by the resistance … it’s a sure sign you are on to something noble.

Yeah … I know … easy for me to say … I’m not the target of the hostility.

OTH … maybe I am … seems the posts tag onto my posts … who knows … who cares … let’s go forward with a mellow heart.

Christians will claim they are among the most family-oriented peoples. I will agree they aren’t exactly bastards. They do have fathers. But isn’t it a little weird that they subordinate themselves to an imaginary authority that is God? Does that not indicate that they have lost the connection to their roots? Does that not indicate they no longer have their own tradition?

I would say that Christian tradition is an example of what forms when a folk, a homogeneous group of people, degenerates into a rabble, a heterogeneous group of people. This degeneration can be brought on by many causes but let’s say the major one is the mixing of people of different origins (e.g. ethnicities, castes, etc.) Christian tradition, then, would merely be an attempt, brought on by fear of anarchy, to make heterogeneous group of people cooperate with each other. It’s a made up tradition to which everyone fearing anarchy submits.

Peter … your comments certainly have merit … worthy of consideration … and absolutely conform to the OP.

Yet … the OP has evolved/morphed beyond the opening posts.

How so?

Manni launched the OP … somehow activity in the OP gave birth to new intriguing/interesting thoughts … again from Manni.

I will repeat them here for ease of reference:

Yes … I’m being somewhat obstinate … seems it’s a trait that evolves from being active on ILP. :smiley:

…and what about that reference has caught your eye, Tom?

Is hypocrisy a weakness? Not necessarily. But it often is.

Hypocrisy entails duplicity. In the case of views, it entails having two sets of views: one set of views which represents everything one truly believes in and one set of views which represents what one does not really believe in but is useful to pretend to believe in. The former is usually kept private and hidden obviously because this is what is necessary in order to make the second useful.

Now, the problem with duplicity is that it consumes a whole lot of energy . . . it almost requires two separate brains in order to make it a powerful strategy that can work in the long-term. So in theory, duplicity can be strength, but in practice, it isn’t.

Sooner or later the person ends up confusing the two sets. One starts believing one’s own lies. And to make it worse, this isn’t achieved by eliminating the first set altogether and then replacing it with second set. No, this is achieved by suppressing the first set, which consumes a lot of energy, though a lot less than maintaining the two sets does.

Can you now see how weak this approach is?
It’s an energy drain.

I would say this is the problem Christians suffer from. They have two traditions within themselves: the original one, which they suppress because they fear anarchy; and the pragmatic one, which they express because it alleviates their fear of anarchy.

What is the original one?