DiamondPete,
Thank God none of your ideas of gods exist, similar with AFA immaginations of what they think God is like.

Josephus,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia doesn't imagine anything. It is an organisation not a person. However, members of the AFA don’t imagine anything about the numerous gods human have invented. They don’t exist and therefore imagining nothing is all that can be said.

David

Jose, you're wrong. My ideas "do" exist. Everyone thinks, and those thoughts actually exist. Or do you "believe" as Yuyu does .... that existence doesn't exist?

Dear Yuyu,
I see in the last paragraph of your last post that you are now running out of ideas, because you now bring up the old and weary Abrahamic god concept of godly retribution and fear of god if one does not remain religious. Gee yuyu, with your fertile "imagination" I never thought you'd run out of original ideas. I'm so disappointed.

Say "G'day" to your imaginary friend for me.

I doubt I will ever get the answers I looked for here.
But if I could only get a view of the thought process that lets some believe totally in Christ, but reject every other God.
I will be told God made every one.
But not why so very many different languages and Gods.
I thank those who did not introduce Islam in to this thread.
But just maybe I got that wrong.
My questions applied to every God.
I had no right to exclude any.
I still think it can not be proved, that we are better for our faiths, in my case no faith.
And that God is the reason most wars are fought.

You are probably right, Belly.

>>I doubt I will ever get the answers I looked for here.<<

But thanks for asking in the first place, it has been very educational.

What has intrigued me most is the glaringly obvious outcome, that organized religions are inevitably flawed, simply by the fact that they are organized religions, with a power base, a political influence and a need to exert mental control over their flock.

Which, of course, leaves Yuyutsu's personal philosophy as the only one that stands any chance of avoiding the pitfalls inherent in the structures we call "religions".

It is a pity that he finds the need to glorify it as religion, since it seems to have all the hallmarks of basic goodness that is supposed to be at the heart of our ability to get on with each other in what we call civilized society.

He unfortunately falls into this trap...

>>Religious people, so long as they remain religious, are far more motivated to avoid hurting others, as that would take them away from God. They don't need the legal system to tell them that. Non-religious people OTOH have only the police and the like to fear of.<<

Which of course is unmitigated codswallop.

Not to mention a tad insulting to ordinary human beings who understand their responsibility to be good, without having to invent a deity in order to do so. The idea that the only thing that stops people murdering each other is fear of the law is one that deists love to bandy around, despite the fact that e.g. Catholics are quite comfortable with the idea of sin (so long as they also seek forgiveness) under the umbrella of their religion.

Where Yuyutsu's theories fall down, is when they creep into deep-mystic territory, where the only means to understand concepts like "non-existence" is to have already drunk that kool-aid.

And the kool-aid metaphor is used here quite deliberately.

Dear Pericles,

<<Not to mention a tad insulting to ordinary human beings who understand their responsibility to be good, without having to invent a deity in order to do so>>

That's taking my words out of context: nobody needs to invent a deity in order to be religious. Even atheists can be religious.

<<The idea that the only thing that stops people murdering each other is fear of the law is one that deists love to bandy around>>

(strange logic - does the fact that deists love X makes X incorrect?)

I stand by my statement: people who are truly irreligious have nothing to stop them murdering apart from fear of the law (AND THE LIKE, as I mentioned in my previous post, such as social censure; being lynched by the victim's family; superstitions of punishment; ghosts; nightmares; etc.).

Those who abstain from murder simply due to the goodness of their heart, or because they don't want that wrenching sensation in the gut, often called 'conscience', are already well on their path towards God, are at least to some degree religious even if they never heard the words "God" or "gods" or anything like it in their whole life.

<<It is a pity that he finds the need to glorify it as religion, since it seems to have all the hallmarks of basic goodness>>

If you find this theological dissection too technical and rather refer to religion as "goodness", then so be it. There is no goodness but God's (as mentioned by Jesus in Mark 10:18), so the terms are interchangeable.

Accordingly, substitute "basic religion" with "basic goodness", which indeed is a requisite for the ability to get on with each other in what we call civilised society.

Accordingly then, substitute also "advanced religion" with "advanced goodness", which is more rare.