Religion

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)

35. god as a guru, or friend when you need one.

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:36 PM

Dec 2011

Where did I hear that before?

Ah yes, at a Hitchens debate.

"That this evening we've already had your suggestion that God is only really a guru, a friend when you're in need. I mean he wouldn't do anything like bugger around with Job to prove a point. Which if I now tell you well that must mean that that book is not the word of god, you can say 'well whoever believed that was ever the word of god?'

Let me just tell you something: for hundreds and thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been in most places impossible to have, or Sam and I would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face ingratiating way because it has had to give so much ground, and we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side." - Hitch

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is meant by having "a personal relationship with Jesus"? [View all] MarkCharles Dec 2011 OP

This? PassingFair Dec 2011 #1

and insert "...and you don't!" immoderate Dec 2011 #2

I've never seen anyone say that here, so I am not sure you will find cbayer Dec 2011 #3

Culture and language GliderGuider Dec 2011 #4

I've heard it a lot. rrneck Dec 2011 #5

I appreciate all respondents so far, I'm at a loss to understand it.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6

Like I said, you may have to go find someone who actually says that. cbayer Dec 2011 #8

Attack believers? Or question their beliefs? There's a distinct... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11

Oh, there is most definitely a difference. cbayer Dec 2011 #14

Some people here seem to marry their beliefs with their identity. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #15

Right you are. There are many here that seem to marry their beliefs cbayer Dec 2011 #16

If people are mentally ill, they deserve our support, it is not an insult. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #17

Oh, I didn't realize that people posting here were psychiatrists! cbayer Dec 2011 #19

Yes, and some fail to see it in themselves. humblebum Dec 2011 #26

I guess it's a type of hallucination that....... frebrd Dec 2011 #7

Kind of like having a personal relationship skepticscott Dec 2011 #9

Mainly a counter to Catholicism edhopper Dec 2011 #10

Oh, THAT'S what it's all about? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #13

That's a big part of it. Igel Dec 2011 #25

"Personal relationship" implies a fair give and take, contributions from both lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #31

It's when one is really, really convinced that his imaginary friend is real. nt Deep13 Dec 2011 #12

As an Ex-Christian, let me explain it in computer terms: Taverner Dec 2011 #18

outstanding explanation deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #33

"He'd die, why don't you?" - LOL Taverner Dec 2011 #34

Not only mean and funny tama Dec 2011 #69

If you ask for an explanation, you're likely to get MineralMan Dec 2011 #20

I'm sure that getting to that point requires lots of attention paid to the teacher, as well as lots lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #32

it's a fundamentalist term RainDog Dec 2011 #21

I can only speak as a recovering theist, LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #22

What is so fascinating about this description is that I think Freud cbayer Dec 2011 #23

yeah but Freud was sort of...off the mark himself RainDog Dec 2011 #24

god as a guru, or friend when you need one. deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #35

Interesting. Implication: Current purveyors know they don't have god and followers lindysalsagal Jan 2012 #81

I've heard it said in the context of "Christianity is not a religion,..." mr blur Dec 2011 #27

That's another angle I honestly hadn't thought about! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #28

They are mentally immature and want a personal sky daddy. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #29

Oh dear, mental immaturity is not going to go over well with.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #30

Spending hours and hours reading and hearing atheists' complaints about others' ideas, but humblebum Dec 2011 #37

Replace "nothingness" with "God" and you've summarized why many of us are atheists. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #38

Oh of course, given that the vast majority of posts in this group concern comments humblebum Dec 2011 #39

You're trotting out THAT hoary old argument? laconicsax Dec 2011 #40

The trouble with "THAT hoary old argument" is that it is humblebum Dec 2011 #41

If by simplistic and logical, you mean wrong... laconicsax Dec 2011 #42

There IS NO PROOF one way or the other. That's the point. You are conducting humblebum Dec 2011 #43

Sigh...you really don't get it, do you? laconicsax Dec 2011 #44

Your "ample evidence that the universe could have self-started." is nothing humblebum Dec 2011 #45

Nothing more than hypothesis? Uh, no. It's been experimentally confirmed. laconicsax Dec 2011 #46

In a laboratory that simulated a theoretical model of an ancient natural environment. humblebum Dec 2011 #47

Wrong again. laconicsax Dec 2011 #48

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Evidence presented, some posters MarkCharles Dec 2011 #49

"They have the arrogance to denounce a science they cannot understand." - or humblebum Dec 2011 #67

"What evidence do you have that your god-based model is correct?" I guess humblebum Dec 2011 #50

As you readily admit that you have no evidence... laconicsax Dec 2011 #52

As I said before, it is all subjective. And why should I take you seriously humblebum Dec 2011 #53

This is where you fail. laconicsax Dec 2011 #58

"The framework under which the universe could have self-started is objectively true humblebum Dec 2011 #61

I believe we already established that your definition of nothingness is self-contradictory laconicsax Dec 2011 #63

In other words your nothingness is a somethingness - got it. humblebum Dec 2011 #64

I suppose self-consistent is something. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #65

Mouthing the words "I don't know" would be something too, instead humblebum Dec 2011 #66

And again, you show your complete lack of understanding. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #68

As well do you. Huge difference between hypothesis and fact. humblebum Dec 2011 #72

I was wondering when you'd trot that straw man out. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #73

I think your straw man is a straw man. My statement has everything to do humblebum Dec 2011 #74

LOL! Good one! laconicsax Dec 2011 #75

Ex nihilo? tama Dec 2011 #60

One of the best paragraphs of logical response I have ever seen! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #51

Not all religious believers also disbelieve evolutionary science. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #54

Sometimes I wonder if this should be a TOS violation Eliminator Jan 2012 #79

Historically, crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion. laconicsax Jan 2012 #80

Who is saying tama Jan 2012 #82

Creationists tend to view exogenisis as crazy talk. laconicsax Jan 2012 #83

"Crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion" Arugula Latte Jan 2012 #84

People do not generally believe or disbelieve something because they've decided that it has LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #57

heh. "Benefits of Atheism" Taverner Dec 2011 #70

You have no more proof of being right than religious believers. nt humblebum Dec 2011 #71

Not necessarily IMO LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #59

Dinner and a movie? Maybe some cuddling afterwards? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #36

Means you know what kind of toppings He likes on His pizza when He orders from Domino's. n/t TygrBright Dec 2011 #55

Well, I'm non-religious, but as I understand it... LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #56

good analysis kwassa Dec 2011 #62

I keep clicking on this thread to make a dirty joke, ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #76

I don't know that we had a personal relationship, but we jammed together a couple of times. nt rrneck Jan 2012 #77

My ex had a personal relationship with Jesus, hence why she's an ex... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #78