Do you believe in God?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

An atheist and a theist are two of the same. Both have constructed a notion of God, the only difference being one accepts and one denounces. An atheist states it does not believe in the notion of God it's constructed. Similarly, a theist states it does believe in the notion of God it's constructed. If an atheist didn't have a notion of God constructed, there would be nothing to denounce. If a theist didn't have a notion of God constructed, there would be nothing to accept. Neither of these labels are all-inclusive as not every consciousness knows of every notion of "God" that has been, is, or will be. That is, an atheist doesn't denounce every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Likewise, a theist doesn't accept every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Essentially, we are applying categorization to a notional construct, a construct that varies, sometimes wildly, between cultures.

Therefore, the question, "Do you believe in God?" is too overarching, and really doesn't answer much. It must be placed in the context with which the consciousness speaks, lest it be confused with anything. We must remember that "God" is a notion. Logically, contemplating the existence of a "Goblin" should be no different than the contemplation of "God", but because of the mystical/expansive/profound stigma attached, a majority approach the notion of "God" with intense emotion. We must not let our emotion cloud our better judgement, and begin approaching things at face value, rather than the value applied through interpretation. Interpret after the fact, not before.

Zetherin
A good hermeneutic response without handicapping the epistemology of judgementals. The early concept of God was singular, but when Christianity introduced a Son into the matrix all of a sudden God revealed that He had an ego. It didn't take long for Freud to interpret and analyze that notion of psyche at play.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Therefore, the question, "Do you believe in God?" is too overarching, and really doesn't answer much. It must be placed in the context with which the consciousness speaks, lest it be confused with anything.

I would say this question is essential, not in the form it is asked in the present thread ("Do you believe in God"?), but in the form "What is faith?" (Or: "What do you think faith is?"). The relation between reason and faith was the main pre-occupation of almost every mediaeval theologist and they came up with quite a few answers, occasionally burning each other at the stake. What many declared is that reason must be the servant of faith, must "obey" faith and sustain it in its apologetic efforts, being just an instrument in the hands of faith and senseless on itself. Now obviously reason has a life on its own and grew "larger" than faith with the Renaissance and with the emergence of rational philosophies and empirical science. An utter simplification of history in order to point out the power of faith, either as a state of mind or in its structure as a Church. Let's never forget the immense change of the mind that is the consequence of embracing faith. Those who believe (whatever they believe) have a wholly different frame of mind than the non-believer (it can be noticed in many postings here), though they use the same "methods" in discussion, reasonable and less reasonable. The question remains whether or not you want to "change" yourself in this or that way. That "Jump of Faith" being one of my personal problems...

[quote=Zetherin] We must remember that "God" is a notion[/quote]

Zetherin wrote:

, logically contemplating the existence of a "Goblin" should be no different than the contemplation of "God", but because of the mystical/expansive/profound stigma attached, a majority approach the notion of "God" with intense emotion. We must not let our emotion cloud our better judgement, and begin approaching things at face value, rather than the value applied through interpretation. Interpret after the fact, not before.

4 Replies

@Catchabula,

God = One

=
MJA

1 Reply

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

God = One

=
MJA

Ok, but why use so many words to say this?

1 Reply

@Catchabula,

Catchabula wrote:

Ok, but why use so many words to say this?

Your so right!

=
MJA

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

There is no way to prove completely that either side is the right one. I personally believe in God due through faith and the fact that I have felt touched by God many times throughout my life.

0 Replies

@Catchabula,

Catchabula wrote:

I would say this question is essential, not in the form it is asked in the present thread ("Do you believe in God"?), but in the form "What is faith?" (Or: "What do you think faith is?"). The relation between reason and faith was the main pre-occupation of almost every mediaeval theologist and they came up with quite a few answers, occasionally burning each other at the stake. What many declared is that reason must be the servant of faith, must "obey" faith and sustain it in its apologetic efforts, being just an instrument in the hands of faith and senseless on itself. Now obviously reason has a life on its own and grew "larger" than faith with the Renaissance and with the emergence of rational philosophies and empirical science. An utter simplification of history in order to point out the power of faith, either as a state of mind or in its structure as a Church. Let's never forget the immense change of the mind that is the consequence of embracing Faith. Those who believe (whatever they believe) have a wholly different frame of mind than the non-believer (it can be noticed in many postings here), though they use the same "methods" in discussion, reasonable and less reasonable. The question remains whether or not you want to "change" yourself in this or that way. That "Jump of Faith" being one of my personal problems...

Catchabula
The differences of judgement alluded to are the first order terms regarding Being as dialectical: 1) understanding reality to an ambivalent demension IS a paradox, but all dialectical reasoning is a method of investigation until it passes over into the realm of realization - realization of truth or of fallacy; 2) the other difference is one of synthetic (synthesis) reasoning in terms of logic as Kant reflected upon when explaining Being as non-contradiction. This last statement simply affirms Aristotle's notion that Being cannot be and not be simultaneously without ripping the guts out of existence. That would be radical extramentality!!
Faith is not the paradox here, it is the object of faith; however, once we agree about Being can we then consider the structure of Being, and the methods toward discovery through attributes because in the final analysis, that is all that remains to any ontological argument.

0 Replies

@Catchabula,

Catchabula wrote:

The relation between reason and faith was the main pre-occupation of almost every mediaeval theologist and they came up with quite a few answers, occasionally burning each other at the stake. What many declared is that reason must be the servant of faith, must "obey" faith and sustain it in its apologetic efforts, being just an instrument in the hands of faith and senseless on itself. Now obviously reason has a life on its own and grew "larger" than faith with the Renaissance and with the emergence of rational philosophies and empirical science.

I wouldnt saw they are entirely wrong, to exist humans must have some type of unjustified belief on something, as logic alone has no value. Examples: Why we work to live? Because we believe life is good, but we cannot logically prove life is good.

Trailing off-topic a bit, I think computers are nice to understand this. Computers are capable of understanding how, then and where they are to peform an action, but never why. In a similar manner, we know how to live, where to live and then to live, but not why we want to live in the first place. The instructions we give to computers are like emotions, they cause logical processes to happen but dont explain why these processes must happen.

0 Replies

@Catchabula,

Catchabula wrote:

I would say this question is essential, not in the form it is asked in the present thread ("Do you believe in God"?), but in the form "What is faith?" (Or: "What do you think faith is?"). The relation between reason and faith was the main pre-occupation of almost every mediaeval theologist and they came up with quite a few answers, occasionally burning each other at the stake. What many declared is that reason must be the servant of faith, must "obey" faith and sustain it in its apologetic efforts, being just an instrument in the hands of faith and senseless on itself. Now obviously reason has a life on its own and grew "larger" than faith with the Renaissance and with the emergence of rational philosophies and empirical science. An utter simplification of history in order to point out the power of faith, either as a state of mind or in its structure as a Church. Let's never forget the immense change of the mind that is the consequence of embracing faith. Those who believe (whatever they believe) have a wholly different frame of mind than the non-believer (it can be noticed in many postings here), though they use the same "methods" in discussion, reasonable and less reasonable. The question remains whether or not you want to "change" yourself in this or that way. That "Jump of Faith" being one of my personal problems...

I never implied that introspection should be evaded, or that there were no differences between theists or atheists, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it. I also believe you're making a grave error in assuming that faith is only carried through the notion of "God" - this cannot be further from the truth. Faith can be carried through many ideals, so the faith mind you speak of can still be present in those that consider themselves atheist. Belief and Faith are not "God" specific. I can have a "Jump of Faith" and still not believe in a benevolent "God", or any "God". I've recently had a "Jump of Faith" in a very non-theistic way, and it involved simply around a human relationship. The point is that these terms "theist", "atheist", "agnostic" are not all-inclusive and asking them arbitrarily doesn't answer much. It takes much more than a poll to really understand the person's mindset, lest the answer "Yes" or "No" could be misunderstood. This is why I agree wholeheartedly when you say that the question should be asked differently; I never meant to appear as if I believed the understanding of another's mind is irrelevent.

Catchabula wrote:

What is a notion, and what is more than that, you ask? That's wholly dependent on the mind of the one that has constructed the notion. Yes, my posting does suppose there is some common grounding between atheists and theists. I don't believe I'm transcending anything, for an atheist has to construct a notion to denounce it; If I say an abstract notion doesn't exist, I've constructed the abstract notion in my mind beforehand, otherwise I wouldn't be denouncing anything. Likewise, a theist has to construct a notion to accept it. If one believes their reality is "God" inducing, then that is because the notion of "God" they believe in is "affecting" them. No matter what people believe or feel, it's still part of the idea in their minds.

I want to clarify this: as in my aforementioned response above, I don't feel it's necessarily true to say all atheists and agnostics are non-believers. Non-believers in a notion of "God", "Goblin", "Pusheudo", "Klisji", "Goshium"? Sure, but that doesn't encompass all belief, and certainly not all faith. There may very well be differences in the minds of believers or non-believers concerning the notion of "God", but we cannot extrapolate this out to all minds being A.) Believers B.) Non-believers (and then the differences between). For to even step out of bed in the morning, I have to believe in some manner. Moreover, I have faith in many things that many others may not have faith in, and none of these have to involve the belief of intelligent design or being. I believe "God" has received entirely too much attention, and I don't believe I should have to continually be labeled to comply with these standards. I've since created my own set for believing in a creature called Hampsterpoo. If you accept the belief you're called a Hamsterist, if you denounce the belief you're called a Amsterist, and if you really don't know where you fall you're called a Aghamsteric. I see a lot of Amsterists out there... hmmm...to hell with you all!

The point of my clarification wasn't to belittle the notion of "God", but to take "God" down from the pedastal we've created and place it on equal grounding. It was to help realize that every supernatural or metaphysical belief doesn't necessarily have to revolve around this word, and that many people carry faith without necessarily believing in "God". Sure, maybe logic drives the core of a particular atheist's reasoning, but you'd be surprised to find out he has faith in his country, or his family, or himself. I think we're seeing eye to eye for the most part, but I didn't articulate my thought very well initially.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Hi Zetherin. Just a little note. I will not be turning up for awhile because I'll be working on your intelligent, extensive and challenging reply. I don't want to improvise here, I want to give it my best, and that needs some distance and a quiet mind. I also want to state that I explicitly want to take the "u-charge" out of this conversation. We may have different views, but ultimately we should work on this together, even if that means going to a more extreme polarization. This probably need not even be said as nobody ought to apologize for thinking. Now let me get to work.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

If you guys could make an effort to make smaller walls of text, I would thank you... good memory is not a trait of mine, and its really hard to understand someone's view about something if you forget the beggining by the time you get to the end Smile

If I understood you well Zetherin: I agree that faith is and has not to be aimed only at concepts of god, but can actually be applied to anything we do not hold proof to yet believe. I think the "man who controls the universe" in douglas adams book: "The restaurant in the end of the universe" is a good example of this, if anyone cares to read the book Smile

But, taking off from this point of view, it becomes very hard to spot differences between the different beliefs. Perhaps, from this point of view, there are none?

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

If you guys could make an effort to make smaller walls of text, I would thank you... good memory is not a trait of mine, and its really hard to understand someone's view about something if you forget the beggining by the time you get to the end

I'll be short. I won't do that. Exercise your memory (the first sentence was: I'll be short) Smile

2 Replies

@Catchabula,

Reading more and watching television less will do wonders for your memory.

0 Replies

@Catchabula,

Catchabula wrote:

I'll be short. I won't do that. Exercise your memory (the first sentence was: I'll be short)

I never remember of doing it! Smile

I suppose I can always read ten times though.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Reading more and watching television less will do wonders for your memory.

I play games, and I think that probally is the better, since you actually have a good reason to remember things, such as not steeping into that mine again Smile

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Nothing has an intention, everthing just exists. were it different, for what intention would the thing wich had an intention exist?

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

hi manored...

In nature nothing is just because. do you need water?... yes, do you need to eat? yes. At this point we are talking 'bout function, but there is no function without intention. who does know the intention? only the agent. For example my intention, you don't know my intention, although you can imagine many things, you have an intention although I can imagine many things. You wouldn't exist without your parents' intention and your parents' intention obeyed to nature's will do you know what's the volition of the nature? Mahawakia, later on you are going to undertand.

On the other hand, in those aspects in which human being has involved, in those aspects in which human being has stepped in, a chair doesn't be here without its function resulting from the intention of comfort or other intention that you want to give it, it is better to sitting on a chair than on a rock. No boy, nothing is just because... as you say, what is your porpuse?... then nothing has an intention?

go ahead...

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Thinking it over, it is not possible to determine the existence of intention or not. One can chose to view the universe as having no purpose therefore making all on it being randow chance, or one can chose to view it as having a purpose therefore making all on it have reason.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

The random chance is an intention, have you ever left something to random chance? Have you ever been unsure of something but necessarily you have to take a decision?
Do you remember this?

Of course I do not think random chance was the intention on the universe, the only thing that I am doing is closing up every door, every window and every hole where the most skepticals could ran away.
Pd: "Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world, for all people suppose themselves so well provided with it that even those who are the most difficult to satisfy in every other respect never seem to desire more than they have." Descartes
Would you like cup of coffee?

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

1 Reply

@Peter phil,

I wish to respond to the OP firstly here; and then perhaps to other points at later times (it is a fairly long thread, and my reading is started, but not finished).

In that in the English language, in Christendom, the word "God" was assigned as a proper noun (which is was not originally) to be used in place of YHWH, it is being used as a name.

I have arrived at the conclusion that that particular god-model does not represent any external reality (external meaning beyond what is in a brain). Therefore I do not believe in YHWH, and, by extension, do not believe in "God."

1 Reply

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know