mcdaddy Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/08/morgan-freeman-god-religion_n_1580521.html?icid=hp_front_popular_art 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 God is a human security need that has evolved the same way all culture does., nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailBlazer Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 "So if I believe in God, and I do, it's because I think I'm God," [Freeman] said. Interesting. Maybe I should change my stand on the existence of God. Because under the reasoning that conceiving the concept of something makes it real because one can conceive of it, then "God" must be real because we can conceive of a God. God then becomes just as real as Yeti and the sock monster in the dryer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 "So if I believe in God, and I do, it's because I think I'm God," [Freeman] said. Interesting. Maybe I should change my stand on the existence of God. Because under the reasoning that conceiving the concept of something makes it real because one can conceive of it, then "God" must be real because we can conceive of a God. God then becomes just as real as Yeti and the sock monster in the dryer. Morgan's quote sounded a little buddhist to me. Circular logic at its finest. :-) I like this one too: http://www.witchipedia.com/god:atum , Atum, the creator god first created himself, then everything else. That is just sweet! That and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality just make my day! lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailBlazer Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Morgan's quote sounded a little buddhist to me. Circular logic at its finest. :-) Yeah, it does. Guess I omitted the "I am God" part there and my ADD took my thoughts in another direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Morgan's quote sounded a little buddhist to me. Circular logic at its finest. :-) I'm curious. Do Buddhists do circular logic? Can you define what that is and give me a Buddhist example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Morgan's quote sounded a little buddhist to me. Circular logic at its finest. :-) I'm curious. Do Buddhists do circular logic? Can you define what that is and give me a Buddhist example? His quote about being god reminded me of some teachings I've read on Zen, Advaita Vedanta and Non-dual awareness. Morgan Freeman's logic seems circular, though no I'm not saying buddhism incorporates circular logic. He believes in god because he believes he IS god. And well, obviously Morgan exists then there must be a god...maybe it's not circular. Maybe it's just illogical. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 As I recall, it was discussed here (did I post it?), a long time ago a story about how when thinking for "self" a certain part of the brain lights up. Then when told to think (not empathize) for "others" a different part of the brain lights up. So we know what "self" wants and we guess what "others" want. Then we told to think what "god" wants the area for "self" lights back up. So, for this study, self/god are the same. Speaking for "self" is the same as speaking for "god" but not the same as speaking for "others." I don't know where this was or if it has been repeated. As I recall I originally read it in some Psych mag (if I'm not confusing it with something else). mwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I take issue with Morgan Freeman's comment that those who believe in God accept that the earth is only 6000 years old. Most Christians outside US fundamentalist churches, and most Muslims, accept an old earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Personally speaking, I think he just trying to take a different approach since we know how quickly the religious shut down when you start saying there is no god. I think he's trying to work his way into their heads to give the religous the option to consider, if only for a moment, that it might all really be in their head, without using the big 'A' word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 As I recall, it was discussed here (did I post it?), a long time ago a story about how when thinking for "self" a certain part of the brain lights up. Then when told to think (not empathize) for "others" a different part of the brain lights up. So we know what "self" wants and we guess what "others" want. Then we told to think what "god" wants the area for "self" lights back up. So, for this study, self/god are the same. Speaking for "self" is the same as speaking for "god" but not the same as speaking for "others." I don't know where this was or if it has been repeated. As I recall I originally read it in some Psych mag (if I'm not confusing it with something else). mwc If you happen to find it I'd like to read it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eugene39 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 As I recall, it was discussed here (did I post it?), a long time ago a story about how when thinking for "self" a certain part of the brain lights up. Then when told to think (not empathize) for "others" a different part of the brain lights up. So we know what "self" wants and we guess what "others" want. Then we told to think what "god" wants the area for "self" lights back up. So, for this study, self/god are the same. Speaking for "self" is the same as speaking for "god" but not the same as speaking for "others." I don't know where this was or if it has been repeated. As I recall I originally read it in some Psych mag (if I'm not confusing it with something else). mwc If you happen to find it I'd like to read it. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4691-creating-god-in-one-39-s-own-image Sadly, the link to the original article is gone, but enough is here to get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts