Does God Really Make You Good?

So in all likelihood and rationality, God is most probably a delusion stemming from mans subconscious superego.

Does this ancient superstitious belief system and coping mechanism actually make the believer a better person for believing?

Consider this, replace the word God with "my ego" in anyone's speech:

"I'd like to thank 'MY EGO' for making all this possible..."

Or how about this gem,

"Only 'MY EGO' can judge me".

Oh that's great, you're only accountable to your ego!
What could possibly go wrong with people of that kind of mentality?

If you actually think YOU'RE better than most others, that's probably a good indicator that you're NOT.

Rational thoughts please.

 

God doesn't make you better but you can improve yourself. If, on the other hand, you think that "only your ego can judge you" you are sadly mistaken. Other people can judge you (and take action on that judgment).

If you're not religious but still do your best to be a good person then that doesn't necessarily mean that you think you're better than most others.

If you follow a religious belief and it's rules and therefore are are a good person and I am a non-believer and still a good person what does that say about you and your religion? I could the argue that you think yourself superior because of your belief and that that's probably a good indicator that you're not.

 

What is subconscious super ego? Obviously not an ancient and superstitious belief system but a modern superstitious belief system.

Does it apply to the op thinking his beliefs are better that they are probably not?

If you want rational discourse perhaps start with something more than egotistical suppositions.

The ego in your scenario here is the part of the mind that mediates between the potentials of what is and might be and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.

We all make the assumption there is good for us in the world and we must have it and we all lean to the invocation of authority which is the fundamental experiential conjugation of the word god.

 

Well, not everyone who beliefs in God acts the same or hold the same beliefs, or even when they do act upon them all the time. So it makes some a better person and others not really so. It is not a guarantee for anything Personally I can't seriously replace the word God with 'my ego', because I really see them as different aspects of a person's being. On the other hand: 'good' (which is often associated or even completely perceived as God, wether God is a personifaction of it or perceived as some kind of force) is of course not an absolute thing. If we look at what people see as good we can conclude that it is often subjective. In most cases what is good for us/ourselves. So in that way I can see how you can replace it with ego.

 

Thank you, if God does anything for good he makes me feel useless unless I put my zealous beliefs on the line. Therefore, subjectively at least God must exist. :artist:

 

Your post doesn't make sense. First you state your theory that "God is most probably a delusion stemming from mans subconscious superego." Where did you get that idea? You state it as a fact, but at best it's an hypothesis. As such it would be difficult to test, because the terms are fuzzy and confusing. "Subconscious" and "superego" are Freudian psychoanalytic jargon which you misuse. Freud's theories haven't aged well, but if you're going to use his concepts, you should use the lingo the way he does--just for the sake of avoiding confusion and the charge that you are really masking your own private theory in the cloak of a better established one. The term "subconscious" is no longer used in psychoanalysis, because, as Freud said: "if someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically--to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness--or qualitatively--to indicate another consciousness, a subterrranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworth antithesis is between conscious and unconscious". Likewise, Freud draws a clear distinction between "delusion" and "illusion". An illusion is simply a misperception: seeing something that reall is there but misinterpreting it, as we do optical illusions. A delusion is a false belief caused by a mental disease or disorder, such as neurosis or psychosis which persist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Freud, a staunch atheist, considered religion to be an "illusion", not a delusion--hence the title of his book Future of an Illusion. By calling it a delusion, you imply that believers are all mentally ill. No doubt some are, but to think that all are is itself an illusion, if not a delusion.

"Superego", in Freudian theory, is an analytical construct referring to the part of the unconscious that plays a moralizing or critical control in countering the impuilses of the "id". Superego is essentially one's conscience, reflecting societal influences. Freud sharply distinguishes between the superego and the ego, which is the intermediary between id and ego relating our behavior to the real world. So if "God is most probably a delusion stemming from mans subconscious superego" how would it make sense to replace the word "God" with "my ego"? In Freudian terms, it would be more accurate to replace the word "God" with "my superego". We're accountable to our "superego"--our conscience. Is that a bad thing? Does it make the believer a "better person"? I'd give a qualified "yes", assuming that "better" means better than we'd be without a superego. The alternative is to be a sociopath, and those people are nasty. Generally speaking, a degree of impulse control in the interest of societal norms is a good thing, as long as it isn't excessive. Of course it can be overdone. If the societal norms are wacky or evil (e.g.,human sacrifice) or they've been internalized in such a way as to be destructive to the individual, they're harmful. Religion can be a mind crippling disease. But if the "ancient coping device" helps the individual to cope, it might be a good thing, unless it makes him or her harmful to others or to self.

 

Depends if your parents are dead or alive. God will console the cause of your existence being caused differently either way.

 

Since God is ineffable, that's no easy task. As the term is used in contemporary societies, I think three broad categories of concepts can be identified: First, a supernatural personal being with superior powers--"supernatural" being defined as a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Note: this definition does not necessarily require omniscience or omnipotence. Most of the deities of ancient times didn't include those qualities, nor were they necessarily eternal or immortal. But they were supernatural beings and persons. A person is a conscious or self-aware entity that has objective, autonomous existence. This concept of deity is, by far, the most prevalent throughout human history. A second concept is closer to a numinous supernatural spiritual force or "higher power" that does not manifest itself as a person. Polynesians call it mana,"a force altogether distinct from physical power, which acts in all kinds of ways for good and evil, and which it is of the greatest advantage to possess or control". The Maya distinguished between sacred entities that possessed personalities of their own (k'u) and vital impersonal forces that animated everything, including the gods (ku'l). This notion of an impersonal spiritual force was recognized by the Inca (kamaquen ), the Ojibway (manitou), the Yoruba (ase), the Chinese (Qi), the Vedic Paramatman, the "Oversoul" or "Universal Spirit" of western trancendentalism, etc. I think Pantheism fits into this category. Rudoph Otto's idea of "the holy" also fits here, with emphasis on "the numinous" as a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". A final concept, influential among present-day theologians and philosopers, is more abstract: God as a concept or supreme ideal . I think Tillich's "Ground of Being" belongs in this category. God, thus defined, is not a supernatural being, because God is the ground of being--the ultimate source of meaning or concern. Henry Nelson Wieman is another thinker whose concept of God is fundamentally abstract and idealistic. Wieman defines God as the "supreme value", and speaks of God as "the unlimited connective growth of value-connections." These exercises may remind critics of Francis P. Church's efforts to persuade Virginia that there is a Santa Claus. Intellectuals and mystics tend to be drawn more to the second and third ways of defining God than to the traditional personalistic one. Pesonally, I experience God as a felt presence of a Higher Power that is strongly connected to my sense of ultimate meaning and value. I find in the complex interdependence of the universe evidence for a reasonable suspicion that there is "Something Big Out There" that might conceivably know my name, but I don't consider such an exciting possibility to be essential to my faith--an intuitive bet on God as the source of Ultimate Meaning.

 

I defined God, OP line one, God is the superego. More specifically God is the fantasy being that theists have mistaken their superego for. Without deluding things with Freudian babble, superego is the morality part of the consciousness. When delusions cloud morality, we get Gods and religions. This clouded morality/God/Superego guides or influences the ego, they both work off each other. Yes, maybe I should have said replace "God" with "MY SUPEREGO" to be more technically accurate but who would be such a nit picking relig-a-tool to even get hung up on such a little detail, right?

"I have a close personal relationship with MY SUPEREGO."
-Oh yeah, no shit!

 

What does unclouded morality look like?

 

This thread isn't really about anything other than a mad lib relaxxx discovered, probably on reddit or some other atheist circle jerk hang-out.

 

the notion of good or bad being something you can be makes no sense. bennifit and harm are the only observable good or bad.

the choice of behavior might not always be 100% your own.
but this notion, when you find yourself having committed some action you do not believe you would ever choose, that some sort of mystical beings would have to have made this choice for you, or influneced your choosing it. this is one of those conclusions that does not follow from its premis.

no god makes you do or not do anything. but there are uncountable many other factors that might.

not the least of which being, that every last one of us, is influencing every last other one of us, all the time. priciplally by the examples of our own behaviors.
and what motivativates those behaviors, where every incentive comes from, beyond the natural motivations to create and explore,
all comes statistically from the priorities of everyone.
and these often come from our stories and entertainments.
among which are the teachings of religious beliefs.

its all kind of circular. not some any kind of linear hierarchy.

almost always we have SOME choice, even when its not 100% ours.

we can always look for the ways to avoid causing harm. that is what the moral will is. that is what conscience is.

we do not need to pretend to know about gods to make excuses either way.

we can recognize the reality that no one is always in 100% control, withouth having to invent what we pretend to know about gods.

 

God will make you good for the involvement in the poverty-cycle, which is pollution, global warming, racism (peaceful), environmental work at the overcoming of violence against and for Racism (?).

 

No, evolution of child nurturing mammals developed empathy and compassion. That is the basis that leads to true and clear morality. Consciousness has evolved this way, subjectivity aside, because that's just what caring is.

Primitive man's egotistical fantasies developed God and religion to distort morality to suit their desires and control people. Religion and God leads to pseudo-moralities and deluded superego's.

http://youtu.be/QjhFlI6-ZBI

 

I have the feeling this is just an opinion or subjective conclusion that came forth from a very rigid and personal conviction. When we look objectively at history, culture and their relgions it seems to me religion (albeit also often abused to distort truth and control people as well, after all anything that can control people will be tried to be used for that.... why wouldn't be it? That's human.. not primarily religion's fault) actually partially came into existence FOR morals and AGAINST limitless fulfilling egocentric desires.
But lets keep in mind religion is a very broad and diverse term, and has clearly came into development to serve us (although it didn't always work like that and still doesn't in all cases) and the OP has simplified it to something dirty and unethical it seems, and never pays attention to the whole picture where it comes to the impacts religion had on historical societies, he only focusses on the negative aspects. From a freudian perspective (to use his own tactic) it may all seem very clear how OP's perspective was formed. Probably by some experiences in his youth?

 

What is true and clear morality?

 

Say what you will but there's only one good reason that the old testament God is a sick homicidal egomaniac.

He was the dominating collective ego/superego of a bunch of primitive, oppressive sand people.

 

Yep and at the time there were just as much, if not more, religions and gods around as now. Why not once rally against Odin (for example)? Maybe his followers aren't as easily provoked? It is less fun rallying against other religions? Freudian logic would probably conclude: none of Odin's followers troubled relaxxx during his life Well, your life experiences and the relgious followers that annoyed you are not all that religion has people to offer.

Same to you. Free speech and all