Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

I agree with the bulk of your answer... but aren't you using the "wait and see" method to disprove an afterlife? I'm not sure you have any other way. I don't believe that there is one (as we understand one to be, at least) but nor can I offer any proof for my belief other than the suggestion of proof in the bibles that I've come to believe over the years.

How do you prove that something doesn't exist?

Apart from stuff that logically cannot exist, there's really no way. Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it can either prove that something exists if there's evidence for it, or it can keep waiting for evidence to turn up (or go looking for it).

Wait and see (or go and look) is a valid part of the scientific method if insufficient evidence exists. This is a misunderstanding that a lot of people have about science.

Admittedly, scientists tend to use "doesn't exist" as a shorthand for "no evidence", which probably confuses laymen.


The other one that also tends to confuse laymen is that theories are never proven true, they are simply the best explanation for the current facts. Theories can be proven false very easily however, just as existence can be proven very easily but "non-existence" is only ever the best explanation for the current lack of evidence.

Again, scientists tend to refer to theories as "facts" and "true" as a kind of shorthand, but they don't mean what a layman might assume they meant. Any scientist worth his salt is well aware of the numerous revolutions in scientific knowledge, and today's theories could well be overturned by the next big discovery.

 

[Danoff]

You wrote "The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy."

To clarify, I don't mean to say that what is emotionally satisfying is always not rational or healthy. I meant that statement specifically as connected to religion and God. Not sure anyone was confused on that, but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

 

[Denur]

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't know, he may have only one major publication, but you should see the number of citations it has had.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't know, he may have only one major publication, but you should see the number of citations it has had.

I was always disappointed with the low output of his Moses collaboration. I once took two tablets and spent 40 days on a hillside and wrote tons of great stuff.

 

[SnakeOfBacon]

I was always disappointed with the low output of his Moses collaboration. I once took two tablets and spent 40 days on a hillside and wrote tons of great stuff.

 

[Liquid]

God never got a PhD because he clearly plagiarised earlier works.

 

[ledhed]

What version ?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's a question prompted by a discussion with @BobK in another thread.

I was raised in a Modern Christian society.

I was taught from the New Testament and almost always heard the Old Testament referred to as "The Jewish Bible", for pretty obvious reasons.

There are some strong contradictions between the two Bibles (or two halves of the same, depending on the edition) which inform some of the very basic differences between Judaism and Christianity.

I'm aware that Catholic Christians (not so Jesusy as- and more womby than Modern Christians) rely much more on the Old Testament, or so I believe.

Here's the question, after all that; does NT always supersede OT in US versions of Christianity too? I know that's complex because it's much more of a private business thing over there, but basically should it?

 

[ledhed]

I study Religion and History . You can count the Gods used or not in use from all over the world . Its not infinite . Nor is it singular.
You can be a deist .
Easier , as it describes one who believes in a supreme being or a higher power . But even then the question still remains , " what is God " ?
Not all agree and its reflected by the diversity of Religions .

 

[TenEightyOne]

I study Religion and History . You can count the Gods used or not in use from all over the world . Its not infinite . Nor is it singular.
You can be a deist .
Easier , as it describes one who believes in a supreme being or a higher power . But even then the question still remains , " what is God " ?
Not all agree and its reflected by the diversity of Religions .

Was that an answer to my question? I don't understand. I think we're already presuming what Religion is for the purposes of this thread, no?

 

[Dotini]

Here's the question, after all that; does NT always supersede OT in US versions of Christianity too? I know that's complex because it's much more of a private business thing over there, but basically should it?

An emphatic yes. NT contains much more elaborate, beautiful and necessary lies.

 

[ledhed]

Hard to define religion for me anyway . I am looking at history and how political thought became religion , Or in Japan the Emperor was God ( a few examples ) . I tend to use secularist worship of an idea or a person who represents that set of ideals vs those who believe in a divine power not of earth .
Then sub groups of the major religions . Now as a taught Catholic but lapse into sense , person . I would say Catholics by placing a Pope between God and Priest also as Gods minions , you straddle the line with that . But a Catholic Bible is not much different that the rest of major Christian sects.
go further to Jehova witness or Mormon to start seeing the same type of splinter groups you see in Islamic sects .
Some will say in Baptist or Evangelical groups you can find a better analogy .
Hindu is another religion thats hard to pin down .
imagine being an alien and being told the USA is " Christian " or Judea / Christian , your asking , what ? ??????

 

[photonrider]

@ledhed - having watched this discussion since I joined the Forum, I have been under the impression that the entity/energy-matter combo/divine concept, etc, etc . . . discussed in here has been limited to what is regarded as the 'Abrahamic God'.

Discussion of 'other' concepts applicable to an extraneous force that can be taken as a 'Higher Power' are not permitted. There are many posts in here - many by the moderating panel - that acknowledge that.

Patrlk - the classic troll - already set down the definitions of the 'God' we must not believe or believe in.

This does not mean I would not want to discuss the other Gods with you. I would most certainly enjoy that - having made a great study of the major religions, (as well as unexplained forces), too - but we may have to do that independently of this particular discussion.

With respect,
Harry.

 

[Exorcet]

You can bring up any God you want. The issue with this thread, as has been brought up many times before, is that many theists on GTP willing to discuss believe in an Abrahamic God and the discussion tends to circle around that concept. Note that the atheists are actually atheists, and don't believe in any God.

 

[photonrider]

You can bring up any God you want.

Patrik? Is that you? I didn't catch that in the OP. Maybe you want to start a fresh discussion on 'Gods' that we must believe or not believe in.

_____________________________

Please don't let me have to go searching for the relevant posts made by the moderator in question that says this discussion is about Abrahamic Gods. These Forums have so much more to offer than running around doing that.

_____________________________

If anybody wants to reset the OP - well, that would be a different discussion altogether, would it not be? The God that Patrik talks about seems singularly Patrik's . . . . and Patrik's alone.

 

[Scaff]

This has been brought up many times before and the discussion in this thread, while it originated around the Christian god, has grown and expanded to include not just the other interpretations of the Abrahamic god, but also theism as a whole and with it all gods.

A question that you could have posed a lot more politely and without the need to quite frankly be a bit of an arse about it.

 

[BobK]

Please don't let me have to go searching for the relevant posts made by the moderator in question that says this discussion is about Abrahamic Gods. These Forums have so much more to offer than running around doing that.

Actually I'd appreciate it if you would. While it's true that most of the discussion in this thread centers around the Abrahamic religions for patently obvious reasons, there has been no injunction against discussing others that I'm aware of.

 

[jtv90069]

From my limited understanding of the Bible, I think we as a species are becoming the God described in there. We now have the ability to return sight to the blind, part the seas, walk on water, fly and even control evolution.

 

[TheCracker]

From my limited understanding of the Bible, I think we as a species are becoming the God described in there. We now have the ability to return sight to the blind, part the seas, walk on water, fly and even control evolution.

Water into wine is the bit i'm waiting for 👍

 

[squadops]

The idea of a 'god' is one thing, and religion is another.

 

[BobK]

Water into wine is the bit i'm waiting for 👍

Actually we turn water into wine now. It just takes time and a few extra ingredients, grapes usually in particular.

 

[LeMansAid]

The idea of a 'god' is one thing, and religion is another.

See if you get any further with that one than I did.

Paging Scaff.... Scaff to the Do you believe in Religion? thread.

 

[Dotini]

The idea of a 'god' is one thing, and religion is another.

The basic but beautiful lie at the heart of most religions I know about is "resurrection and eternal life".

Gods, which can obviously be plural, can take a host of meanings, some with shades of gray, ranging from minor nature gods to "The creator of everything". All lies, of course.

But who's to complain if they give order, meaning, and happiness to those otherwise without such necessities and perquisites? Ah! It's where multiple gods and religions come into politics, competition and conflict that the complaints come in. At last, an eternal truth!

 

[Danoff]

The idea of a 'god' is one thing, and religion is another.

It's like the beach and suntan lotion, like instant replay and slow motion - they just go together.


(+2 Internets to anyone who spots the reference to an obscure, dirty, song)

 

[Scaff]

The idea of a 'god' is one thing, and religion is another.

Nope, the two are linked.

See if you get any further with that one than I did.

Paging Scaff.... Scaff to the Do you believe in Religion? thread.

The very least you could do (rather than attempting and failing to major on the sarcasm) is tag me correctly so I see your post and/or link to one of them (or did you expect him to trawl back through eight months of posts to find it.

Oh well allow me:

How exactly do you go about separating god(s) from religion?

As for how I got that from what you posted, well rather easily actually, you stated (as a fact) that no one has ever killed anyone because of a belief in a god ("Acting on a doctrine, yes, but not having a belief in God"). Now how do we get a doctrine? Religion, and given that religion comes from a belief in god(s) they are rather strongly interlinked.

What do Islamic suicide bomber shout before they detonate?

Who did Hitler dedicate his struggle against the Jews (and final solution) to?

In both cases quite clearly god (as the in Abrahamic one), not doctrine or kredo, but the creator itself. So yes people have killed in the name of,and for a belief, in gods; and done so on a massive scale.

As for the "do good" bit, most people who claim that man does the bad (not God) are quite happy to allocate thanks for the good to god(s).



I know, doesn't really change the point you were making or my reply.


Only if you believe that the two can be separated, as such please explain how.



No its not and no I haven't.



Citation (other than the bible) required.

As I recall you never did explain exactly how you separate the two.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What do Islamic suicide bomber shout before they detonate?

Who did Hitler dedicate his struggle against the Jews (and final solution) to?

I did trawl the thread as per your suggestion and couldn't find references to any of these.

I presume an Isla'amic bomber would shout something like "Allaha ackbar"? In some cases however we know that isn't the case.

I'm not sure about the Hitler/Christianity thing, please could you link the post? I'd guess that the answer you'd like would be "God", but that seems very unlikely from AH.

 

[Scaff]

I did trawl the thread as per your suggestion and couldn't find references to any of these.

I presume an Isla'amic bomber would shout something like "Allaha ackbar"? In some cases however we know that isn't the case.

God is Great or a variation on it is the norm.

I'm not sure about the Hitler/Christianity thing, please could you link the post? I'd guess that the answer you'd like would be "God", but that seems very unlikely from AH.

Oh he did and consistently from Mein Kampf right the way to speeches given towards the end of the war

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#hitler
http://www.examiner.com/article/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists-1


This is also from a different thread but covers it in detail:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-22#post-9363240

 

[Dotini]

The History2 channel has a great show about Operation Odessa, a conspiracy to transit Nazis from their ruined fatherland to a new base in Paraguay, enabled every step of the way by the Catholic church.

On the other hand, the Nazis took advantage of every myth or belief system from Paganism to Tibetan Bon in order to justify or aggrandize their heinous crimes.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I used to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster, but then TV Tropes converted me to Haruhiism.

I for one, can actually say that TV Tropes ruined my life.






















But in all seriousness, I'm not religious. I try to be somewhat agnostic, as making outright statements is something that I see as being unscientific, but overall I would say I am an atheist. I generally view religions as being out of date, replaced by newer worldviews and philosophies that have come about as human civilisation has advanced. However, this does not mean that religious whateveryoucallems were irrelevant to the times at which they were written (the lengthy periods of time over which many religious texts were written may act as a good explanation for their inconsistencies), and many of them have elements which can be still seen as useful life advice for today, even if the rest is outdated.

Obviously, I have no general opposition to people choosing to believe in whatever they want, and I believe that society should generally be organised as secularly as possible, with faith being a purely personal matter. However, what I am opposed to is the use of religion as an attempt to justify actions taken against others unwillingly, be it anything from the relatively mundane (forcing children to attend religious assemblies in schools, although that kind of comes back to my secularity comment) to the utterly despicable (justifying acts of bigotry up to and including murder and/or genocide); as a fundamental part of both creating and participating in a society where people are free to choose to believe in anything they want (or nothing at all, although if you truly don't believe in anything you'll probably die of dehydration fairly quickly) is respecting the rights of others to believe in whatever they want.

Personally, I feel that the majority of societies fail miserably in these regards.