• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Murder of God

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
As Charles Darwin published, "The Origin of Species", he wrote it was like confessing to a murder.

And it was.

He left God with nothing else to do. Charles had done it all for Him.

Charley had done Him in.

Charles was brought to trial in the US but unfortunately was aquitted. And we can't try him again because it would be double jeopardy.

So he got clean away with the murder of the century - the perfect crime.

But it was hardly a victimless crime - Charles murdered the Father and left His children all alone.

It was an exquisite act of patricide. Prefigured by Oedipus who murdered his own father - but Oedipus didn't know it was his father while Charley boy premeditated the murder of Our Father. Yes Charles waited 21, yes count them, 21 years before publishing.

What was he thinking all those 21 years with the manuscript in his draw?

Was he excited? Did he feel guilty? Or perhaps he just felt afraid? But what if he were wrong - would God strike him dead?

But God did not strike him with lightning and God went to His own death without a murmur, leaving us all alone with just each other for company.

I look around me and all I see are patricides and fratricides.
 
Last edited:

Samurai Drifter

New member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
116
MBTI Type
INTP
It would seem God is alive and well in the hearts of millions who happily deny evidence.

Not that evolution precludes a creator, but if the Bible was to be taken literally either the Christian god is a liar, or he doesn't exist.
 

Llewellyn

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
330
MBTI Type
INtj
Enneagram
9w1
Charles Darwin had contemporaries carrying the same idea, e.g. Alfred Russel Wallace.

It was just the time for the idea.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Darwin didn't come out with his theory for a good long time mostly because he was very sensitive to his family and culture. He knew what impact his work would have on the world.

Contrary to some popular opinion, he never planned to kill God, nor really wanted to. He wasn't a showman like Galileo, who seemed to take pleasure in publicly needling the Church.

But truth is truth, and Darwin saw patterns, and he couldn't ignore them.

He finally came out with his theory when he realized someone else was going to publish something similar, so they produced it jointly. That's the only thing that made him realize he needed to reveal the cards he was holding.
 

Poser

Fe, rusted.
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
I just don't understand creationists. Why does faith require them to believe in the literal text of the bible? I have never thought of religion and science as mutually exclusive. Someone once told me a great analogy of if we took the greatest "scientist" of the 18th century (through time travel of course!) and made them watch Nova for a day and then sent them back to their time; how would they describe what they learned? They would have to put everything in the context of their own understanding at the time.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
If you think the theory of evolution kills God you're a fool. All it does is kill the Genesis explanation for the creation of species and the universe around us.

What's "killing God" is the inability of clergy in all religions to recognize the intellectual growth of humans as a species and treat its members as if they were children who didn't know any better. Most deity centered religions insult the practitioner's intelligence by adhering to antiquated dogma instead of evolving and strengthening its important themes in the first place. For example, what's important in the Bible are the themes and lessons in the stories, not the details of the stories themselves.

I find Science and Religion to be separate sides of the same coin. They both search for Truth. They both press on and enthrall us because we can see if we press a little harder, if we search a little deeper, we will find more about ourselves and our place in the world.
 
Last edited:

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Darwin kilt the Lord with paper cuts.
I like it.

The state and everyone who's protected by the state are the only ones who are pissed about patricide.

The dirt in the earth doesn't care, Victor.
The nebula in our galaxy doesn't care, Victor.
The universe doesn't care, Victor.
Know that.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
He finally came out with his theory when he realized someone else was going to publish something similar, so they produced it jointly. That's the only thing that made him realize he needed to reveal the cards he was holding.

Fear of losing the hand?
I had no idea Darwin was such a capitalist.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
As a matter of fact, Victor, as I find myself looking over these statistics of those who do care, I can't help noticing that the only things that do, are those which don't exist anyway.
Consciousness, being an illusion himself, is angry at the imaginary death of his illusory brother, a murder which he, in his other self committed.

You said it first. It was fratricide.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
As Charles Darwin published, "The Origin of Species", he wrote that it felt like murdering God.

No, he did not quite say that. You are misquoting him through paraphrasing.

He said that keeping his discovery secret, and then sharing it with the world "was like confessing to a murder". I don't think he knew, to be honest, what he believed.

This is an interesting quote in his own words :

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.""
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
you cant kill an idea...

Correct.

A god is an ideal. An abstract symbol of sublime cultural qualities; something to aspire to. A civilization best reveals itself in what it worships. What it collectively holds as transcendent to its everyday condition.

Do not idolize men of yore.
Seek instead what they were looking for.


Darwin was far more specific. A pen immortalized by unique discovery. Gods are incidental creatures to the humanization of immortality.
 

kuranes

Active member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
1,067
MBTI Type
XNXP
FWIW, I read a passage by Darwin yesterday that showed he was against the concept/claim that is now referred to as "social Darwinism".
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
As analogue to murder.
I choose to let the ignorant ignore and let them be judged by The Lord and punished by His brainchild, Fate!
 

kuranes

Active member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
1,067
MBTI Type
XNXP
Against, morally, or factually?
If he lived long enough, I doubt that he'd deny the fact that plenty of other people believed in SD. His point was that once one brought "civilization" into the equation, versus strictly "raw nature", then this changed the picture. Perhaps your question refers to how much "raw nature" is or should be reflected in "civilization", or whether egalitarianism is "wrong" etc.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Darwin didn't come out with his theory for a good long time mostly because he was very sensitive to his family and culture. He knew what impact his work would have on the world.

Contrary to some popular opinion, he never planned to kill God, nor really wanted to. He wasn't a showman like Galileo, who seemed to take pleasure in publicly needling the Church.

But truth is truth, and Darwin saw patterns, and he couldn't ignore them.

I think I would have liked Darwin, I can really identify with him.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just don't understand creationists. Why does faith require them to believe in the literal text of the bible? I have never thought of religion and science as mutually exclusive. Someone once told me a great analogy of if we took the greatest "scientist" of the 18th century (through time travel of course!) and made them watch Nova for a day and then sent them back to their time; how would they describe what they learned? They would have to put everything in the context of their own understanding at the time.

If you think the theory of evolution kills God you're a fool. All it does is kill the Genesis explanation for the creation of species and the universe around us.

What's "killing God" is the inability of clergy in all religions to recognize the intellectual growth of humans as a species and treat its members as if they were children who didn't know any better. Most deity centered religions insult the practitioner's intelligence by adhering to antiquated dogma instead of evolving and strengthening its important themes in the first place. For example, what's important in the Bible are the themes and lessons in the stories, not the details of the stories themselves.

I find Science and Religion to be separate sides of the same coin. They both search for Truth. They both press on and enthrall us because we can see if we press a little harder, if we search a little deeper, we will find more about ourselves and our place in the world.

Oneof the big problem in the debates is the reduction of options to the two common ones: take Genesis literally, and reject all science that says anything to the contrary, OR, take whatever science says as infallible fact, and just realize that the Bible was mistaken in science fact, yet we can still glean good, moral principles out of it.

The problem is, to people who take it seriously, if it was wrong about science and history, then its credibility is questionable for everything else.
Of course, this is the view on the far "scientific" extreme: that it was just an ancient fairytale book, whose purpose was at best to fabricate a basis for morality, and at worse, just a tool to control others through fear with unprovable claims.
Then there is a more moderate view that says the Bible was not in error, just allegoric. But then again, much of it, which was written in absolute terms, would lose real meaning, and anyone could interpret it in any way (Which is what goes on in the religious world anyway!) If it is just something to glean moral principles out of, then people will be selective about it, and it will again lose any real significance.

(I believe it was somewhere on this board that someone posted a link to the Youtube video of Bill Maher doing a sketch of Jesus siding with the Prop 8 opponents on the basis that the proponents were being selective in that they no longer obeyed several Old Testament rules such as the kosher laws. However, those were officially declared to be nailed to the Cross; while homosexuality was still spoken negatively of in the New Testament. Though there was a great point that the fervor with which people oppose and condemn other people's morality is based on the OT concept of a theocratic nation, which also ended with the OT, yet they try to hold on to).

I myself have always struggled with how Genesis could be true, or how much could be symbolic, or based on the limited perspective of the writer and original readers. The same thing actually happens on the other end of the book, with Revelation. Right there, I have recently found that most of the prophecies evangelical Christians claim are future were actually fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in AD70. We were all thrown off by statements such as "the whole earth" being evangelized, (which has not happened yet), but then ignored or bent/stretched much clearer "time indicators", such as the end coming "shortly", and even before "some of you standing here...taste death", as Christ told his audience. But a close study of OT language will show that "earth" was used to represent the local area, or Israel. "World" was actually "age". This changes everything. So we got hung up on "space", which was actually more relative in definition, but ignored time, which was more absolute, as man can only live but so long.

So likewise, Genesis would probably also be better explained through this grammatical lense. Now, we would have a better justification for a local flood. Either that, or the fundamentalists need to conclude that the laws of the universe were vastly different back then, if they want their rigid literalism. There's actually a clause in string theory that says that the laws of the universe can change instantly (though the results would generally be cataclysmic as matter breaks apart of reforms. But that would be an idea).
But they instead insist the laws were the same; God was just interfering with them, even though he no longer seems to do this (and many of these old-liners are sternly against modern charismaticism which claims God is always intervening supernaturally today).

So that would give us a biblical framework for less than literal interpretations. But too often, the approach of non literalness is just to slap a generic "allegoric interpretation" label on the issue, without any such framework, and it just looks like a cheap attempt to get around the passages that don't make sense to us. so the literalists reject this and keep insisting the literal approach is the only "safe" one. I had fallen into this for years.

FWIW, I read a passage by Darwin yesterday that showed he was against the concept/claim that is now referred to as "social Darwinism".
Makes sense, as the religious conservatives ironically sided with a social-Darwinistic approach to politics (like in their defenses of laissez-faire capitalism).
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Personally, I'm rather comfortable with the fact that God has died and gone to heaven.


Or maybe hell...
He always was a pedantic pain in the ass


I mean I guess it shouldn't have been so gruesome but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do right?
 
Top