non hateful query

Question : Why is it that every religion tries to attribute human success with an imaginary being?

Explanation / Example:

.Pick a sport of your choice.

.Find an interview with a player, there is a good chance that player will attribute his success to god or whatever.

My question is,

Did your imaginary friend dodge the other tacklers and catch the football for you, or did YOU catch the football? Why are you thanking your imaginary friend?

Did your imaginary friend automagically train you for the game you just played?

Or did you spend YEARS training daily and eating properly with a HUMAN trainer/dietician giving you advice? Unless one of those people is a swedish guy named Ghod, I believe we have a little bit of mis-attribution of effort on the part of the opinion of the athlete.

Yes I know the very first response will be "But (insert imaginary friend's name here) helped me get through all of my training and such". Ok that is a fair argument; how will you support it? Did your "friend" tell you what to eat? how often to work on your glutes, or how to properly lift a stack? swim? bike? dance? play football/basketball/etc?????

The answer to that is no, the person who did that was a human, and they learned it from other humans; we as humans care about each other very much and we like to leave our methods of teaching behind so that we can progress as a society... however the artifact (needing to believe in a higher power) of the religious textbook is still stuck with us and we need to break free from that to free our minds.

reply to post by Davood


Could it be just one way that they use to avoid getting the title of arrogant and prideful?

Ya know how THOSE people are treated, don't ya?

fair enough.. but why attribute it to something they can't prove.. why not say "My dietician Linda really got me through the last month when I trained fourteen hours a day, and without Tony tuning my every punch, I don't think I could even hit a featherweight"

That way he can make some people feel better directly and still be humble.

Attributing it to a "higher being" actually sounds selfish and egotistic to me. Now I am agnostic; but I think that if there was a higher power, why would they help some random dude get a few points at a sporting event. I'm not a student of any sort of theology, but I've never heard anyone mention stuff like "thou shalt scoreth many touchdowns and total knockouts"

reply to post by Davood

fair enough.. but why attribute it to something they can't prove...

Maybe it is that "zone" that the best athletes get into that these people attribute to God?

You know "that zone" I refer to don't you? Where everything seems to slow down and they can see the entire play before it is even made?

It is a form of higher consciousness and so maybe that is why?

Originally posted by L.I.B.
reply to post by Davood

 

fair enough.. but why attribute it to something they can't prove...

Maybe it is that "zone" that the best athletes get into that these people attribute to God?

You know "that zone" I refer to don't you? Where everything seems to slow down and they can see the entire play before it is even made?

It is a form of higher consciousness and so maybe that is why?

I don't think that most are looking at it from this angle. The thanking of a higher power is so ubiquitous as to have lost any need for serious thought beforehand; it has become standard and I suspect most are just spouting it off with very little consideration. In nearly every major entertainment awards show, sports game (from high school to professional), all the way to hospital lobbies, you'll find a good number of people thanking the great lord above for helping them out. Taking your example in particular, I doubt that many of these guys stop and think "Man, that zone I was in, where I just saw the play--I saw it!--that was from God, and I'm gonna thank him for it." For most, it is just something that has become par for the course in sports. Athletes very frequently thank their god for a win, without stopping to contemplate any "higher consciousness" involved. Not a lot more to it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Originally posted by paperplanes

Originally posted by L.I.B.
reply to post by Davood

 

fair enough.. but why attribute it to something they can't prove...

Maybe it is that "zone" that the best athletes get into that these people attribute to God?

You know "that zone" I refer to don't you? Where everything seems to slow down and they can see the entire play before it is even made?

It is a form of higher consciousness and so maybe that is why?

I don't think that most are looking at it from this angle. The thanking of a higher power is so ubiquitous as to have lost any need for serious thought beforehand; it has become standard and I suspect most are just spouting it off with very little consideration. In nearly every major entertainment awards show, sports game (from high school to professional), all the way to hospital lobbies, you'll find a good number of people thanking the great lord above for helping them out. Taking your example in particular, I doubt that many of these guys stop and think "Man, that zone I was in, where I just saw the play--I saw it!--that was from God, and I'm gonna thank him for it." For most, it is just something that has become par for the course in sports. Athletes very frequently thank their god for a win, without stopping to contemplate any "higher consciousness" involved. Not a lot more to it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Could be, could be.

My conjecture was based purely on the desire to not put words into the mouths of those who do these things as raised by the OP and rather than saying: Why don't you ask those people, I offered possible suggestions.

It is easy to say that those people are just talking heads, but I just can't do that. I don't know them or the reason why they feel compelled to do what they say.

reply to post by Davood


When you start by sayiing "Non-hatefull" then lead into discussing "your imaginary friend" it may not be hateful but it is insulting, deeply insulting.

You are saying in so many words, "Man...you are stupid. Don't you get it that your basic core belief system is a fallacy?"

Anti-religious people love to spout the idea that you are stupid for being religious. But they love to criticize the religious for their critique of atheists who think non-believers are going to hell.

Hello kettle this is the pot. You're black.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Davood

 

When you start by saying "Non-hatefull" then lead into discussing "your imaginary friend" it may not be hateful but it is insulting, deeply insulting.

You are saying in so many words, "Man...you are stupid. Don't you get it that your basic core belief system is a fallacy?"

Anti-religious people love to spout the idea that you are stupid for being religious. But they love to criticize the religious for their critique of atheists who think non-believers are going to hell.

Hello kettle this is the pot. You're black.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone, let me narrow down the discussion parameters a little: I realize now that I should have just said "higher powers" instead of "imaginary friend" to keep the focus where I intended it.

I am somewhat anti religious, but I don't want to be "Anti religious" in this post, I just want to make sense of it, a fellow in an earlier post seems to have highlighted the ubiquitousness of it in that the people attributing their success to a higher power don't really mean it.

to summarize. What I am "attacking" is their intentions, they are trying to be humble, yet seem to be very egotistical. I know what "the zone" is, and it is very common to experience when you are repeating something you have done / practiced over and over. The call center operator who is doing her taxes while she explains the features of your new cell phone plan to you, is in "the zone". and the guy who is running full speed across a soccer field with the ball, but mentally strategizing vs the 8 guys who might be in range is in "the zone"

All I ask is that for once. can one of these athletes thank their trainers or dieticians, or even their parents! instead of just spouting off something they don't believe.

or do people (not me!) who believe in "higher powers" think it's OK to blindly attribute things when someone doesn't mean it?

""however the artifact (needing to believe in a higher power) of the religious textbook is still stuck with us and we need to break free from that to free our minds.""

I love this article and will use it every time I see a thread devoted to Evangelical Atheism. (I believe this is one of them)

The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head” they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead.

Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem. And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: "Join us and you can be one of the smart people!"
(sounds familiar doesn't it).

But most of the English-speaking world was spared this excessive institutional atheism. The United States, in particular, has always zealously guarded the freedom of anyone to practice any religion that does not seriously interfere with public order.

That’s why we’re so surprised and baffled by what we call the New Atheism. For the first time in our relatively tranquil history, we’re facing a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

Led by the Four Horsemen, as they like to call themselves—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett—these New Atheists argue that religion, is simply delusion and at the root of all our problems. They have websites and well-orchestrated media events, and collectively they sell millions of books. Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion has been on the bestseller list since its release in 2006.


But if atheists have always been with us, why are we worrying now? After all, the Church has engaged non-believers for over two thousand years.

What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.

What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: join us and you can be one of the smart people.

How do we counter the New Atheists where they’re doing the most damage?

First, we need to be polite. That’s all the more important when our opponents descend to the level of playground taunts. If a New Atheist joins our discussion, we need to be welcoming, not hostile. (see link for complete article)


www.catholicleague.org...

Mr. Onfray, 48 years old and author of 32 books, stands in the vanguard of a curious and increasingly potent phenomenon in Europe: zealous disbelief in God. Mr. Onfray argues that atheism faces a "final battle" against "theological hocus-pocus" and must rally its troops. "We can no longer tolerate neutrality and benevolence," he writes in "Traité d'athéologie," or Atheist Manifesto, a best seller in France, Italy and Spain. "The turbulent time we live in suggests that change is at hand and the time has come for a new order."