Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Sounds like Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" has just become required reading.

 

[niky]

I want to be the God of Stinky Fish.

Fair points, but if someone draws strength and hope from a being they claim to be higher than them, is it really such a bad thing? Of course if they are drawing strength to harm others then it is absolutely bad.

But if this strength and hope is helping them to lead their life in peace, I say more power to them. Like another poster said a few pages back, hope and belief are two good human values that help us through hard times. If someone is down with fever for example, they should take medicine rather than just praying to get better but what about times when there is nothing they can do about a situation? I mean one must make use of possible solutions to problems when available, but when all else fails, is it really bad to believe that someone is looking out for them?

Superstitions are bad too and one must be extremely wary of them, I think, as that is another by-product of religious beliefs.

Depends on how logical those superstitions are. And many of them aren't, hence, superstition.

If you have a belief that helps you get through the day, fine, but if that belief tells you to cut off your child's foreskin, kill all infidels, to shun all homosexuals and... garlic... then there's something amiss there.

 

[dylansan]

This may also be worth a watch:


(About why fear of death causes people to cling to their beliefs)

 

[Brett]

There are some courses you can enroll in...

Humanity is wired to think in patterns. To connect separate events into cause and effect chains. To see human faces where there are none, which is why we tend to see Jesus in grilled toast or water stains. To extend empathy out to other humans and non-humans via anthropomorphization.

It is by humanizing and personalizing the Universe that we deal with it. We refuse to acknowledge a blind, unreasoning Universe simply because that is not the way we think. To many a human, everything is personal. That driver did not cut you off because he didn't see you. He was trying to kill you. Your boyfriend didn't notice your new hair because he doesn't love you. Mom and Dad won't buy you that new X-Box because they are abusive, evil little people.

And we extend this kind of reasoning to the Universe. That earthquake was nature's way of trying to kill you. Karma/Fate/God was responsible for the sunny skies on your birthday trip to the beach. Sun, Sky, Water... all there, just for you.

Early man (and many still-existing primitive tribes) assigned spiritual significance to the inanimate. Worshipping rocks, the weather, sun, wind, rain. In some cases, this doesn't come out as worship, but simply viewing these natural phenomenon as "people" of another sort.

Even if you don't do it, you probably know someone who humanizes their car. Gives it a name, treats it like a person or a pet. That's little different from the farmer who talks to his plants, or the tribesman who apologizes to the animal he just killed in order not to offend its spirit.

In a grander sense, Religion humanizes the Universe. Making it easier to deal with and understand. Never mind that the understanding may be flawed, that's the way we roll.

Granted, I will admit to this same irrational, instinctual belief that there may be something beyond us out ere, but I'm perfectly happy to admit to this irrationality. Unlike some people (not mentioning names) who cannot accept the fact that there is no logical evidence for such, and blindly rationalize their beliefs away.

Very good post! 👍

Seriously though, great post. I'd not actually thought of the "humanizing" element before but it makes perfect sense when put like that. I suppose to an even greater degree, it's all about me*. Me me me me me. "Why does [insert situation] always happen to me?"; "Why me God?"'; "God loves everyone, that's why he made me unique" etc. It's humanizing on a very personal, individual, selfish basis.


*Not me me, "me" as in "the individual"

Neil deGrasse Tyson hits on this in his book, Death by Black Hole. I have only read part of the book, but the portion I read had a blurb in it about that.

EDIT: Check that, it may have been Carl Sagan in A Pale Blue Dot. I have also only read a portion of the book and might be confusing the two.

It could also be both of the books . . . I really need to re-read the portions I have already read and then finish reading both books.

Earthquakes are God's way of dealing with gay people, everyone knows that. Or is that AIDS? I forget.

Both. Every past bad event and future bad event is because of the gays.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

EDIT: Check that, it may have been Carl Sagan in A Pale Blue Dot.

Just found this on youtube.



Here is one I already knew about and thought of when I read your post.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Try quoting the right people. hfs didn't say most of the things you just attributed to him.

OK, I think I have it right now.
Sorry about that Famine.
My mistake.

This has no relevance to what I said. I didn't refer to energy at any point.

Nice try.
Drop the energy if you like, it is still a direct contradiction to your point.

Anyone who calls themselves a scientist is open to all knowledge.

Well, I can't tell you how glad I am to here that.

[Theories are in fact more robust than individual facts, given that they both explain the facts and predict future ones.

Already been here and done this repeatedly.
If you choose to believe a theory is an infallible prediction, be my guest.
The truth in reality is, it might be, or might not be.

"Carnal knowledge" is sex.

I'm not sure what's fleshy or passionate about the central business district of Calgary or the up quark to characterise this kind of knowledge as "carnal", but then the meanings of words seems to be a long-standing issue with you.

My mistake again, this does bare some clarification.

When I refer to "carnal" it is in the context of the Biblical application.

Wherein everything physical or non spiritual, is carnal.
The intellect, the body, the sensual, philosophies, reasonings, desires, character, emotions, all non spiritual aspects of a person, individually and collectively.

[Is it?

I think the point you can start asking questions is the point you stop avoiding them from other people.

I made the point earlier that it is practically impossible for me to answer all the questions and comments put forth during this latest round of discussion.
I do not have the time.
Barring a few of them, I really wish I could.

It's also drivel.

Contrar, it's a legitimate perspective, or fact in reality.

 

[Famine]

Nice try.
Drop the energy if you like, it is still a direct contradiction to your point.

Then you have chronically misread or misunderstood the point.

There is no such thing as non-electrical electricity. All electricity is electrical.
There is no such thing as non-knowledge knowledge. All knowledge is knowledge.

Well, I can't tell you how glad I am to here that.

We've been saying this repeatedly throughout the thread.

Already been here and done this repeatedly.
If you choose to believe a theory is an infallible prediction, be my guest.
The truth in reality is, it might be, or might not be.

No-one said anything of the kind - and belief doesn't enter into it - so quite what you're objecting to and talking about is entirely a problem of your own making.

My mistake again, this does bear some clarification.

When I refer to "carnal" it is in the context of the Biblical application.

Wherein everything physical or non spiritual, is carnal.
The intellect, the body, the sensual, philosophies, reasonings, desires, character, emotions, all non spiritual aspects of a person, individually and collectively.

"Carnal" specifically means "fleshy" - from the Latin carne (meaning flesh), with the same root as "carnivore" (flesh-eating).

From the above list, only the body comes under that remit.

I made the point earlier that it is practically impossible for me to answer all the questions and comments put forth during this latest round of discussion.
I do not have the time.
Barring a few of them, I really wish I could.

If you do not have the time to respond to direct question from others you have no business asking direct questions of others - we have no reason to suspect you'll take the time to read them.

Contrar, it's a legitimate perspective, or fact in reality.

It's also drivel. That I had carbonara yesterday evening is fact (within bounds of relativity) - but in the context of this discussion it's irrelevant drivel.


Incidentally, with sufficient precision and electricity, you can be made to unknow just about anything. It's not relevant though.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Already been here and done this repeatedly.
If you choose to believe a theory is an infallible prediction, be my guest.
The truth in reality is, it might be, or might not be.

So you'd rather go by a book that has had many things within it proven wrong, and many others that simply have no proof, than a theory supported by all current evidence?

Of course a theory can change or be replaced by a better one, but that only furthers our understanding of the subject; ignoring theories altogether because they are not written in stone does nothing for our understanding of the world, it is willful ignorance and nothing more.

Oh and like Famine said, no one said they believed any theory to be infallible (as they aren't). And you don't "believe" in theories in the sense you mean anyway (because it seems you think we believe theories with no reasonable justification to do so). They are the result of evidence and as such have great credibility and reason for us to "believe" them.

 

[DK]

This may also be worth a watch:
[youtube.]syNVg8V4EQU[/media]

(About why fear of death causes people to cling to their beliefs)

👍 Great find.

When I still believed in God, the fear of death, of there being nothing after death - no sounds, no sights, no smells, no tastes and no feelings - that fear of nothingness after death was probably the last thread of my belief.

 

[gamerdog6482]

Am I alone when I say that this:

no sounds, no sights, no smells, no tastes and no feelings

sounds like a great way to "exist"?

I know the Buddah agrees with me.

 

[Kingland093]

This is a contradiction. Faith doesn't allow for reasoning.

But then why did God give us both of those gifts?

 

[Exorcet]

But then why did God give us both of those gifts?

It's not possible to make up sound logic to explain something made up by primitive people.

Your question only makes sense if God is real and he gave us those things.

 

[gamerdog6482]

This has most certainly been said before (not reading the entire thread), but the bible can only be correct is facts and modern science are not.
(I haven't read the bible, so I only know of what I heard on the Internet)

 

[Kingland093]

It's not possible to make up sound logic to explain something made up by primitive people.

Your question only makes sense if God is real and he gave us those things.

Christianity was not "made up by primitive people". God revealed himself to us at different times in history.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Oh boy, here we go again...

 

[gamerdog6482]

Christianity was not "made up by primitive people". God revealed himself to us at different times in history.

Nope, god was made up by primitive people.

 

[Kingland093]

No he wasn't.

This is going to turn into a huge arguement

 

[CodeRedR51]

No he wasn't.

This is going to turn into a huge arguement

Where have you been for the last 438 pages?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

No he wasn't.

This is going to turn into a huge arguement

Well then what about all the Greek gods? What about Allah? What about every single god besides the Christian God? I bet you'd be willing to agree they were all made up, but still protest that yours is real.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F Roberts

 

[Kingland093]

Where have you been for the last 438 pages?

Not reading the last 438 pages
But I meant it would be a bigger arguement then before (if that's possible)

 

[gamerdog6482]

And the difference between atheism and nonreligiousness?
But that is for a different thread.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Not reading the last 438 pages
But I meant it would be a bigger arguement then before (if that's possible)

There's a reason this thread is so large. I doubt you come in here with anything new.

 

[gamerdog6482]

*checks current poll results*

51%, I'd say that's pretty good considering.

 

[Kingland093]

And the difference between atheism and nonreligiousness?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those basically the same thing?

 

[gamerdog6482]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those basically the same thing?

Atheism means not believing in a deity.
Nonreligousness is not believing in any sort of religion.
Buddhism and Taoism (to name but two) are atheistic religions.

 

[Azuremen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those basically the same thing?

As mentioned before, no.

It seems like you may end up learning a lot from poking your head in here, but I am suspecting you aren't going to bring anything new to the table on God and Christianity. Especially given the discourse over the most recent pages on the subject.

Also keep in mind there are several members that post here who were once Christian, such as myself, but no longer are.

 

[TJC_69]

If we truly knew what the universe was , why it was here , and what caused it's existence . Then there would be no need whatsoever for a belief in a supreme being as we would have the truth of our existence .

If anyone has a working theory on the above that doesn't involve man made superstitions , I would be very interested to read it .

 

[gamerdog6482]

If we truly knew what the universe was , why it was here , and what caused it's existence . Then there would be no need whatsoever for a belief in a supreme being as we would have the truth of our existence .

If anyone has a working theory on the above that doesn't involve man made superstitions , I would be very interested to read it .

Superstring theory.

I only have a very basic understanding, but from what I understand it would account for the creation of universes.

 

[TJC_69]

Superstring theory.

I only have a very basic understanding, but from what I understand it would account for the creation of universes.

I'll read up on it , thanks 👍

 

[gamerdog6482]

And you're right. There really isn't a need for belief in a supreme being, but people still do.