Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in God?

No... Why ? Because I have no reason or need to. It started when I was in kindergarten.

Christmas was nearing, all the kids were writing letters to Santa, reading stories about Santa, we even had a 'fake' Santa to sit on his lap. He asked us if we were 'good', we'd say 'yes' and then tell him what gifts we wanted. I wanted a telescope. So Christmas Eve comes, socks hung up by the chimney, the whole deal. Isn't Christmas fun ? Now before hanging me from a tree for comparing God to Santa, please keep reading.

All the fun went out the window when my dad fell on the stairs and broke the telescope. And I saw him. He didn't break any bones or anything, he was fine, but after the whole incident was done with i realized the telescope was already in house well ahead of Christmas in a box I had seen lying around. Obviously I was "sshhhh"-ed at the kindergarten when I kept telling the other kids there's no Santa, some started crying, and my educator had to "have a talk" with my dad and myself. So as a kid, it was a really big disappointment to me that there was no Santa. I got a new telescope though :a-ok:

Kindergarten over, first year of school over. In the second year we got a new class, religion ! You know, the Bible for kids, all that stuff. Well, the whole story repeated itself. It dawned on me there are an awful many similarities between God and Santa Claus. There were stories of God, the Bible, just like those I was reading in KG about Santa. You go to Hell if you do bad deeds, as you get a lump of coal or sticks from Santa if you are "bad". People pray to God asking for stuff, children wrote letters to Santa asking for stuff. Both Santa and God are invisible, both have supernatural powers, both are represented by humans, parents and priests. God made everything, Santa made toys. So in order to avoid another disappointment, I confronted the religion teacher (who was a priest), and yet again my Dad had to come to school and have a talk with the principal, the priest and myself. Silenced. Again.

It was later in high school, when I was older and I had studied a bit of psychology and philosophy, I had finally understood why people need to believe.

My country has been ruled by a dictator for 35 years, until 1989, right when I had started 1st grade. We weren't allowed to own land, it was all a 'cooperative'. We weren't allowed to leave the country. We had a single TV station, the national one. We had no imported goods on the market, and the food was rationalized. We had energy only until 22:00. Name almost any human right, we didn't have it. It is extremely difficult to imagine living such a life, but I've seen it with my own eyes. While touring the rural areas of my country, I saw people with empty eyes, with nothing to live for and, apparently, with no hope of a better future.

But they had a single possession noone could take away from them. Belief. Belief in God. Belief that when after they die, Heaven awaits. Priests told them the harder your life is on Earth the better it will be in Heaven. And that soothed them. Masses were organized and priests preached, in secret (weren't allowed either), people kept their sanity through faith. I imagine that, without the psychological support provided by faith, the suicide rate would've been a lot higher during these awful times of oppression. Good thing religion is against suicide and you can't skip your way to Heaven. So, do I believe in God ?

No... Why ? Because I have no reason to have or no need of talking to an imaginary friend. Do you ? What is it ? :whistling:

Thanks for reading.

He may not be your run of the mill fundamentalist, but if his conception of God relies on science his conception of God is of the fundamentalist type.



Why are God and science even related? They are separate pursuits. One is mythological, the other rational.



Why is this a blunder? We do not know how there could be nothing because there is something.

In any case, the question of God is not one for logical investigation. Mythology works on a different level.



Touching story, but this last line, a cold misrepresentation of the nature of belief, takes all the wind out of your long set up.

If God were an imaginary friend, you might have a point.

This is indulging to find God,and also to probe into the matter is needless.Since there is the Bible,why not have faith in God?Let Him bless you,let Him loves you and so on ad infinitum.These negotiations are for atheist solely,but atheist also should be faithful in Him,His promise wouldn't be fallible.

Everything that exists, exists because of science. God exists through abiding the rules of science. God could not exist if it did not do that.

Or does science exist because of everything?

Science is a tool. We try to use science in order to establish the most objective vision of reality possible; this objective vision is extremely useful, has great survival value.

But human experience is not subjective, thus accounts of reality which strive towards objectivity are incapable of completely satisfying man's natural need to have some comprehension of the world around him. Similarly, no subjective vision will fulfill his needs, thus both logos (rational pursuit of truth; science) and mythos (figurative expression of subjective experience) are needed by mankind.

God is not of the realm of logos; God is an unnecessary construct in the scientific conception of reality. God is of the realm of mythos.

We might say God does abide by the rules of science, even if we place God firmly in the realm of mythos. I say this because, as a matter of science, man does have a need for mythos, and God, in part, fills this need. Thus, God abides by the rules of science by helping to fill a particular need of man, just as oxygen and water abide by the rules of science when oxygen and water are consumed by man.

Would not science also become "mithos" to the extent it also can not (as yet) account for the source of first existance?

Good question. I would say no, that science is not mythos. Even though science has not answered all questions regarding objective reality, science nonetheless strives for objectivity and is therefore fundamentally different from mythological expressions of truth.

Now, science can be adapted into mythos. Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism, though purported to be a science, is much closer to mythos.

My point is that neither theory concerning existance is proveable based on extant knowledge. Hence, any belief in an ultimate source requires faith which I would equate with "mythos" as you use the term. Eventually, science may provide an answer, but for now, both theories concerning existance, in my opinion, are based on something other than scientific evidence. Therefore, when science crosses the line and attempts to prove natural creation with insuffiecent evidence, it becomes as much mythos as any other faith based belief. If, on the other hand, you are saying it is the process we judge, not the conclusion. In that case,I would contend, a philosphical argument supporting Devine creation or natural (scientific) cause can be equally rational (or irrational) in their pursuit of truth...

Shouldn't everyone have said agnostic because there can never be any proof that god is real or not. Not untill we can prove how everything works scientifically.

MITech,

If the atheist is to be denied the passion of disbelief because he cannot logically disprove the existence of god, then the believers should all be restrained from expressing beliefs which they cannot logically prove. The incessant babbling would give way to sweet silence.

Boagie,
Your right I was out of place when saying that.

MITech,

Not at all, you are right that both the die hard atheist and the babbling believer are not on solid logical ground, its a bit like proving the existence of nothingness.

Not really; because the definition of these words refer to absence or presence of belief, not knowledge. Those, of any broad-classification, that pro port 'knowledge' are the ones on spurious ground.

Do I believe in God? This is obviously a "hot topic" though it is 8th down on the list. I must apologize for not reading all the posts (all 192 of them), though I doubt any will be like mine. Though it would be nice to think so. To me the answer it obvious. Absolutely! There has to be. Common sense tells us that. I am not implying those who don't believe in God have no common sense, they just don't believe those interpretations imposed by some religious interpretations. Neither do I.

God is not an entity we can compare ourselves to and that is the problem. The religion's that have the most power have assumed as much.
I would never impose what I believe on another. But religion thinks different than I do. They not only impose those interpretations on others, they are very successful at doing so. If you are an atheist, you must ask yourself "why"? What is it that separates you from falling into that "theist" mind set? In another thread I tried to explain that. Here I will try to explain why "God" has to exist. To deny the existence of God because you disagree with religious interpretations creates an opposite, but just as damaging, affect. "You throw out the baby with the bathwater".

I tried to initiate a thread asking if you would be willing to sacrifice to achieve "global harmony"? It was then I realized we don't have a clue to what "global harmony" is, not in the slightest. So how could anyone possible answer that question? We want to know what the end result is before we "sacrifice anything". Until then we aren't giving up a damn thing. It's the way we are. "Is it worth it", so to speak? Ah, spoken by a true egotist: "What's in it for me"? Ha.

The ego is so strong, "it" doesn't realize that "it" will a part of that harmony and will share in what ever that "harmony" is. It was a loaded question meaning there would be "no sacrifice" in that that harmony would be better than what the "I" can conceive. It will defend what "it" has as it clings to the axiom, "A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" preventing it from letting go of anything, causing "it" to covet that it does have. In other words the axiom itself is a double edged sword. On the one hand it offers a wisdom that says not to be "greedy", and on the other hand, it promotes it, as it selfishly holds on to what it does have that causes us to be greedy and possessive. I speak of the "ego" as a separate "entity" for it is hard for me to view human's as such selfish creatures. Please don't take that the wrong way. Remember my broad brush. Thanks.

Global harmony is God in motion. Regardless of what that harmony is, we must strive for it. Which means we can't cull anyone. To assume "one" knows what that harmony would entail only adds to the chaos as they determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". God knows we have enough chaos unless: waste, greed, slavery, poverty, war, inequity, disease, corruption, selfishness, envy, hate, bigotry, condescension, religious zealotry, idolatry, A.I.D.S., pornography, theft, murder, rape, abortion, nuclear destruction, child abuse, family dysfunction, suicide, mental illness and a dependence to pharmaceuticals in which we spend a trillion dollars a year on both legal and illegal just so we can cope, is not chaos.

Did you notice what I just said, "God knows.....". Now that is a fact. Whatever God is, chaos is "not it". Chaos does not compute. Those that profit from chaos will, in fact, cull themselves as they will be known by the volume of their protests as they defend their "control" that causes and promotes the existence of that very chaos that will prevent harmony from ensuing. This is where God comes into play. He will be an "ally" to those who seek harmony and a major problem for those who profit from chaos.

Now this is where that "leap of faith" you have heard so much about come's into play. It's call "strength in numbers". It comes from those "numbers" (people) working together who believe that harmony exist, whatever it is, and "want it to happen". Those are the one's who truly want the above list to disappear. You know the one that started with "waste". At any time I use the word "list", that is the one I am referring to. It is really a lot longer than that, but I don't have enough ink in my computer, Ha.

Now why do I say God has to exist? Because "I" am a part of that God. Yep! And before you lose your cool over that statement, you need to understand that "you are too". It is that "God" in me trying to reach that "God" in you of which we all are a part. Now what does that mean exactly?

I have mentioned in other posts that God is that "core" that drives the universe. It is the "brain" behind it and we are a part of that brain and it is the mind that connects us to it, provided it is not too "preoccupied". Understanding how this works is far beyond our ability to grasp as we have no clue of the exact preciseness and perfection of the universe and the omnipotence of the core that drives it. The notion that we think we can "figure it out" is where the chaos originated. Now if we were on the right track, you know that list wouldn't exist now, would it? Now I will remind you of that list from time to time so you don't stray. Ha.

The theist thinks he has the answer and the atheist thinks he is the answer, Ha. It's apparent neither is right, but oddly enough neither is totally wrong either. But it is a cinch, unless they get their "minds" together, they will never see eye to eye causing the list to get longer and longer until we will truly know what "hell on earth" is really all about and the madness that will ensue. We will totally lose those precious minds and all contact with that God we are a part of. I shutter to think of what that will bring about. Perhaps a human that truly becomes "animal". Hmmm?

We were "created" by that core that drives the universe. Why? Now that is the $64,000.00 question. Most of you are too young to understand what I just said. Look it up. It used to be a game show when television was about "entertainment", not the vast wasteland it has become. Anyway, no one could possibly know "why" we were created, but it is a cinch chaos it not a part of it. Harmony is everything. It like a symphony. God's symphony and we are each musical instruments and we just need to get "in tune" so we can play beautiful music together of the likes of which we have never heard. Thus it can be concluded those who do not contribute to this global effort to "harmonize" will not be a part of it in any measure that could disrupt it. I am not exactly sure what that means, and frankly don't want to know. I will vote for harmony in a heart beat. I hope you do too.

Now how do we harmonize close to 7 billion people? God only knows. I can assume not all will be a part, or at least a part that could possibly do it harm. So let me ask you again what is it you have that you would not be willing to sacrifice to attain global harmony? The answer is easy. That what you don't need. Remember, what good is a golden fountain if no water flows through it. Please think about that.

So, do I believe in God? Yeah, you might say that. It's time we all did. We have gotten to the point to where God cannot tolerate the disruption our "supreme autonomy" has caused. It is my contention mankind is an essential part of the ongoing development of the universe as it unfolds and we were created for a reason. But on the other hand we are not so essential to the point we can expect it to tolerate any imperfection we might cause as it could deem us an "itch" it could very well "scratch" away and start all over again. Ouch!

I don't know about you, but that is "common sense" to me. We are not parasites and we need to stop acting like parasites. We need to stop "feeding off each other" and start "feeding each other".
]
I hope in some measure the "God" in me, reached the "God" in you. It's time to reel me back in now. I hope someone is taking notes for there will be a day when I can't be "reeled back in" and it will be left up to you.

May God be with you. That is not a prayer. It is the way it was meant to be.

William

P.S. I encourage anyone to offer a rebuttal as to what "I" think as long as it is one I can understand. I don't have the "book learnin'" many of you have and don't have a clue as to what you have been trained to think. When I can, I offer what I can and if I am wrong, please don't hesitate to offer your wisdom and thoughts to help me understand and communicate more clearly. I would love to know what's in your mind as you ponder what's on mine.

Proof is the obligation of the person making the positive assertion. One can not prove the negative...but, that is not to be confused with proof of the reverse position. If one asserts creation results from a natural cause...the burden shifts. But, "sweet silence" is not the likely result as long as both sides are entitled to their unporven opinions.

True, neither sides can prove their ideas of creation. Yet. Religion will never be able to. But as we wait for science to reach a conclusion, how about judging the probabilities of each to be true ?

Scientists say "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe that is scientifically supported by all lines of observation and techniques for investigating phenomena in use at the moment, an idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense point-like singularity." Joe Six Pack just got a headache only from reading that.

The other side is saying "God created the universe because my texts written by goat herders, hundreds even thousands of years ago when even toilet paper was something unimaginable, are true because they say they are true, which is true because Jesus said it is true."

Where's the common sense ... :thats-enough:

As theists face the burden of evidence in claiming the existence of God, and they cannot and probably will not do so, the auto-epistemic rule comes to the fore , so here indeed absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence and no argument from ignorance; whereas to posit God without evidence is using the argument from ignorance.
Faith is a cop-out as it is just the we just say so of credulity. It begs the question of Him as there is no evidence therefor. Sydney Hook observes that science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Even the most ardent defenders of natural theology in the end rely on faith.
As the law of the conservation of matter-energy shows, there has to be something rather than nothing, so Leibniz is so wrong!
As it takes at least two objects for causation to happen, as Hans Reichenbach observes, one cannot speak of the cause of Existence. As it is all, there can be no transcendent God to it.
So we naturalists can indeed show no God! Fr. Griggs will adumbrate anon. Oh, of course, our argumentation is defeasible. We are fallibilitsts whose glory is provisional science.
As time, cause and event require prior ones, there can be no First Cause.:brickwall:

I find it most curious that such a simple question, "Do you believe in God" digresses into "prove it!". Once again I'll rattle my un-sharpened axe that says, "Separate Belief and Knowledge": Belief is the right of anyone, on anything, no matter how absurd. Now, we can rationally debate support for such beliefs, but there is nothing wrong with belief. Profess knowledge and we have a different ballgame.

And, respectfully, I take great exception to any statement that calls "belief" a cop-out. Is it not likely there are those among us who haven't perfect knowledge but, perhaps, a propensity towards one possibility? Isn't this ok? Are we to require all people - under threat of insult - to profess absolute knowledge that not a one of us can quantify? This smacks of two-dimensional thinking and grossly-limiting. If our discussion consists of the question "Is there?" then by all means, let us get into the muck and the mud that is the interpretation and presentation of evidence. But "belief" allows the thinker to hold onto that thread of weak-understanding and work through it towards one personal conclusion or the other. Am I the only one who sees the utility of this? Hehe, yes, there exists the distinct possibility I'm off my rocker - but I don't think so (at least not this time anyway).

In any case...

... one might think replies to this simple question to consist of a long line of posts that say "Yes", "No", "Yes", "I don't know" - along with some "why's" and such. So on we go, each grinding his own axe. I should perhaps leave off this theme, but I think it far too important as a needed foundation, in any theological discussion.

Thanks for your patience and apologies for the voracity of my statements; they speak to how important I feel this is, and for that I beg the reader's indulgence.

I agree. I agree anyone has the right to believe whatever they want to. What I don't agree on is their right to actively and forcefully spread and propagate those believes, especially in schools and kindergartens. "Separate Belief and Knowledge" amen to that ! Why must parents schools and kindergartens indoctrinate the minds of young children ? Children will believe anything spoken by an authoritative figure in their lives without second thought ! Without second thought ! If your mother tells you not to put your hand in fire, you won't. You won't try it until you're old enough to be curious and see for yourself that you get burned. Staying away from open flames is good. Is it also good to fear going to hell when you're 6 years old ?

And more importantly, from a theist's point of view, how can that be called true faith ? Isn't it INDUCED faith ? Children didn't come to the idea of believing in gods on their own, they were essentially brainwashed, indoctrinated, told they will burn in hell if they don't believe -- and all that from little age, when critical and objective thinking skills are not developed yet.

This is called conditioning. This leads to people not thinking properly. This leads to things like priests asking for money on television and actually getting it from the viewers. Oral Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- "In 1987, during a fundraising drive, Roberts announced to a television audience that unless he raised $8 million by that March, God would "call him home" (a euphemism for death).[10][11] [...] He raised $9.1 million.[12]"

This conditioning leads to propagating ancient feud and hatred, Palestinian children are taught by religious leaders that Jews are invaders and must be killed. Jewish children are taught Arabs are dirty and inferior pagans. None of these children are born with these preconceptions. Suicide bombers aren't born with a desire to martyrize themselves. They are brainwashed by religious leaders from small age. Violence everywhere all coming from so called holy books.

This conditioning sometimes leads to violence and/or killing, when believers "take law into their own hands", that is, they put religion above law and feel good about it !

Like Paul Jennings Hill, executed in 2003 for killing a doctor along with his bodyguard and seriously injuring his wife. On the way to his execution chamber he kept saying he can't wait to meet Jesus and get his reward for getting rid of the "baby-killer" (the murdered doctor was an abortion provider). Or attacking atheists, gays and lesbians, adulterers or members of other Churches, just because the believers don't agree with what these "sinners" are doing in their private life. Or blowing yourself up for in Heaven await 72 virgins.

What about the experiment performed by socio-psychologist dr. George R. Tamarin on Jewish children (see ISBN-13 9023762207). He asked a group of a hundred or so children - after presenting them with passages from the Bible depicting Joshua's sacking of Jericho - he asked them "Was it OK for Joshua to kill them all ?". More than two thirds fully agreed, providing answers like "I agree because Joshua was under God's command to take that land" or "I agree because their religion was false and had to be eradicated" or "I agree because had they been left alive Jews would have to mate with them thus tainting the Race". Those who disagreed did so not because of moral issues, as you might believe, not at all. "I don't agree because by entering impure Arab land they became impure themselves" or "I don't agree to the destruction of the assets because Israelis could've used them for themselves". Children agreeing with racism and genocide based on taught religious beliefs...

He then took another group of children and presented them with the same murderous story of Joshua, but with the names replaced. "Joshua" became "General Lin" and "Israel" became "an old Chinese empire". Guess what ! Results were exactly the other way around than in the first experiment. 75 percent of the children were in total disagreement of General Lin's barbaric genocide. Dr. Tamarin was subsequently taken to court to have his "Jewish" nationality stripped from his papers, I guess they didn't like his experiment.

And there you have it. Genocide and murder are A-OK if your religious leaders say so. That is what children are being taught. And while you think "yeah, but these are extremists" i say look around ! In the United States there is a great push to teach Creationism in public schools in science classes. Charismatic televangelists and preachers are spreading their extreme nonsense more and more, pushing people more and more into believing the Bible literally. Hatred against "sinners" is essentially cultivated into people more and more. The natural path of religion leads toward extremism. By default.

I agree, yes, that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to, about anything, religious or not. But I also agree that people should reach these beliefs on their own, without any pressure from their anti-abortion, homophobic, atheophobic(?) or xenophobic religious peers.

Thanks for reading.

This topic appears to have digressed quite a lot from its probable intent, such as is guessable. Many mistake belief in God with religion or especially Western conceptions. Fact is, "proof" exists not in mathematical equations or religion necessarily but in psychology & physics. Subjectively, I have found that I can't be as stable or functional without an anchor, an understanding of universal oneness. This understanding derives partly from a psychological need to be connected somehow, and also from quantum physics which indicates a connectiveness of all matter on a subatomic level. I've also read of an experiment indicating conscousness of a subatomic particle, by forcing it to choose which direction to turn- right or left. It stopped motion & chose. I read this in a Michio Kaku book so take that for what its worth. In the end my answer to the thread question is yes, though must be tempered by pointing out- Not Judeo-Christian-Islamic in nature, more rationalisitic & pantheistic.