If there really is an Advanced Intelligence Called God what is he really like?

First of all if he was a Good God he would not inspire religion and stand by silently while they spend thousands of years committing atrocities in his name.
Instead he would open up an honest line of communication and teach people to figure out what is in their own best interest and do it.
Therefore we have sufficient information to know that there are no Good Gods only Good Dogs.

Society is divided over religious beliefs.
All religions claim that God rules.
All religions claim that God inspired their religion which created the divisions.
If these religions are right then God is inspiring religions that create divisions and keep people under his rule.
This is the definition of divide and rule tactics used by Tyrants not benevolent leaders.

If God inspired religion and encouraged religious leaders to use indoctrination tactics to enslave the minds of cult followers then indirectly God is using indoctrination tactics to enslave the minds of cult followers. Therefore God is a Cult leader.

If part of the inspiration God provided included multiple contradictory creation stories then God is a Con Artist. This also fits with being a cult leader. This would mean that God used sophisticated methods to arrange for others to give him credit for creating the world whether he actually created it or not. This was later changed to creating an entire universe. If God didn't establish and maintain an open honest line of communication any messages allegedly coming from him should be subject to confirmation. You can't earn trust without communicating. Instead of earning trust God arranged for religious leaders to use indoctrination tactics to obtain trust in his name assuming he did inspire religion.

George Carlin hit it right on the nose when he said the following:

When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]

Few people have ever seen God. Therefore God has the ability to stay hidden.

Most of the people God did "Reveal" himself to were primitive, Naive, gullible and or very young. Therefore God takes advantage of the innocent.

God allegedly "works through people." Most religious people consider this a good thing. If God does "work through people" then he is manipulating them without explaining his reasons or consulting with them. By manipulating people without their knowledge he is depriving them of free will not providing them free will.

If God is the "Father" of the human race literally, figuratively or adoptive then he should have the obligations of a parent. This should include educating the human race to the best of Gods ability or perhaps if he has more important things to do arranging for someone else to do it. If he arranges for someone else to handle it he should ensure that they do it right and hold them accountable. If he arranged for various religions to handle this education then they did an incredibly incompetent job. The "education" provided by these religious leaders has led to wars, inquisitions and all kinds of superstition. This isn't education it is Indoctrination. This Indoctrination has lead to mass murder. Therefore God is at best Guilty of Negligent Mass Homicide.

If God does exist and if he is watching as religious people claim then if he objects to anything going on in his name the first thing he should do is communicate and explain this is not what he wants. The fact that he doesn't communicate either indicates that he can't or that he is giving Tacit Approval to everything going on in his name including the atrocities. If he provides more active inspiration through Revelations or Miracles then he is providing some Active Approval of what goes on since then he should bear responsibility for things that he instigates.

Two alleged incidents include visions received by Constantine and Joan of Ark. In Constantine’s case he was allegedly told to conquer in the name of the "cross". Actually a combination of an X and a P. How that turned into the Christian cross I'm not sure but the point is it led to seventeen hundred years of Tyrants ruling in the name of the Christian God. The second case Joan of Ark fought a defensive war. She may have done the best she knew how to but if an advanced intelligence inspired it "God" did not assuming he was looking out for the best interest of France. This clearly indicates that "God" was not looking out for the best interest of France in this scenario.

Even if God didn't provide these "Revelations" if God influenced religion in other ways then God is at least partly responsible for all the wars inspired by religion. Is God staging wars on Earth?? Religious people have an incredible knack for giving credit for all good things to God and directing blame anywhere but to God. If God did inspire religion and as a result of that inspiration religion fought wars then God is influencing wars whether anyone likes it or not. Religion has a lot to do with who gets along with whom and it is usually based on indoctrination from a cult leader that claims to speak for God. If God influences religion not only is he inspiring wars but he is arranging for others to redirect blame away from him. Not my idea of a "Good God".

If God said to group A "Do unto others within your group as you would have others do unto you as long as they conform to the beliefs dictated by the cult leader but don't tolerate any differences from others outside your group." Then God said the same thing to Group B he would be staging conflicts not preventing them. This is not exactly what religions are doing but it's not that far off either.

This raises the question of whether there is a conflict of interest between "Gods" best interest and the best interest of the human race. If there was no conflict of interest then "God" would never do anything that interferes in the best interest of the human race he would either do nothing or only things that help. If he was the "Father" of the human race and the best interest of the human race was at or near the top of his list of priorities then he would do a much better job providing guidance. The fact that he is not doing this and may be doing the opposite by inspiring religion clearly indicates that he is not a good "Father" figure to be looked up to. If he actually did Inspire Religions he did something that blatantly contradicts the best interest of the human race. Therefore in this scenario there is definitely a conflict of interest.

One thing a good God would never do is inspire a religion that leads people to go running around like a bunch of idiots for thousands of years. Religion even encourages people to worship unnecessary suffering instead of finding the best way to prevent or minimize suffering. Worship of flagellation Crucifixion, Stigmata, Martyrdom etc. is more important to many religions than figuring out how to avoid these things. The greatest of all is the worship of a massive war that will bring in Armageddon the destruction of the world.

Religion is designed to enslave the mind. It dictates the truth to the followers and the faithful are expected to believe without question or understanding. If God inspired religion then God is the one enslaving the mind. Religions involve believing in a lot of doublethink. The bible is full of contradictions. This means that people are required to believe things that can't be true. As a result of this doublethink religious people are required to believe in lies even when there is overwhelming evidence pointing to these mistakes. This is insane. Therefore if God inspires religion he drives people insane to enslave their minds and use them for his purposes.

There have been much more atrocities committed in Gods name than in the name of the devil or any single human tyrant. This raises the question if God inspired these atrocities why should we worship him any more than Hitler. It would be considered insane to worship Hitler but Glorious to worship God. This is only because if God did inspire religion then he is a much more effective cult leader than even Hitler. If he didn't inspire religion then others did it for him.

This raise the question is God a sadist? If your definition of sadist is someone who commits atrocities to accomplish his goals and if God did inspire religion then yes God is a sadist. Some people may consider a sadist someone who tortures people for fun that would certainly be sadistic but an advanced intelligence wouldn't do that and if you limit the definition to that then God may not be a sadist. However if Hitler didn't get amusement by torturing people then neither would he be a sadist. I get the impression that Hitler was very angry not happy or amused. Also does it seem sadistic to convince people that all these religious wars are moral? Even if God doesn't find amusement in religious atrocities many of his followers do. Does it seem sadistic to inspire religion that encourages this and remain silent when people find amusement as a result of Gods inspiration?

Religion often portrays solutions to problems as causes and vice versa. If God does inspire religion could this be his way of making sure that the best interest of people don't interfere with the best interest of God? If he was looking out for the best interest of people he would encourage people to figure out what is in their own best interest instead of adopting all these superstitions in his name.

Religion claims that Gods rewards the innocent and punishes the innocent. Religious leaders then turn around and punish those they consider guilty in Gods name. They rarely ever do a good job doing this. If God really was rewarding the innocent and punishing the guilty wouldn't he start by keeping his own religious leaders in line? If he doesn't do this can he be trusted to pass moral judgments’?

God has allegedly inspired the Messiah complex which leads people to believe that instead of learning how to think for themselves they should look for a "Messiah" to come along and save the day. This is clearly a bait and switch tactic. "Messiahs" have never brought salvation and there is no reason to believe they ever will. If people spent more time learning to think for themselves they could create their own "salvation" or the closest thing to it. Instead they just keep looking for a "Messiah" and they routinely find one like Manson, Jones etc. Traditional religions set the stage so that these small cults can enslave people’s brains. Jones and Manson etc. usually teach many of the same things that the traditional religions teach only followers often take them more serious. Did God inspire the "Messiah" complex so that he could use mysterious ways to influence "Prophets" to use cult tactics to enslave people’s brains and convince them to do his will?? Sounds bizarre but that is essentially what religious leaders are claiming although they don't use those words.

This still doesn't explain what it is that this hypothetical God is trying to accomplish but it does indicate that it would be foolish to worry about the best interest of God when you don't know what it is and it contradicts the best interest of everyone else. Whether God exists or not it is it in the best interest of the human race to figure out what is in their own best interest and do it? This means educating everyone capable of learning in the most effective way possible regardless of religion. Almost since so many people consider religion a reliable source of truth there needs to be a massive decultification process before people can ignore religion even then it will be important never to completely forget the threat caused by religion.

If God is an Advanced Intelligence then he would accomplish his goals in the most effective way possible. The alternative is accomplishing his goals in an incompetent way which doesn't sound intelligent to me. If God exists; and he accomplishes his goals in the most intelligent way he can; and it involves inspiring religion what could he possibly be trying to accomplish?? Sounds pretty bizarre but no matter what the truth is if God exists the explanation has to be bizarre. The only possible answer I can come up with is that he is studying us the way scientists study animals. If God is an Advanced Intelligence was he always an Advanced Intelligence or did he have to go through a learning process?? The most effective way to study human social evolution that I know of is by observing it as it happens. If God wants to study human behavior in war he either allows it to happen while he observes or if he wants to study a particular scenario he may influence it to make sure that scenario comes about. If he wants to study natural behavior he would keep his influence to a minimum. Many people may argue that God knows better than me and perhaps he does if he exists but until I come up with a better idea I go with the best I know of. If God does know better then why is he keeping it to himself?? If God is an advanced intelligence he won't be studying the simple things that human’s study he would be studying more complicated things and that could include Global Warming.

If you disagree with this Hypothesis can you prove it wrong without ridicule?? Or are you just going to dismiss it because you never considered it before. Besides I'm the only one allowed to use ridicule. I'm not saying this is a well explored theory yet. There are a lot of details to fill in if there is something to this hypothesis. If research isn't Gods motive what else could it be? Either way God is still a con artist and a cult leader if he inspires religion. The only thing that may change is why he is a con artist and a cult leader. What does God gain by inspiring religion and how? Religions routinely assume he is looking out for the best interest of the human race even though the evidence indicates something much closer to the opposite assuming he really did inspire religion.

This sounds bizarre as I said but if it is right then putting a stop to pollution is good idea. If it is wrong then putting an end to pollution is a good idea. If the Christian faith is right then putting an end to pollution is good idea. If the Muslim faith is right then putting an end to pollution is good idea. If the Jewish faith is right then putting an end to pollution is good idea. etc. And therefore we should argue the subject to death and keep pollution going top speed. Hmmmm I may be bizarre for considering a weird idea but I'm not as insane as those in power.

Whether God is studying Global Warming or not there are many human scientists studying Global Warming and other environmental problems but they are doing a lousy job presenting it to the public. Mallard Fillmore describes it as a global Warming Cult verses an Anti-Global Warming cult and he is right. Until the scientist do a better job getting their argument across to the public it will remain a matter of cult verses cult. Under those circumstances the Demagogues will win hands down.

If the scientists want to get their point across they have to do a better job teaching rational thought. This includes organizational skills. Simply making a list of all the way pollution damages the environment will help and then following it up with more lists you know really booorrriing stuff. For example one item on the list would be oil spills the first thing that comes to mind is the Exxon Valdez. If you had an organized list Exxon Valdez would almost certainly look like a tiny drop in a big bucket. A study on lung cancer rates might tell us how much higher if any the lung cancer rates are in areas like Detroit or in south East Asia. Remember the mid to early nineties when there was an epidemic of air pollution caused by burning forests supposedly much worse than any thing ever seen in the USA where people have more political power or at least people used to have more political power. They showed film on TV where it was so bad people had to wear dust masks when they went outside. I read that pollution causes fifty thousand deaths per year once. But I didn't read it in the traditional news portion of the newspaper it was in a crossword puzzle. You could argue that that is not a reliable source which is actually the point. If the corporate media is a reliable source why are they almost completely ignoring this problem?? If I can make a better argument than the so called "experts" and "Free Press" something is wrong. Could it be that they are not even trying.

In conclusion if there really is a God that inspired religion then he should be responsible for the activities of religion. Therefore the following are true:
1. God is not Good
2. God is a Cult leader.
3. God is a Con Artist.
4. God arranged for religious leaders to use indoctrination tactics to obtain trust in his name
5. God has the ability to stay hidden.
6. God takes advantage of the innocent.
7. God is at best Guilty of Negligent Mass Homicide.
8. God is giving Tacit Approval to everything going on in his name including the atrocities.
9. God inspires war.
10. God props up Tyrants
11. There is a conflict of interest between "Gods" best interest and the best interest of the human race.
12. God is not a good "Father" figure to be looked up to.
13. God shrouds all his activity in mystery or secrecy.
14. God is not trustworthy.
15. God may have created a mental illness called religion to enslave people’s minds.
16. God is probably a sadist.
17. God can't be trusted to pass moral judgment.

This does not explain Gods motive without more information all I can do is speculate on that. If this is a research project it is one hell of a big one that has been going on for thousands of years. If it's not a research project on Gods part what other motive could he have? Even if it's not a research project on Gods part perhaps it should be on ours. A research project involves learning from your mistakes. How can that be a bad idea??

Of course if God doesn't exist at all then none of this applies. If God does exist he should be exposed as soon as possible and people should be prepared to accept the truth about God and make the best of it. If he doesn't exist the Idea of God should be discredited. Either way a massive decultification project will provide an enormous benefit for the human race. This would essentially be an education project even if it is not politically correct to call it a decultification project. If the truth is not politically correct then the public should be prepared for it in the most effective way possible.

There isn't complete agreement on the definition of atheist. The one I use is that a Theist believes there is a God and that he deserves to be worshipped. An Atheist is someone who doesn't have this belief. As you may have guessed I don't think any God that behaves as the religious people claim deserves to be worshipped or trusted. If God doesn't exist he has a foolproof excuse. If he does exist I don't like him.

The best argument for atheism or realism is that religion makes no effort to figure out what is true or confirm the truth. If there is any evidence for the existence of God religions haven't made the case. Religions also ignore evidence that proves their version of God can't be true. Religion routinely does the opposite when scientists conduct experiments to find out the real truth religious leaders look at this as a challenge to their authority as the divine keepers of truth and suppress research and free thought. God gives his tacit approval to this at a minimum.

This argument should be enough to convince reasonable people that haven't been indoctrinated into one cult or another. However for people that have been indoctrinated you may have to debate a bottomless pit of "divine" mythology. If you do this without defining the basics of how mythology changes over time and how history is written by those in power you'll wind up going in circles forever.

If following orders wasn't considered a legitimate excuse for the Nazi's why should it be a legitimate excuse for people that follow their religious leaders orders in the name of God. The people that went on crusades did so because they were following "Gods" orders as it was related to them from their cult leader. The Inquisitors were following "Gods" orders. The Tsars followed "Gods" orders. Charlemagne, Constantine, Osama Bin Laden, George Dubya Bush, Even Hitler all claimed to be doing "God's will". Why should one follower of one version of "Gods will" be able to use it as an excuse but not another?? It depends on who holds political power.

There are a lot of atheist books coming out lately and they are mostly good as far as they go but even Victor Stenger doesn't claim that there is definitely not a God what Victor Stenger claims is that certain specific versions of God can't exist including the Judo-Christian God. I can't see any major flaws in his argument. The only thing I can complain about is that it is not written in a way that will appeal to the average person. It’s unfortunate that most people don't think rationally but until they are decultified that is the case. Hitchens Harris and Dawkins probably all appeal better to the average person. Some of them anyway some are just too far gone.

The following are some comments from the atheists of Silicon Valley they reflect some of the traditional scientific views including the "Big Bang" or is it the "Big Bust" I always get those two mixed up. I put some of my own comments in [brackets].

To read the whole article "Why Atheism" click here it is mostly very good I only cited the portions that I had comments on.

"The Italian freethinker Lucilio Vanini suggested that humans evolved from apes. In 1618 he was tried in France and found guilty of atheism and witchcraft. He had his tongue cut out, he was hanged, and his body was burned — as was customary with all heretics."

[This is one of several incidences where someone who lived before Charles Darwin expressed the belief in evolution. The most prominent is Darwin’s grandfather Erasthmas Darwin. My point being that Darwin may be the single person to do the most to advance the understanding to evolution but he didn't come up with the idea nor did he finish it. Many people including Louis Leaky, Richard Dawkins etc. also contributed. This is why I find it annoying when scientists including Dawkins refer to it as "Darwinism" instead of evolution. Accurate principles stand on their own merits regardless of the source. The important thing is that the source shows the work which Darwin did and he deserves credit for that but not something that appears to be close to God worship. Dawkins of all people should know better. Charles Darwin did know better he once said "I hope no one believes what I say just because I say it." This implies Darwin thought people should believe him because he showed the work and it stood up to scrutiny.]

"The beginning of the observable universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics is only a century old, and already we've been able to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the observable universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. Six prominent facts are:

The red shift of almost all galaxies — getting greater as their distance increases. - This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other — at greater speeds at greater distances.

The cosmic microwave background radiation. - This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.

The variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. - These variations fit theoretical predictions, and were caused by quantum differences near the start of Big Bang.

The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes. - This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct."

"The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive. - This shows some of the changes in the universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.

The change in the apparent speed of type 1a supernova as we look back in time, with distant supernova exploding more slowly. - This shows that the light has been stretched out by the expansion of space over billions of years."

"The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. We may eventually determine that Inflation Theory is wrong or incomplete, and we may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning; it could be that we're not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do. But, that doesn’t mean that a god caused the Big Bang — any more than our past lack of understanding meant that a god caused lightning."

[The problem with the Big Bang is that it means that the universe must be finite. If It was created a finite length of time ago 13.7 billion years ago and expands at maximum speed of the speed of light then the universe should be no bigger than 13.7 billion light years across or if it expands in both directions 27.4 billion light years across. According to some claims I heard in the past they calculated the speed that the Universe was expanding and used it to determine when the Universe was all in one place. They did this based on the fact that it was expanding no faster than the speed of light. Then in a recent episode of the Universe they claimed the universe is 156 billion light years across. At one point they said the current laws of physics didn't apply yet and going faster than the speed of light may have been possible. If this is true why would they have calculated it going back in time using the speed of light and then going forward claimed it could expand faster than the speed of light to explain the 156 billion light year width of the universe? Why didn't they conclude that the Universe is at least 156 billion years old? What is 157 billion light years away? What was here 14.7 billion years ago? This thing about billions of Galaxies once fitting into a space the size of a coffee cup just doesn't make sense to me. Have you ever tried to put your wife/husband in a coffee cup after an argument before? Easier said than done now consider doing it with the Universe. This sounds as bizarre as any religious explanation to how the Universe got started. This got started with the red shift he is referring to which came from Hubble it is an example of the Doppler Effect that detects whether an object is moving closer or farther away. Measuring distances millions of light years away is extremely difficult. The most reliable method to measure distances is Trigonometric Parallax or triangulation. This is based on the fact that if you know two angles of a triangle and one side then you can calculate the other two sides and one angle. This only works up to a certain distance perhaps hundreds of light years away. In the seventies I think it was only about fifty light years. Advanced telescopes computers and satellites farther from earth have presumably increased that dramatically. They initially used the earths orbit to do their calculations 186 million miles across for the one side. Plus they have to calculate two angles. For Alpha Centauri that is a ratio of 134,000 to 1. That is the closest star. 4.3 light years away. If this is the most reliable method to measure distances and the Doppler Effect is tougher then I'm not ruling out the possibility that they missed something when they came up with this big bang theory. You’re talking about measuring Galaxies that are a minimum 2 or 2.5 million light years away starting with the Andromeda galaxy which is supposedly coming closer not farther. The fact that 1a super novas are all supposedly the same magnitude can help support or refute the Big Bang theory. If you know the magnitude and the size of a star or a supernova you can calculate the distance since the amount of light decreases the farther away it is from the source. Unfortunately they haven't cited any examples that I know of. Why don't they say they used this method to measure such and such Galaxies distance from the Milky Way? If they measured two 1a supernovas from the same Galaxy then perhaps they can tell which direction it is moving and how fast. I just don't think the experts have done a good enough job explaining this to the public. I'm inclined to believe the Infinity Theory which Fred Hoyle referred to as the Steady State Theory is much more likely. hmm my quick comment wasn't quite so quick oh well.]

"The next problem of the First Cause Argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. This argument is made moot by the Big Bang, which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe. Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole. Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe; we certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events."

[I never heard the claim that an infinite chain of events is impossible. I don't see why it would be impossible at all. What seem nonsensical to me is that time began with the Big Bang or anything.]

"ID is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural (meaning outside of nature) causation."

[ID as it has been presented doesn't seem to make sense to me however there are some things that clearly are the result of intelligent design. Starting with something simple like a beaver dam. The intelligent designer is the beaver. Houses cities etc. were designed by man. If we're talking about designing people who designed them? People couldn't design themselves before they existed. With the advancements in genetically altered plants and cloning the list of things that humans can partially design are growing. This doesn't mean that people can design life from scratch just manipulate nature to a point depending on how well they understand it. This also proves that if there actually was an advanced intelligence before people that they could design something perhaps more than people can design now. However without something to prove that this unknown advanced intelligence exists it seems unlikely to put it mildly.]

"Richard Dawkins calls it the “ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” because it shows the fatal weakness of Fred Hoyle's ID argument that the “probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrap yard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.” "

"Evolution is thus both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The Theory of Evolution explains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a lot like gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works. Actually, we know less about how gravity works than how evolution works."

"Just like it’s hypothetically possible for an undetectable teapot to be orbiting the sun (as noted by Bertrand Russell), some gods are also hypothetically possible, but ridiculously improbable."

[The teapot and Boing 747 claims are clearly about things that are a result of design. this just doesn't seem like a relevant argument to me if no one put that teapot in orbit it aint there. The description of theory or fact which is sometimes used is flawed. Even if evolution becomes established fact as most people believe it is still a theory. Keep in mind that a lot of people don't understand evolution until they do they should not be encouraged to accept it as fact even if you and I believe it. If Scientist dictated the truth to the public instead of teaching it they would be no better than cult leaders. This would be an example of replacing one divine keeper of truth with another. It would be a better idea to search for better ways to explain these things to the public.]