And God said....

[duvel]

Isle said:

I know there is no god.

And I know you are a dipshit.

Anyway I never really had any solid beliefs, even when I was Christian. I never could keep any. Right now I'm throwing around the idea of god just being energy, and thus literally everywhere. When I think there is a god I favor a deist view, as I haven't really seen much intervention on his/her/its part.

[Psyonisis]

.

[Bungleist]

I do believe there is some kind of god, but I also believe that all religious texts are mostly - if not entirely - the work of man. Who knows, perhaps the bible (for example) did start of as the work of a few divinely chosen and inspired men... but there are so many inconsistencies and political agendas present that even if this is the case, the once pure work has long since been corrupted by other men who were more concerned with their own personal power, wealth, and influence than anything holy.

I also believe that God has an infinite amount compassion, forgiveness, and tolerance, and loves all but those who commit the most vile of crimes (murder, torture, rape, etc). The anger, hatred, and harsh justice attributed to him by the Abrahamic religions are simply the churches and certain powerful individuals' attempts to make the general populace believe that Bad Things Will Happen To You If You Don't Think Like We Want You To Think. It seems to me that the real god would want people to think for themselves, which is why he doesn't interfere when disasters and attrocities occur - such actions would clearly influence human beliefs.

Personally I think Buddhism is the closest to having it right - from my rather limited knowledge of the subject, it seems to revolve around a philosophy of peace. If so, then the world would be a better place if Buddhism were the only religion.

[GGG]

The sun is the only god I believe in. And I worship it by respecting it. It is responsible for all life on Earth and the Earth itself. It is an unmerciful god that we must respect. If we hurt our planet, the sun will heat us more and more (global warming for those uninformed). The sun dictates the way we live, gives us day and night, etc. We can't look at it under normal conditions (we are not worthy-- only with special instruments can we study it). We will never approach it. We can only marvel in its creation.
Plus, it'll destroy the planet in a few billion years, as all the other stars do to their children. What grants life shall taketh away.

[geekmarine]

Why does it seem that so many people can't tell the difference between God and religion? It's always bothered me, as if no one can have any concept of God outside of the old guy with the beard sending people to Hell and stuff.

That, and who was it that said "We make God in our own image,"? I've always thought that it was a great quote - not saying that I've got anything against the idea of God, but I personally believe that your perception of what is God depends on who you are, and so everyone believes in something different, not that that's necessarily a problem.

[myk]

geekmarine said:
Why does it seem that so many people can't tell the difference between God and religion? It's always bothered me, as if no one can have any concept of God outside of the old guy with the beard sending people to Hell and stuff.

Religion is a bearded old man sending people to hell? In any case I'd say what you are talking about would be another concept (or philosophy) of religion than the one most commonly conceived; for example, Buddhism is an "atheist" religion, so it has little to do with a god.

Some religious humanists also abstractize (if you'll pardon the neologism) the god concept in such a way or to such a degree that it is practically reduced to the vehicle of certain moral values or standards, and not anything that affects existential consequence in any subtle, ultimate, or supernatural way.

Like you say, though, the concept of god can well be seen as an overblown image of ourselves, or an offshoot of that. Given our frail nature, you can't really be too harsh on us for looking for concepts and figments that'll make us feel stronger, bigger, or at least more cohesive or united, however stupid sometimes. Almost anybody does that in their own way when faced with adversity or great odds (for example, death, or all the rigors of life itself).

[Dittohead]

I honestly try not to think about it. Pretty sure I don't believe whatever the kids are trying to sell these days. I hear buddhism is pretty hip now; whatever.

I look at it this way: There's too much shit going on in the world for any one religion or person to completely understand all of it. And when you look at the history of religions, you can safely assume that they're just as fucked up as an orphanage ran by drug addicts.

[DooMAD]

Zealous Atheist. Although, despite my protests, my religion was listed as 'Church of England' on the last UK census "because that's what it says on my birth certificate". Ugh. This is highly inaccurate considering I've never set foot in one.

[Bucket]

I thought that never going to church was a CoE requirement. I know it is for us Irish Catholics.

[sargebaldy]

I was weak agnostic for most of my life, but about a year ago I came to the conclusion that God is actually everywhere, though I consider God synonymous with "force of nature". For instance, I wouldn't say that God caused the Big Bang, but rather that she is the Big Bang. She's also the wind, the rain, evolution, and every other process of nature. To me God isn't anyone you can personify, because she has no consciousness of her own and doesn't exist except as an abstract. I say "she" because I consider those forces a deliverer of life in the same vein as a mother. For the same reason we treat Mother Nature as feminine in nature.

Science-worshiping atheists are seeming stranger and stranger to me in the sense that they can't find anything to appreciate in the forces of nature, and terms them "scientific", when in all reality they're forces being understood by science, but actually the creation of natural forces I consider fundamentally equivalent to God. I believe in the natural; others, in the supernatural; how do atheists think the world arose? Do they even care?

[printz]

sargebaldy said:

Science-worshiping atheists are seeming stranger and stranger to me in the sense that they can't find anything to appreciate in the forces of nature, and terms them "scientific", when in all reality they're forces being understood by science, but actually the creation of natural forces I consider fundamentally equivalent to God. I believe in the natural; others, in the supernatural; how do atheists think the world arose? Do they even care?

Scientists who COMPLETELY deny God are just immature kiddos to be reeducated. Denying God is easy to disapprove, from a scientific POV:
1. Where did all the matter come from?
2. Who defined the physics laws?
God left us after he made 1. and 2.
That's God, unless you start boring be with universe definitions blahblahblah.

[Dr. Zin]

OK, according to your logic what made god?

[myk]

sargebaldy said:
and terms them "scientific", when in all reality they're forces being understood by science,

What example or quote would you give of this? A scientist might say "in scientific terms...", but objects being studied being termed "scientific"...? Scientists also work in abstract terms, because they do not pretend that their theories, measurements, and speculations are the equivalent of "reality"; they simply read and code that reality which they percieve in a systematic fashion (in order to categirize it and draw intelligible conclusions that may be worked on further by themselves and others). Maybe in a popular "science" magazine for the bodred corporate employee or the tired farmer, but as far as scientists themselves go... that seems inaccurate (and pretentious), at least.

printz said:
That's God,

Indeed, let us give god some fundamental and grand place and meaning, or else why would they even pay attention to us when we mention him? And then lets close a door so he can stay out there beyond criticism, lest he fall from his perch and our vision break.

But really, why did they envision god as grand? Why is god not the most fragile, delicate and humble thing of all?

[GGG]

printz said:

1. Where did all the matter come from?

Matter has always existed. (How it existed before the big bang is debatable). Just as space and time have always existed. The concept of infinity is hard for people to grasp, but it's all around us.

printz said:

2. Who defined the physics laws?

Human beings defined physics laws, just as human beings have defined everything else. Nature has patterns and layers, and human beings defined them.

[Zaldron]

printz said:

Scientists who COMPLETELY deny God are just immature kiddos to be reeducated. Denying God is easy to disapprove, from a scientific POV:
1. Where did all the matter come from?
2. Who defined the physics laws?
God left us after he made 1. and 2.
That's God, unless you start boring be with universe definitions blahblahblah.

So by "God" you understand an "event" before Time as we know it and nothing more? What need is there for the term God? Why not "singularity"? Why does one need a sapient entity to create matter and laws of Nature? How do you define a sapient entity that is not bound to this Universe anyway?

[kristus]

printz said:

Scientists who COMPLETELY deny God are just immature kiddos to be reeducated. Denying God is easy to disapprove, from a scientific POV:
1. Where did all the matter come from?
2. Who defined the physics laws?
God left us after he made 1. and 2.
That's God, unless you start boring be with universe definitions blahblahblah.

You sure proved them there.

Now say after me: "-Just because I don't understand something and most definitely never will, I can rest assured that there is a god and he did that which I don't understand."

I'm quite convinced that humans are too "stupid" to understand the origins of the world. Maybe in the future we will evolve into something that can grasp it all. But currently, it's beyond our reach. (This is of course my conviction. Anyone is more than welcome to prove me wrong) Now, there's a bunch of people who are scared shitless by this (or whatever reason they got to believe whatevr it is they believe) and thus invent gods and deities who will magically answer all of their confusion of origin and whatever.

Anyway, to get back on to the topic at hand that Kirby laid out so nicely for us.

God do exist. In the heads of billions of humans. Is that good? No, personally I think it's really bad. People do all sorts of shitty and stupid things in the name of their god. We have millennias of history proving that. Religion is nothing more than a means to control people. Force them into your way, and money of course.

Religion for the most part, is bullshit.

[Joe]

printz said:

Scientists who COMPLETELY deny God are just immature kiddos to be reeducated.

You are an idiot.

printz said:

1. Where did all the matter come from?

Where did god come from?

[Quasar]

Shadow Dweller said:

i do not walk the religious path. for those who do believe in this "god" answer me this.

where was god the countless times i have prayed to him and recieved no answer?

where was god on 9/11 where thousands of lives were lost?

where was god when hurricane katrina hit new orleans killing hundreds?

where was god when the tsumami hit india killing hundreds of thousands more?

where was god when two of my animals died in my hands when they could have been saved?

answer me this.
i walk the religious path no more.

It was God's will, according to believers. Various reasons will be given. Such as, "God allowed 9/11 to punish gays and people who believe in separation of church and state." Or "God caused 9/11 to get us to fight the heathen Muslims." And of course the tsunami killed mostly Buddhists and Muslims, so that gives them even more ammunition.

[sargebaldy]

myk said:

What example or quote would you give of this? A scientist might say "in scientific terms...", but objects being studied being termed "scientific"...? Scientists also work in abstract terms, because they do not pretend that their theories, measurements, and speculations are the equivalent of "reality"; they simply read and code that reality which they percieve in a systematic fashion (in order to categirize it and draw intelligible conclusions that may be worked on further by themselves and others). Maybe in a popular "science" magazine for the bodred corporate employee or the tired farmer, but as far as scientists themselves go... that seems inaccurate (and pretentious), at least.

Quite often you'll hear people talking about "scientific phenonomena". See for example Wikipedia's article "Scientific phenomena named after people". Many people essentially credit science, rather than nature, for natural events and natural laws. And actually, yes, some scientists do believe very strongly in objectivity and and an objective world to be studied. Even in social sciences, there are many who believe things already exist to be discovered, and aren't just a matter of perspective. I myself don't believe there are objective facts to determine, since even our basic media for communicating and processing information are inherently biased and can be understood differently by different people. But there are scientists who believe information and facts are much more rigidly accurate, if always theoretically tentative.

[Dr. Zin]

kristus said:

People do all sorts of shitty and stupid things in the name of their god. We have millennias of history proving that. Religion is nothing more than a means to control people. Force them into your way, and money of course.

Even as a non-religious person I have to take some issue with this. Yes, religion has killed many people, but look at the derstruction brought forth by all of the secular movements of the 20th century. The Nazi's killed the Jews and the Slavs and the Gypsies because they were "lesser races". Stalin sent millions to the gulags to sate his own paranoia. Chairman Mao let millions starve to death in the name of social restructuring. The Khymer Rouge ordered minorities, urban dwellers and intellectuals killed by pickaxes for "interfereing" with the collectivization of Cambodia.

None of these were commited in the name of religion. Trying to claim religion promotes barbarism is walking around with your eyes closed. Some humans will use the slimmest justification to commit atrocities upon their neighbors.

[kristus]

True. People kill people no matter what. But isn't it really the same thing? Nazism, it was basically a religion. People believed in Hitler like you believe in a god. With your eyes closed.

And no matter what you do, people will keep fucking eachother over. Why? I believe it's because we are our own last natural predator.

This all might sound contradictory to what I said before. But to be honest, I wasn't really all that bothered by the killing, which they did a lot of. It's the sacreligious nature of religion. You got one or more fanatics that lead, and don't live by it. And make people suffer for whatever reason. (I guess it's fun) enforcing bullshit laws and whatever (gay marriage, WTF? IT*S AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD ETC ETC or, WTF HE DREW SOME GUY WITH A TURBAN AND SAID IT WAS MUHAMMED, LET'S DO SOME STUPID SHIT.). Basically, they make people's shitty lives even shittier and for what? I don't know.

If you want to believe in god. Do it, but for goodness sake. Keep it to yourself.

[myk]

sargebaldy said:
I myself don't believe there are objective facts to determine, since even our basic media for communicating and processing information are inherently biased and can be understood differently by different people.

Yes, I'd say that more than something to believe or not, that is part of the nature of our understanding and perception, and without which we can't really make headway in studies of any meritable form. There are indeed some positivistic trends within scientific and social disciplines, yet they really seem pretty anachronic, as far as I can see, within the scientific and academic communities (although they may find more strength with certain political maneuverings). Ojectivity can be understood as the intersection between various viewpoints, where, of course, each is subjective (so that the intersection itself is quite distorted), while objectivity in a more absolute or concrete way is a myth as fallacious as an old man hurling lightning atop the clouds, that would essentially require omniscience to be true. I don't find adamant criticism of science and its practice really objectionable, yet it's undeniable that the mass of scientific work (more than knowledge it is work, like the work of the human craftsman) is undeniably great, however "humanly flawed".

[sargebaldy]

kristus said:

True. People kill people no matter what. But isn't it really the same thing? Nazism, it was basically a religion. People believed in Hitler like you believe in a god. With your eyes closed.

If you want to believe in god. Do it, but for goodness sake. Keep it to yourself.

Do you think everyone who believes in God does so with their eyes closed? It seems rather elitist to say theists are all sheep because they believe in God. It sounds like you're taking atheism as a fact and then calling anyone who doesn't accept that fact a blind fool. You're making quite a leap of faith yourself in such an assumption.

Contrary to common misconception, many religious people do question their religious texts. Fundamentalism is hardly predominant. Though I do share your dislike for evangelism. It's solicitation of the lowest kind.

[Vile]

Atheist... guess it doesn't really matter.

[jallamann]

I worship whatever religion which has beer and cheese flavored tortilla chips as supreme deities.

[Quast]

sargebaldy said:

Many people essentially credit science, rather than nature, for natural events and natural laws.

Anybody that would actually do this probably wouldn't know any better anyway. How does that make science at fault? For not coming up with a better naming convention?

[Kid Airbag]

My grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and as such I was raised Presbyterian, a denomination of which both of my parents are devout members. I never really strongly questioned these beliefs, mainly because I do strongly believe that there's something out there that's bigger than us, and since I was raised as a Christian, I don't see the problem with believing in the Christian God. To me, it's not something where there's a right or wrong answer, and I gladly accept what other people choose to believe because it's strictly a personal choice.

I do pray, but not because I think it will directly lead to some desired consequence. On the contrary, I do not believe God has much, if any hand in the everyday goings-on of the world. I like to think he just set the ball rolling, and allows nature to take its course. I have a really hard time believing God plays favorites, and I've seen good people get shit on and horrible people rewarded too often in my life to make me think God plays a direct role in any individual's life. Rather, I pray because it's like having someone to talk to, when I can't really talk to anyone for whatever reason. I don't pray regularly, like every night or whatever, I just do it whenever I feel it's necessary. I'm not much of a practitioner, but I do go to church whenever I'm at home, mostly out of habit.

The only thing that really incenses me regarding religion is when people are pretentious enough to proclaim themselves as right and everyone else as wrong. People accuse religious types of this, but one of my pet peeves is that people of non-faith are just as guilty. It really pisses me off that I risk belittlement if I admit to being a Christian, like that automatically makes me a tool, and that some people would then equate me with say, someone from the Bible Belt.

So yeah, that's my two cents.

[sargebaldy]

Kid Airbag said:

On the contrary, I do not believe God has much, if any hand in the everyday goings-on of the world. I like to think he just set the ball rolling, and allows nature to take its course.

Sounds like you're a deist.

Quast said:

Anybody that would actually do this probably wouldn't know any better anyway. How does that make science at fault? For not coming up with a better naming convention?

I don't know where you got the idea I was blaming science. I was saying I didn't understand scientific atheists who seem to misattribute the wonders of nature to science. When you start crediting physical properties, the creation of the universe, evolution, and so on to science, you lose sight of the fact that science is really nothing more than a tool for looking at what nature has already accomplished.

Sometimes I think the only difference between a pantheist and an atheist is that the latter refuses to give proper credit to natural forces for the creation of the universe and all fundamental laws of nature. In my impression the idea of God basically boils down to whatever created the universe. So denying the existence of God is equivalent to denying the existence of the universe. A scientific atheist might look at the Big Bang and say there is no evidence that any higher life form caused it. And of course, there isn't. The problem is, they necessitate God as some being with a consciousness, and don't seem to recognize that the force of nature that created the universe is effectively God. Not a God with a name or identity, but God in the sense that it effectively created the universe and acts as its basic physical properties.

[Doom Marine]

I believe in Nintendo!

[Dr. Zin]

I don't get this whole need to have a creation of the universe, or a finishing of it either.

I think there always has been a universe. And there always will be a universe. There is no beginning and there is no end. Its just there. Time is irrelevant, as there is truely no past or future, just now. What was was and what is is and what is to come will come. No path is set.

Am I the only person who thinks this way?