"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Carl Sagan

Have you, as an ExMo, found an "emotionally satisfying god" besides the one Sagan dismissed as ludicrous?

For me, personally, I believe in Sagan's god, the set if physical laws that govern the universe. But if I am asked to bless the food I am not praying to gravity, I pray to god, because everybody joining me in prayer has their own understanding of that metaphor.
I personally find ancient pantheist concepts of the divine emotionally satisfying, such as Tao, Logos, Genius and Great Spirit, but I dont pray to them.
When you see "In God We Trust" printed on our currency or say, "One Nation Under God" in reciting the US Pledge of Allegiance, what word would you rather we use, besides "god"?

I don't like the idea of pledging allegiance to an object, anyway. But it certainly doesn't need to say "under God" or anything else. That phrase is completely unnecessary.

Same with our currency. The phrase "In God we Trust" is completely unnecessary and written on money makes it weird. More appropriate for our nation might be "In Power We Trust" or "In Wealth We Trust".

Just the opinion of an agnostic ex-mo.

Chica Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't like the idea of pledging allegiance to an
> object, anyway. But it certainly doesn't need to
> say "under God" or anything else. That phrase is
> completely unnecessary.

One Nation Under Fire might be more appropriate in America with our mass shooting epidemic.

>
> Same with our currency. The phrase "In God we
> Trust" is completely unnecessary and written on
> money makes it weird. More appropriate for our
> nation might be "In Power We Trust" or "In Wealth
> We Trust".
>
> Just the opinion of an agnostic ex-mo.

In that context I think God is short for "Good" as, "In Good We Trust"
In other words, we trust this $1 is good for $1 worth of x.

“One Nation Under Fire might be more appropriate in America with our mass shooting epidemic.”

Maybe we shouldn’t prescribe kids drugs that have a side effect of “mass shooting”. I’ll bet a good tort lawyer could make a killing.

Per the OP’s question: Yes.

My God is inside every living being. It’s a connection we have with each other that transcends time and space. Sagan’s physical laws don’t transcend time and space.

I'm not sure why you have such a need for "god", but you do seem to have one. No biggie.

I find myself far more emotionally satisfied without any references to "god". Referring to anything as "god", no matter the interpretation, just doesn't work for me. And I don't understand the intense need others have for it.

What would I replace the "god" phrases with?

I would remove "in god we trust" from everything...period. No replacement necessary. We can figure out what we trust and what we don't just fine without coining a catch phrase of any kind, especially one as ambiguous as "god".

For the pledge, again, just remove "god"....period. Nothing else is needed. If we must have something, perhaps "one nation, of many people, with liberty and ......etc."

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure why you have such a need for "god",
> but you do seem to have one. No biggie.
>
> I find myself far more emotionally satisfied
> without any references to "god". Referring to
> anything as "god", no matter the interpretation,
> just doesn't work for me. And I don't understand
> the intense need others have for it.
>
Maslow called it "Transcendence of self"
https://www.sociology.org/how-to-be-human/

The "transcendent" human need to form a connection or oneness with the cosmos (or metaphorically, through God) is the goal of every religion. Unfortunately religion tends to have the opposite effect because it artificially separates people into artificial groups of us vs them, others, which fulfills much more primal needs, like herding and safety in numbers.
Personally I have no use for the word, God, but there is no avoiding it when it is on every form of currency I see and in our Pledge of Allegiance. When I see it or use it I think, nature.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I have no use for the word, God, but
> there is no avoiding it when it is on every form
> of currency I see and in our Pledge of Allegiance.
> When I see it or use it I think, nature.

You sure use it, and apply it to all sorts of things, a lot, though. One might think that if you had no use for it, you wouldn't use it so much...?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Personally I have no use for the word, God, but
> > there is no avoiding it when it is on every
> form
> > of currency I see and in our Pledge of
> Allegiance.
> > When I see it or use it I think, nature.
>
> You sure use it, and apply it to all sorts of
> things, a lot, though. One might think that if
> you had no use for it, you wouldn't use it so
> much...?

So do scientists, like Sagan, Einstein, Lederman, and Michio Kaku. So I am in good company.


https://youtu.be/cNygv13-CkI

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So do scientists, like Sagan, Einstein, Lederman,
> and Michio Kaku. So I am in good company.

The thing is, I'm not aware of any of those ever contradicting themselves by saying they had no use for the term "god."

While with you...

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So do scientists, like Sagan, Einstein,
> Lederman,
> > and Michio Kaku. So I am in good company.
>
> The thing is, I'm not aware of any of those ever
> contradicting themselves by saying they had no use
> for the term "god."
>
> While with you...

Its just a metaphor for nature.
I much prefer nature.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its just a metaphor for nature.
> I much prefer nature.

OK.
Then maybe stop calling it (and singularities, and dark matter, and particles, and lots of other things) "god?"
Just a thought.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its just a metaphor for nature.
> > I much prefer nature.
>
> OK.
> Then maybe stop calling it (and singularities, and
> dark matter, and particles, and lots of other
> things) "god?"
> Just a thought.

I found I was a lot happier when I quit trying to repress other peoples freedom of speech. God is just short for "Good" as in, Thank God=Thank Goodness.

All those things you listed combine to create the balance between the forces of nature which result in life, which is good. I trust in Good.

I just don't have a problem with the word, God being printed on our money or included in our pledge of Allegiance, because even though I dont subscribe to any kind of a personal God, I do subscribe to the God of Einstein, only one who does play dice.

https://youtu.be/1Dy_Xkw2kIo

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found I was a lot happier when I quit trying to
> repress other peoples freedom of speech.

I'm not trying to repress your freedom of speech, and you know it.

I just pointed out that you're contradicting yourself -- claiming you have no use for the word "god," but then using it constantly.

But, hey, contradict yourself. Have at it. Enjoy. It demonstrates internal inconsistency and lack of reason, but if that's what you want to put out, you're free to do so.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I found I was a lot happier when I quit trying
> to
> > repress other peoples freedom of speech.
>
> I'm not trying to repress your freedom of speech,
> and you know it.
>
> I just pointed out that you're contradicting
> yourself -- claiming you have no use for the word
> "god," but then using it constantly.
>
> But, hey, contradict yourself. Have at it.
> Enjoy. It demonstrates internal inconsistency and
> lack of reason, but if that's what you want to put
> out, you're free to do so.

Hawking contradicted Hawking.
For 30yrs he claimed nothing could escape the attraction of a black hole. Not even light.
Hence the name, Black Hole.
But then he discovered plasma jets erupting out of black holes, producing gamma rays and x rays.
Fron this he developed the opposite view, hence the name, Hawking Radiation.
Just before he died he said there was no such thing as black holes. That they were actually gray holes.
So why keep using tge term "Black Hole" when they are anything but black?
We cant see them so we just call them black?
Isn't that hypocritical?
Or was he going for irony?

It's actual learning.

Hawking developed a hypothesis, tested it, improved it, tested the new one, improved it, etc. He put research and rigor into each iteration as he refined his ideas and moved forward. There was distinct progress stemming from intellectual honesty and humility.

You, by contrast, cycle incessantly between four or five threads and four or five concepts. People add insight, which you disregard only to return to an old hobbyhorse yet again.

The one thing you've seemed to learn, of late, is that you were unintentionally speaking in metaphor. True, that. I do not, however, think that you will bask long in the glory of that discovery.


. . .


KW: Hello, my name is Bob. I have some questions about Joseph Smith. . .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> distinct progress stemming from intellectual
> honesty and humility.
>
> You, by contrast, cycle incessantly between four
> or five threads and four or five concepts. People
> add insight, which you disregard only to return to
> an old hobbyhorse yet again.

I dont disregard insight.
Try adding something insightful instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks as your first impulse.
>
> The one thing you've seemed to learn, of late, is
> that you were unintentionally speaking in
> metaphor. True, that. I do not, however, think
> that you will bask long in the glory of that
> discovery.
>
>
Ive always said the word, god, is an inadequate metaphor for the vast mystery that remains a mystery to all of us.
It is synonymous with other completely inadequate metaphors for the same thing, like, Logos, Tao and Genius.
You act like you are the last authority on words in the worlds languages.
> . . .
>
>
> KW: Hello, my name is Bob. I have some questions
> about Joseph Smith. . .

Yeah, I wont stop as long as the worlds biggest army of Doomsday Cult recruiters are out there every day spreading lies to convince gullible dupes to fork over 10% of their income fir the privilage of singing the praises if a child rapist.

I am going to publish their lies far and wide.

You?

You give evil cover.

We should use nothing. Keep god private for those that want it, in the private sphere only.

Agreed. No expression of "god" represents all the people of this country and no expression of "god" should be used in anything that represents us as a collective nation. God should be a private matter between a person and.....well....god.

I find that extremely emotionally satisfying too!

Yes.


None.

After leaving the Mormon church, I tried to go back to being a Presbyterian. But I found that Mormonism had destroyed my ability to believe much of anything.

I tend to think in terms of "the Cosmos," and whatever unifying force may have created it, and let it go at that.

I just got a book by carl sagan from the library that i just started reading and now i am a little more curious about what is in this book. Cosmos is the name i believe.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just got a book by carl sagan from the library
> that i just started reading and now i am a little
> more curious about what is in this book. Cosmos
> is the name i believe.

A reading from the Book of Carl,

A Pale Blue Dot
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

-- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

https://youtu.be/hZ7nXOkgTWo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2018 03:42PM by koriwhore.

I don't truly worship her but I like Mother Nature. She is female and she always gets the last word.

Pooped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't truly worship her but I like Mother
> Nature. She is female and she always gets the last
> word.
I agree and have often thought, while pondering the black hole at the center of our galaxy, that perhaps that is Mother Nature's vagina from whence all of this flowed into existence, like Plasma Jets erupting out of a volcano, and settling out on the accretion disk.

Someone needs a date.

It is emotionally satisfying to say "God dammit".

Other than that...no. I dont think about "God" though I'm glad the U.S. tends to think God is there and I benefit from having something other than the State thinking I get certain rights just be being human and not given to me by the state.

How about "One Nation Indivisible?"

God was never emotionally satisfying to me as a Mormon. He was evil and scary and unreachable. He killed all sorts of people in the scriptures, and if you prayed to him, he was always out-of-office.

I have not found an emotionally satisfying god outside of Mormonism, and did not expect to find one.

My emotionally satisfying god is elderolddog.

He is smart
He has wisdom
He is funny
And when needed he can be a smarta**

I always read his posts!

Well, it's hard to argue with facts...

On my honor as a Mighty Miscreant, I promise never to ask you to drink ANY kool aid.

And as always, beware any man who claims to bear messages from me!

Sitting on my deck with friends, enjoying cold beer and listening to the songbirds in my farmyard is close enough.

Lethbridge Reprobate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sitting on my deck with friends, enjoying cold
> beer and listening to the songbirds in my farmyard
> is close enough.

God thats good.

"Emotionally satisfying"... what exactly does that mean?

Like finishing a good book, or having a great conversation

with someone important? Or having fabulous sex?

A good cry? How exactly does it satisfy as a god?

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Emotionally satisfying"... what exactly does that
> mean?
>
> Like finishing a good book, or having a great
> conversation
>
> with someone important? Or having fabulous sex?
>
> A good cry? How exactly does it satisfy as a god?

On Maslows heirarchy of needs, transcendence is our highest need,
Oneness with the singularity/cosmos/god is the ascendant need.
Those needs don't just disappear when you decide religion is bullshit.
I fulfill them daily through communing with nature in the Great Out Doors. Feeling the warm tradewinds in my hair, sunlight on my skin, from a hammock swinging on the end of the closest tree to the oceanic oneness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2018 07:38PM by koriwhore.

My answer short version: NO there is no god which in and of

itself is an emotionally satisfying concept for me.

As long as my God can kick your God’s ass, I’m satisfied.

Ha ha ha...

When I resigned from the mormon church, god went with me. So those pricks in Salt Lake city that claim to represent god now, have no authority. If Joseph Smith can do it, then so can I. The only difference is that I am not a lying sociopath like JS was. I don't see god and never have. But it's easy to believe that those Bozos in the Q15 don't have a clue about god, and that they lack authority to represent him. I don't need to speak or act in gods name. If he wants to, he knows where to find me.