Do you believe in God?

@Didymos Thomas,

DT said,
God isn't beyond human consciousness, not beyond human experience. Because God can be experienced, ritual is useful.

This is an honest question here, but what potential does experience with God equate to in the physical world. I do not understand what ritual can do to promote experience with an irrational conceptualization of the mind. There is no ideal stimulus or chemical configuration that can give you an experience with the divine, unless the divine is within the self... in which case the divine never really leaves the physical realm. It is just always sort of at a potential state.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

DT said,
God isn't beyond human consciousness, not beyond human experience. Because God can be experienced, ritual is useful.

This is an honest question here, but what potential does experience with God equate to in the physical world. I do not understand what ritual can do to promote experience with an irrational conceptualization of the mind. There is no ideal stimulus or chemical configuration that can give you an experience with the divine, unless the divine is within the self... in which case the divine never really leaves the physical realm. It is just always sort of at a potential state.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, though I get the feeling the question is not only honest, but a good question, too.

Are you asking me to explain what it is to experience God in physical terms? Perhaps, the process in the brain that occur when we experience God?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Yes that is exactly it. I mean, what does this ritual physically consist of? Is there any empirical evidence of fundamental non-concrete forms of ideal conditions to the interaction with God?

Sounds to me like the claim that we drink a heavy drug and call it tea, and then define an extremity of such resultant experiences as truly divine and not just simple hallucinations.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;34075 wrote:

The success of fundamentalism is tough to explain with this sort of argument.

Nah, fundamentalism appeals to certain subpopulations; I can't believe that everyone is susceptible.

In a society with a very educated populace, most people are sufficiently skeptical and worldly that they're not going to be swept up by a fundamentalist proselyte. And if the educational system were yet better, fundamentalism would have yet less appeal.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

In a society with a very educated populace, most people are sufficiently skeptical and worldly that they're not going to be swept up by a fundamentalist proselyte.

Yes but what kind of hypothetical society are we talking about here.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Yes that is exactly it. I mean, what does this ritual physically consist of? Is there any empirical evidence of fundamental non-concrete forms of ideal conditions to the interaction with God?

Religious ritual is a diverse topics. Too many different rituals to count. In a very broad sense, though, religious ritual helps people take a physically active role, often times with other people, in communing with the infinite.

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Sounds to me like the claim that we drink a heavy drug and call it tea, and then define an extremity of such resultant experiences as truly divine and not just simple hallucinations.

Well, now this brings up an interesting topic. Psychedelics have been used for spiritual practice since the beginning of time.

Aedes wrote:

Nah, fundamentalism appeals to certain subpopulations; I can't believe that everyone is susceptible.

In a society with a very educated populace, most people are sufficiently skeptical and worldly that they're not going to be swept up by a fundamentalist proselyte. And if the educational system were yet better, fundamentalism would have yet less appeal.

I see what you're saying. Fundamentalism is pretty well limited by education.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;34176 wrote:

Yes but what kind of hypothetical society are we talking about here.

Well, our literacy rate exceeds 99%, around 90% of adults have graduated from high school, and 30% of adults have a college degree. Yeah it could be better qualitatively and in terms of outcome measures, but honestly of the ~200 countries in the world there are probably only 10 that have better primary and secondary education and NONE that has better undergraduate or graduate education (except with respect to cost).

That's a bit different than, say, the Taliban's educational system. Fundamentalist societies NEED people to be ignorant of any non-religious teaching.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Well, our literacy rate exceeds 99%, around 90% of adults have graduated from high school, and 30% of adults have a college degree. Yeah it could be better qualitatively and in terms of outcome measures, but honestly of the ~200 countries in the world there are probably only 10 that have better primary and secondary education and NONE that has better undergraduate or graduate education (except with respect to cost).

Aparently our fifteen year olds are ranked 15th among industrialized nations in average reading scores.
National Endowment for the Arts Announces New Reading Study

Aedes wrote:

That's a bit different than, say, the Taliban's educational system. Fundamentalist societies NEED people to be ignorant of any non-religious teaching.

I'm not so sure. Don't fundamentalist societies also need people to be ignorant of any non-fundamentalist religious teaching?
And can't fundamentalists societies accommodate non-religious teaching so long as said teaching conforms to the society's religious teaching.

I guess my point is that maybe it isn't a matter of the teaching being religious or not, but whether or not the instruction conforms to the fundamentalist world view regardless of the subject. So long as a teaching criticizes the fundamentalist world view the teaching is dangerous to fundamentalist societies. Jerry Falwell is probably not a Thomas Merton fan, you know?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;34181 wrote:

Aparently our fifteen year olds are ranked 15th among industrialized nations in average reading scores.

Fine, we're 15th out of 193. That's in the 93rd percentile.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't a uniformly true statistic person-by-person throughout the country. Through much of the country our literacy and reading (and math) proficiency are as good as anywhere in the developed world. But elsewhere, especially in very rural and inner city schools, education is abysmal and kids lag way behind.

So our education is actually outstanding. It's our ability to extend it to the entire country that is deficient.

Quote:

Don't fundamentalist societies also need people to be ignorant of any non-fundamentalist religious teaching?

Yes

Quote:

And can't fundamentalists societies accommodate non-religious teaching so long as said teaching conforms to the society's religious teaching.

Such teaching is 1) selected in advance, and 2) subsumed within religious teaching; so it really fails to be non-religious teaching in the end.

Quote:

I guess my point is that maybe it isn't a matter of the teaching being religious or not, but whether or not the instruction conforms to the fundamentalist world view regardless of the subject.

Probably true.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Fine, we're 15th out of 193. That's in the 93rd percentile.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't a uniformly true statistic person-by-person throughout the country. Through much of the country our literacy and reading (and math) proficiency are as good as anywhere in the developed world. But elsewhere, especially in very rural and inner city schools, education is abysmal and kids lag way behind.

So our education is actually outstanding. It's our ability to extend it to the entire country that is deficient.

Yeah, I agree with you there. We have some remarkable schools and manage to produce brilliant, well educated minds. Of course, poorer sections of the country suffer. Part of this goes back to the thread on racism.

Aedes wrote:

Such teaching is 1) selected in advance, and 2) subsumed within religious teaching; so it really fails to be non-religious teaching in the end.

Probably true.

That's where I thought you were going, but I think the distinction is important. As much as authentic science enrages the fundamentalists, non-fundamentalist (authentic, even) spiritual teaching is equally if not more dangerous. No surprise the Taliban destroys ancient Buddhist relics and monuments.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I'm just new here, and I haven't read all of the comments on this thread yet. I wrote this little essay a short time ago outlining by ideas. It may help with this discussion.
Majic

The Biggest Destructive Lie in the World

There is a rumor going around that, robs people of their responsibility, offers false hopes, restricts enjoyment in life, promotes guilt, causes wars, encourages elitism and creates fear in most people. Those rumors are based on hearsay, propaganda, faith, and downright lies. Astonishingly, most people tend to really believe the rumors and the world is in big trouble.
We are living in the middle of that trouble now because of the biggest destructive lie that was ever created. That lie is we are under the rule of a controlling god.
I anticipate many of you are angry at my declaration and will want to throw these words in the garbage. It is very understandable to feel that way because I have just tampered with one of the most sacred beliefs our existence seems based on. It hurts to be told we have been living a lie all of our lives. Many people will not accept it. They will put up their defenses and continue to rationalize the existence of their god at all cost. Indulge me for a moment. Let me explain my position.
Let's, first, define the name "God". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines God as "the supreme reality", "the being whom men (and women) worship as the creator and ruler of the universe". While the definition of "God" varies between religions and cultures, "God" is generally thought of as an entity who directs our lives - a controlling god. We are told by many churches we need to pray to God, to ask for forgiveness, to request favors, to please him. Some churches convince us to fear God.
This controlling god is the one I claim is fictitious. He was created as a patriarchal god. He never existed in any reality; however, religions were formed to promote him for the purpose of political and personal power.
Some people believe there must have been a God to create the world, or set the world in motion after the Big Bang - to create the physical rules of DNA, gravity, electrons, etc. It is easy to place doubt into that belief by asking you to consider 'infinity'. Einstein (among others) felt infinity is not only never ending, but also never beginning. Meaning the universe has always been. If it has always been then no creator is needed. I don't claim to understand infinity but I can't deny the reality of it
This doesn't mean I am an Atheist, professing we are just biological beings accidentally evolving on Earth. Instead, I believe we are Life-Energy or Spirit living in a biological body. We are all a part of this Life-Energy and collectively we have created this world; individually we create our own reality. There is no one to worship because in essence we are collectively the god we envision. God is within.
We must realize it is people who have created everything we believe and accept as truth. We didn't enter Earth with an instruction manual. People learned by the successes and failures of their experiences. When the idea of a supreme God came along, believers wrote 'sacred' books in an attempted to get other people to believe as they did. They couldn't offer any proof or life experience so they cleverly conceived the idea of 'faith'. It was explained people should believe everything that had been written in the sacred books because it came from an invisible 'God' and no proof was necessary. Over time, some people's thinking changed and the scientific principle was created - to validate theory with physical proof. Although this advanced our knowledge tremendously, and placed doubt on all of the 'faith' knowledge, most people were still so conditioned to religious beliefs that they hesitated to change.
To this day religions have continued to flourish because people enjoy the idea of someone else being responsible. As a consequence, they allowed the churches to become masters of power and control. Religions have become poisons in our culture, and they need to be abolished.
God is not dead
He never existed

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

The arguments against a creational god are good, but I think you put too much emotion on it. Also, you didnt backed up your teory of "god is within" (Thought i personally believe so as well).

There is also the detail of that proving there is not an absolute god doesnt proves there isnt a no-absolute god. god could be sleeping, plainly ignoring us or just acting winhout providing proof of his existence so far. He could have even acted in the past and ceased to act after, leading us to believe the past events are invention. Because of that we cant really affirm for sure that god doesnt exists or is made by us. I think we should rationally chose the belief that is making more sense: if everthing you do works, you are god, if nothing that you do works, some god is toying with you, and etc Smile

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

What a shocker! .... I voted yes, however it's taken me nearly a month to reach this conclusion from first viewing of this thread, I have always considered myself to be an atheist but perhaps I was merely too lazy to really think about it, wierd ....:shocked:
TTFN

1 Reply

@schloopfeng,

schloopfeng wrote:

What a shocker! .... I voted yes, however it's taken me nearly a month to reach this conclusion from first viewing of this thread, I have always considered myself to be an atheist but perhaps I was merely too lazy to really think about it, wierd ....:shocked:
TTFN

Interesting. What do you think it was about this thread that change your mind? If that is what you are saying.

Thanks,
William

0 Replies

@Majic,

Majic wrote:

This doesn't mean I am an Atheist, professing we are just biological beings accidentally evolving on Earth. Instead, I believe we are Life-Energy or Spirit living in a biological body. We are all a part of this Life-Energy and collectively we have created this world; individually we create our own reality. There is no one to worship because in essence we are collectively the god we envision. God is within.

Good post. IMO, you are definitely on the right track. What I would like for you to consider is we are a part of that God in that He is We, but We are not He. In other works there is a lot to our "divinity" we don't understand and that is what life is all about once we finally come to realization you have and that is we are a physical manifestation of God not apart from God. We give God life. We are not here to "serve God", He is here to serve us, so to speak. All is divine, we just need to begin to "divinely" communicate. And as to your last three words, "God is within", once you begin to truly realize your divine nature, you will see He is "without" also. That's what will really blow your mind. In a good way. :a-ok:
Again, nice post.
William

1 Reply

@William,

This is directed at no one in particular or any specific post, but I must ask:[INDENT]Why is it that folks who, by virtual definition, don't believe in god (as popularly or established definition) avoid the label of 'Atheist'? It's not you, it's not describing you or the sum-total of your worth. It's simply a description that speaks to your belief system. Atheism doesn't describe diddly about how you think our existence came about (not directly anyway), only whether or not you believe in a god of any definition.

I suspect there are more 'closet atheists' than there are folks who drive while talking on the phone. Why the dodge?
[/INDENT]Yea, I'm a bit out of popular culture (thank god). But has this term been assigned such a torrid stigma these days?

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

I think some atheists avoid calling thenselves atheists, and actually lots of people avoid admiting their religions, cause religious stances can produce a lot of bother from people who believe its their divine or moral duty to convert you to their religions stances Smile

There is also the fear of being mistook for such fanatics.

And there are, off course, also social pressures, such as the family or society.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;40890 wrote:

This is directed at no one in particular or any specific post, but I must ask:[INDENT]Why is it that folks who, by virtual definition, don't believe in god (as popularly or established definition) avoid the label of 'Atheist'? It's not you, it's not describing you or the sum-total of your worth. It's simply a description that speaks to your belief system. Atheism doesn't describe diddly about how you think our existence came about (not directly anyway), only whether or not you believe in a god of any definition.

There is an assumption, commonly expressed on this forum, that to identify with the term atheist implies a whole collection of other things. Like amorality, like antagonism towards religion, like haughty dismissal of non-scientific thought, like rejection of spirituality. Furthermore, the term atheist is often used in a way that implies some group identity or some homogeneity.

Inasmuch as there are connotations given to the term atheist, I'd think that many people who do not believe in god would like to avoid other people's assumptions that are made solely because the term atheist is used.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

I think there is also some innacuracy about the meaning of the word I think... for example: I dont know if someone who doesnt believes in god, but admits to be unable to prove it doesnt exists should be called agnostic or atheist.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

In truth, depending on your idea of epistemology, EVERYONE is an agnostic (whether they realize it or not).

I can be a theist because I believe but also an agnostic because I don't know. By the same token I could also be both an atheist and an agnostic.

I think the functional use of the term agnostic applies to people who won't commit to belief for lack of confidence. In other words, the term doesn't really have to do with knowledge.

1 Reply

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know