Is There a God?

Is there a God?


  • Total voters
    64
Re:
"I can't wait for Kirk Cameron to explain bunnies and eggs for Easter. :p"

LOLOL ...

Oh hell, I can already predict it. The eggs represent the tomb from which Christ emerged on the third day. (Let's see if I called that one)

Bunnies, hmmm, I'll have to think about that.
 
Christ emerges on the third day ... only to be eaten by a giant kid!

Oh and chocolate bunnies represent when we're eating the body Christ.

[shug] ... hey ... just going with the flow here ...
 
It doesn't have to be real to convey powerful thoughts and feelings, don't you agree?

Depends on how you define "real." If you experience it, it's real. It doesn't have to true (for everyone) to be real (for you).

As Jung once said, "Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths." Symbols in dreams or myths can give one guidance in how to live a more fulfilling balanced life.

So, gods can be real, even if they are "all in our heads." Just please, don't try to force, shame or scare anyone else into believing in things they find unbelievable. And don't call your child a "Christian, Muslim, Jew" etc., just because you are one. Kids have magical thinking. Santa=Jesus=the Easter Bunny.
 
So, gods can be real, even if they are "all in our heads." Just please, don't try to force, shame or scare anyone else into believing in things they find unbelievable. And don't call your child a "Christian, Muslim, Jew" etc., just because you are one. Kids have magical thinking. Santa=Jesus=the Easter Bunny.
Heh. The part I bolded there was the only bit in The God Delusion (yes, I did read the entire book... don't bash what you haven't read ;)) where I wholeheartedly agreed with Dawkins. The issue I have with the tradition of child baptism is one of the many things that irreconciliably separates me from the religion I grew up with (RomCath... I was baptized at three weks old or somesuch) nowadays... I don't think kids should be considered part of a religion before they can make a reasonable, informed choice for themselves (which boils down to no earlier than somewhere in the teens, probably).

I do think it would be the better the more different religious systems they are showm when growing up... which is why I think religious education, done right (i.e., not indoctrination into one religion, but offering a broad spectrum of impartial information on as many belief systems as possible, with continued emphasis that noone knows which one, if any, of them is "true") should be mandatory in public schools. Well, in a perfect world. In the real one, indoctrinators - whether teachers or "concerned parents" - would likely mess it all up in no time. -.-
 
Re (from Magdlyn):
"Just please, don't try to force, shame or scare anyone else into believing in things they find unbelievable."

I'll second that.

Re: calling your kids members of your religion ... is a matter of informed consent. We condemn pedophilia because kids haven't learned enough to give authentic consent. Their religion (or the lack of it) shouldn't be picked out for them for the same reason.

Of course it gets more complicated when we attempt to take brainwashing into account. Do we accept "Mormon polygamy" (read: patriarchal polygyny) as long as all the wives are adults? Not necessarily. We ask ourselves, has this or that wife been brainwashed all her life, to the extent that she is unable (even now) to give her authentic informed consent to the situation?

Likewise there are many adults in many religions (especially the cult-like ones, obviously) who think they are consenting to the role they play in their church, but actually their ability to consent was stolen from them early on in life by continuous brainwashing. They are "cradle converts." Even if their parents don't say they're members of the parents' religion, they kind of are de facto members, because their vulnerable minds were filled with assertions that this religion is "The One True Way." Such people think that they want to be members of that church, no matter what their age.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Easter_eggs ... ha-ho. [victory dance]
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with experiencing hallucinations, and I don't mind if someone wants to partake of the magic mushrooms ... as long as we're honest with ourselves about our brain's ability to make the unreal seem completely real. Instead of saying, "Well I saw it," or, "I experienced it," so, "Therefore, it must have happened." Before I draw that conclusion, I think I should carefully consider the likelihood of what I thought I saw or experienced. If it defies science and reason, then I'll bet that it was a hallucination.


I rely on science to determine what's real and what isn't, but I still enjoy lots of stuff that has little if anything to do with science. Art and music. It doesn't have to be real to convey powerful thoughts and feelings, don't you agree?

I have seen people believe they are cured, or believed in a doctor who did nothing be cured. Science? Which scientist? I will bet without google you cannot name 10 physicists, nor ten chemists, nor ten of any discipline.

The doctor who decided fat makes you fat (totally wrong) could supply you with hundreds of peer reviewed studies backing his idea and justification as to why hundreds of studies that did not agree with him were wrong.

One doctor in Chicago decided wart are psychosomatic. Went to 3M had cellophane tape made in electric blue color only 1 m to a roll told his patients it cost $200 and was not covered by insurance, but had produced a 99.4% cure rate within a week. He was totally confident, completely believable and one of the top scientist/doctors in his field.

400 patients had warts fall off within one week. Published is results in NE journal and was nearly drummed out if medical profession. The tape did nothing. He healed by what scientists call The Placebo Effect, which was called magic a dozen years ago.

How does this work. Humans brain creating states of belief and from this creating a "reality." Science is nice to imagine it holds all the answers, but the scientific method to be valid has to prove a single variable and that is nearly impossible to isolate in humans.

For more than 90 years medical community had no idea why aspirin worked. Allergists said petroleum could not cause an allergic reaction. Ten top allergist sat and watched petroleum cause a reaction on my skin. Clear allergic reaction. They had nearly 100 years of data to back their point of view and the ten men had a collect 350 years of clinic experience and they admitted they were wrong.

Now was it a real allergic reaction? Was it my brain wanting to force me away from an easy way to make money? I can make an argument for both with now enough "scientific data" (double blind testing) to back both positions.

Kevin before you think I am picking on you, please understand, I WANT to be a RATIONALIST. For many years I believed in pure science. The problem is the universe is quite complex and the human mind is enormously powerful.

There ae things I have experienced (my wife's jump into me being one) which I can find a potential reasoning in the laws of physics, but totally unsupported by current models, but not unsupported by theoretical models. Do I think it happened? Honestly, fuck if it happened, or I made it up to assuage my guilt over not saving my wife's life. I had two daughters to raise, seemed practical and prudent to just accept it and keep going.

The woman whose past life experience I wrote about. I cannot come up with a nice current rational model of when we die it all ends and fit it to this woman having detailed information of another woman's life which was confirmed in government papers and hidden. I am sure in your safe universe model, I am just making this up. I am faced with that woman and my wife placing me in the uncomfortable position if knowing our consciousness does not seem to end at death.

Theoretical physics tell us that radio broadcasts I heard in the 1950s are still traveling through space. They are over and done with here, but they are not over and done with everywhere.

Did the thought my father had directed at me at his time of death somehow reach me? Just like a radio receiver might pick up a broadcast on that frequency. We know the brain does it, but we have such a tiny understanding of how the brain works, we can barely envision a way to test this.

My wife's jump and that woman's recalling another woman's past life, there are theoretical models that fit this. I am quite sure they are wrong or incomplete, but more accurate than the we have no evidence models. There are too many near death experiences documents to say 100% bullshit or just hallucination.

I still come down on the God is not rolling dice nor picking Dallas over Green Bay. But I live in a universe where the human brain is so complex and our technology so limited, we could never begin to understand how it works for a good foreseeable future.
 
Christ emerges on the third day ... only to be eaten by a giant kid!

Oh and chocolate bunnies represent when we're eating the body Christ.

Hey! Wait just a minute now. Chocolate bunnies!?! I thought the priests had the "yes Johnny, you are eating the body of Christ!"

Or are we talking about African American priests?
 
:) That guy never disappoints.
 
I voted There is/are (a) God/dess/es, (a) Being/s Who can't intervene in our temporal affairs, but I thought about other too,

I was raised in a very conservative catholic family, my grandmother's siblings are all dedicated to God as priests of sorts or nuns. This gave me very early an idea of the "inside" of the institution, much much farer than the mere belif. And I did not agree with this at all.

For years I thought about atheism, but it doesn't work with me. I don't have a great reason to give when someone asks (sorry) but I do belive in God.

I came across deism and feel quite identified with it, a quote from wiki regarding deism to be clear: "Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles)"

About a past response. My ex and I have agreed that our kids will remain away from religion until they show interest in learn about religions and/or join some or keep this way.
 
Last edited:
God is the universe

God is always acting on us from the solar winds to where we are headed in the center of our galaxy. The creation of all matter out of the Big Bang causes the very perfect combination of elements and condition for life to be born. See Nick Lane's Life Ascending: the ten greatest Inventions of Evolution.

From this we were born. Whether here or some distant star, it does not matter, we were surely born this way into this universe. We are a process in an ever changing, growing and evolving universe. So God affects us all the time, but in a totally global, by the laws of the universe sort of thing.

And your "free will" is how you choose to See the universe you encounter.
 
Yay, a vote for "There is/are (a) God/dess/es, (a) Being/s Who can't intervene in our temporal affairs," at last! I always thought it odd that a lot of people didn't pick that option. I almost did.

Re (from Jimmish):
"I don't have a great reason to give when someone asks (sorry) but I do believe in God."

That's actually the best reason of all. The best I can do when explaining why I don't believe is to say, "The totality of all the information I have so far leaves me with the feeling that God doesn't exist." Anything more than that and I'm just trying to excuse or justify myself.

Re:
"Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles)."

I like deism. :)

Re:
"My ex and I have agreed that our kids will remain away from religion until they show interest in learning about religions and/or join some or keep this way."

That sounds like a good plan.
 
Yay, a vote for "There is/are (a) God/dess/es, (a) Being/s Who can't intervene in our temporal affairs," at last! I always thought it odd that a lot of people didn't pick that option. I almost did.
I almost did, too... in the end, I chose not to, because - verbally nitpicky as I am - it's less that I believe in a divinity who can't intervene, more in one who could, but won't intervene.

My personal brand of panentheism is pretty darn close to a form of deism, but I do see enough subtle differences that I can't honestly call myself deistic. :)
 
Yes, I can see how there are subtle differences at work here ... and I did say "can't intervene" instead of "won't intervene" quite intentionally.
 
I almost did, too... in the end, I chose not to, because - verbally nitpicky as I am - it's less that I believe in a divinity who can't intervene, more in one who could, but won't intervene.

My personal brand of panentheism is pretty darn close to a form of deism, but I do see enough subtle differences that I can't honestly call myself deistic. :)

I can't exactly place where, but I had read something that might be similar. (I think it's from an abraxas expression in Hermann Hesse BUT I might be totally wrong)
About a God human alike in emotions, who might be happy or angry or just uninterested in any kind of intervention,

Is it something like this InsaneMystic? I'm very curious!
 
I believe I'm also curious.

Not interested in intervening? or desirous that we should learn our own wisdom in our own time and way, without intervention? or something else ...?
 
No, that's not quite it. :)

Allow me to simply quote two recent posts of mine from another thread; I'd just be repeating the same points otherwise:


A deity who created a world and beings within it (let's just assume this as the premise for the argument), and then opposes the happenings in that world and the choices of actions by its creatures has done a shitty job at design work and/or is intentionally cruel and avoids His/Her/Its/Their divine responsibility.

I've drawn the logical conclusion that an omnipotent, omniscient creator deity cannot at the same time be 1) morally judgmental AND 2) intelligent/capable AND 3) loving/caring for the world's creatures.
At least one of these three aspects has to go to make the assumption of that deity's existence plausible to me.

It worked fine for me when I chucked out the "morally judgemental" bit. Arriving at the belief in a loving, intelligent, all-encompassing deity responsible for igniting the Big Bang, who is utterly amoral and does not judge on anything, has been one of the biggest breakthroughs I've made for my personal happiness. (I do not for a second claim that this would make my belief objectively true, I just say it makes it logically sound. ;))
But assuming an all-powerful God, even the Holocaust would ultimately be God's fault, since He could have created German souls who wouldn't act that way.

Indeed. I had to come to terms with this thought - who wouldn't have to struggle with it, even if they weren't (like me) both German, and someone with a neurotic guilt complex? - but in the end, yeah, it strikes me as inevitable that the ultimate "guilt" for anything, if one wants to place it, lies with the one who started it all by making this universe.

To go with the Biblical metaphor (not that I haven't left Abrahamitic monotheism far behind by now, myself ;)) - where the fuck did that damn snake come from, if not as a creature YHWH made? How is there a "force of evil" in a paradise, before the Fall From Grace? And if one goes with the "oh it's when Lucifer rebelled and Old Mike struck him down out of Heaven, Lucifer was the snake in disguise"... yeah fine... but... seriously. It shifts that question back in the timeline, but it's still the same question. Why did YHWH create an angel - an entity of light and goodness, made for literally nothing else than to serve his divine Lord, whom he knew, first hand, was glorious, and good, and most of all, tangibly real - that was even capable of rebellion? I don't see it add up, unless YWHW by design set someone up to fail, either the snake/Lucifer or Adam and Eve.

Less Biblically, from a viewpoint of simple physics (yes, the physics of God, I said it :D) an entity that made our universe - the space-time continuum - must, by necessity, know the entirety of all things that will happen within that universe at the point of creation. A god who was there "before" the Big Bang is, by necessity if we follow what little we can grasp of Einstein and Hawking, outside of time. All of the billions or trillions of years in this universe are the exact same NOW of creation, for the creator. If a divine creator made this universe, then He/She/It/They knew, without a doubt, that it would be a universe in which all kinds of violent atrocities will happen, and He/She/It/They still created it. If one wants to look for the "ultimate moral culprit", that's the big one right there, the one who toyed with the pinpoint singularity of ultra-dense, ultra-hot proto-energy. ;)

If you choose to accept that thought, morality becomes moot (which for me, ever guilt-ridden, was a relief I can't even tell you how big it was). And then you're free to look at your life, free to be as amoral as you can be, and answer the question "if seriously nothing at all here morally matters, then what kind of life do I want to live?" And I went "heck, if the divine creator loved even freaking Hitler enough to say yes to making a universe in which that guy would go on to send millions to atrocious death, then why shouldn't I give it a try and treat folks with love and respect, 99.999% of which won't be genocidal dictators?" And well, I'm still at it. I believe that whatever I do, even if I fuck up, it's still all cool. I am free to try and love folks not because I'll go to Hell if I don't, but because I honor the divinity that is in the other person as well as it is in me, and the divinity's love in which we are all connected.

(And before the question comes, because some well-intentioned, but still misguidedly preaching, atheist will always ask it - what d I need God for then? Trust me on this one: I do need him for consistency of my thought system. The reasons would just derail this thread even further to go into, but my world would crumble into psychotic nihilism without the God Axiom.)

And even if that axiom may not be objectively true - it may very well be objectively false; I don't pretend to know, and I actually believe that it cannot ever be humanly known... I'm an agnostic theist - damn, believing it with all my heart makes my life a lot nicer both for myself and for folks I end up meeting. :)

Basically, the entity that I refer to with the word "god" is best compared to a scientist observing a petri dish, knowing that fiddling with that dish - whle certainly within the scientist's power - would ruin the experiment.
 
Last edited:
Ohhhh yeah. Assuming that God created all that is, you have to assume that God was pleased/contented with how everything would play out (being able to observe the entire timeline at once). Thus, God is indifferent about (or independent of) our supposed moral implications ... am I getting warmer?

Re:
"Basically, the entity that I refer to with the word 'god' is best compared to a scientist observing a petri dish, knowing that fiddling with that dish -- while certainly within the scientist's power -- would ruin the experiment."

Oh that's interesting ...
 
... am I getting warmer?
"Warmer" enough that you can legitimately start hoping to broil a sunny-side up on it, actually. ;)
 
Back
Top