Do you believe in God?

@Fido,

Fido;89322 wrote:

I have seen no proof of God but all that I can never explain that I presume to have cause...

well it depends on what you count as a proof of God.

1 Reply

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader>;89405 wrote:

well it depends on what you count as a proof of God.

If I can throw it on a scale it counts as proof...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;89434 wrote:

If I can throw it on a scale it counts as proof...

trouble is, everyone's scale is weighted in their favor

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;89434 wrote:

If I can throw it on a scale it counts as proof...

'Human mind is trouble with things they cannot reason with', Kant.
The only reason I still have some faith in something God like is due to the constants of universe. Maybe that is just one way to prove there maybe a God.
BUT I bittery reject and argue against any formal God.
I tend to like the way God is dealt with among the sufi and mystics followers of faith.

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;89479 wrote:

trouble is, everyone's scale is weighted in their favor

Usually we throw a bit of ourselves on the scale...In the case of God it is our incredible loneliness, or our need for meaning beyond the meaning of life...

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 07:46 AM ----------

<daleader>;89548 wrote:

'Human mind is trouble with things they cannot reason with', Kant.
The only reason I still have some faith in something God like is due to the constants of universe. Maybe that is just one way to prove there maybe a God.
BUT I bittery reject and argue against any formal God.
I tend to like the way God is dealt with among the sufi and mystics followers of faith.

None the less; God is a quasi form, the acceptence of which makes churches and faiths, which are true forms... I am afraid that suffis and mystics have been responsible for the rejection wholesale of reason... And to an extent they are right...If there is a God as we conceive of God, then God is all... What then would be the point of reason except to control reality in spite of God???But you see, when people stand by and watch some natural disaster which was years in the making, like Katrina develop, and count on fortune, or fate, or faith to save them they are being more than stupid, but criminal...In our day we should reject all that nonsense in the conduct of our lives and relations, and act reasonably...The problem with God is not that people believe in God or pray to God, or sacrifice to God; but that they trust in God to save them from their own stupidity, cupidity, and sloth...

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

^than what is the role of God? What exactly does he do?

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

sufis and mystics dont reject reason all the time, they are able to use it freely. otherwise how could omar khayyam, and those other guys whose names i cant spell without looking up, be able to come up with what they did in scientific achievement?

there are those ascetics and other yogis, rishis, etc who go off to a cave and reach for god consciousness and maybe achieve it, but that is not really the sufi way. the sufi or mystic is in the world and free to enjoy it while seeing it for what it is, and is also in a position to light the way for others. reason has its place in the world and is not considered unimportant, but the heart will have the last word, that's all. a mystic can hold down a job nine to five and raise children and love his wife and drive a car, but the difference is he has his eyes open-all three of them.

<daleader>;89548 wrote:

'Human mind is trouble with things they cannot reason with', Kant.
The only reason I still have some faith in something God like is due to the constants of universe. Maybe that is just one way to prove there maybe a God.
BUT I bittery reject and argue against any formal God.
I tend to like the way God is dealt with among the sufi and mystics followers of faith.

well you got lots of company then!

you cannot effectively argue and reject god until you meet him face to face. it is pointless to argue against anyone's idea or concept of god. they made it up, so let them keep it. it is only when they themselves ask the questions and want to change their image of god that it is sensible to present arguments against inconsistencies, etc. that would be discussion.

and as for the role of god and what exactly does he do, you will also have to ask him.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

^all those great man came to a conclusion, that God cannot be reasoned nor dealt with in any empirical manner. A great example was Imam Ghazali who at the very end was going crazy. His younger brother came and woke him up from his slumber and he choice to argue for God, as he was not able to fill the empty void left by God not been in his life.

2 Replies

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader>;89610 wrote:

^all those great man came to a conclusion, that God cannot be reasoned nor dealt with in any empirical manner. A great example was Imam Ghazali who at the very end was going crazy. His younger brother came and woke him up from his slumber and he choice to argue for God, as he was not able to fill the empty void left by God not been in his life.

what i am thinking is that they were too far ahead of their time. this is what i see happening today is the reconciliation within the psyche that god exists but is not just there to tell us what to do, is not just there to answer our prayers and save us from our troubles or otherwise give us a big reward in an afterlife-this is where the void came from.

when i look at the lives of those people who were each in their own right great scientists and artists and mystics in various periods in history, i think to myself these were the truly self-actualized human beings who were living up to their full potential. every one of us can be the same, if we reach our potential. but their minds were like those of children and could not be given the whole box of candy just yet, so they went mad. i think now may be the time in history when we are getting ready to handle it.

then again i may be wrong, and this is the end of us all. time will tell.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

One cannot by definition instantiate God as Dr. Jonathon Harrison notes in " God, Freedom and Immortality or Lord Russell notes about another matter but would include Him here, for sure, postulate Him into existence.
To call Him love and energy can be poetic, but as a real definition, nay. If one wants to be poetic, but not obscurantist, one might speak of god rather than of God . We Dr. Quinten Smith naturalist
pantheists are in awe of Nature and science.
Salima, so much for those men! People experience cognitive dissonance betwixt that which has, at least, potential substance and that which has none as is the case with what my friend, Dr.Paul Kurtz, calls " The Transcendent Temptation,"that of the paranormal and the supernatural, the twin scams of the ages!"
As an ignostic, i find Him otiose.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Whatever that mysterious force is that is behind all of what exists around us, it is far beyond our ability to comprehend and it is ludicrous to attempt to place a name or identity on it as though we know it or as though it has some obligation to us.

What we do know is that whatever it is, it does not show us the compassion and love that we know can exist inside of us. Other than being the power and force behind our existence it seems inconsiderate of our plight, and I think that we are on our own with regard to being a part of it all. This is not some sort of judgment, I expect nothing from it, and do not obligate it to me in any way. I know nothing of it except that it is the origination of all that exists.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

This is good, the 'No' brigade are catching the 'Yes' mob.

And when you take into account that agnostics are merely atheists who lack conviction, that puts us firmly in the lead! Very Happy

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;93945 wrote:

This is good, the 'No' brigade are catching the 'Yes' mob.

And when you take into account that agnostics are merely atheists who lack conviction, that puts us firmly in the lead!

Actually to be fair, agnostics bat for both sides. So you really can't count them for either side unless you do it for both. I think a majority of agnostics believe there is something but they are not quick to give it a name because there is no proof of that something. They seem to be taking a very realistic approach to the question but for me it is no different than stating the flying pink elephant could exists but there is no actual evidence that the flying pink elephants does exist. So agnostics are neutral to all claims that are without evidence.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;93947 wrote:

Actually to be fair, agnostics bat for both sides. So you really can't count them for either side unless you do it for both. I think a majority of agnostics believe there is something but they are not quick to give it a name because there is no proof of that something. They seem to be taking a very realistic approach to the question but for me it is no different than stating the flying pink elephant could exists but there is no actual evidence that the flying pink elephants does exist. So agnostics are neutral to all claims that are without evidence.

Hmm, I dunno...

I am an atheist, in as much as I believe there is no god, but I'm not irrational; if someone provides me with conclusive proof that god exists, they'll make a believer of me, so in that sense, you might well call me an agnostic. But in absence of that, I consider myself a staunch atheist. Hence my accusation of a lack of conviction.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

"Anyone to believe there is nothing higher than self, will always be a loner in search for something and never find it".

William

2 Replies

@William,

William;93979 wrote:

"Anyone to believe there is nothing higher than self, will always be a loner in search for something and never find it".

William

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

As an agnostic, i believe the chasm between me an atheists can be as big as any i have with the believers. We are not to be confused with either positions. The other two views, in my opinion, just mark them out as dogmatic.

1 Reply

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader>;89610 wrote:

^all those great man came to a conclusion, that God cannot be reasoned nor dealt with in any empirical manner. A great example was Imam Ghazali who at the very end was going crazy. His younger brother came and woke him up from his slumber and he choice to argue for God, as he was not able to fill the empty void left by God not been in his life.

We can all make that argument, that God exists because we need him... The fact is that we do not need all the evil people do in the name of God- that were God what those people say he is he would not allow...Since God allows all evil, even and foremost from believers, is he not at least as evil as good???

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 08:07 AM ----------

gojo1978;94003 wrote:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

God is the alienation of human power and goodness from their only true owners...

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;94031 wrote:

As an agnostic, i believe the chasm between me an atheists can be as big as any i have with the believers. We are not to be confused with either positions. The other two views, in my opinion, just mark them out as dogmatic.

I don't think that the position of refusing to believe in something for which there is not (sorry, god botherers) a shred of evidence can be considered dogmatic. It is merely good practice, healthy scepticism, which the majority of people exercise routinely in every other issue in their lives, apart from this one, the bogey-man.

Is it dogmatic to believe that there is not a machine somewhere on Earth that can cross the Atlantic in 2 seconds? Why? I have no proof or evidence of that either, so I don't believe it. I'm sure I wouldn't be accused of dogma for that.

When I have incontrovertible proof that god exists, I will believe in it. Until such times, why waste my time?

Faith is an absolute joke.

One further point. Say, for argument's sake, there are roughly 1.5 billion christians, 1.5 billion jews and 1.5 billion muslims. According to each of these religions, the other two are wrong. Whether it's explicitly said or not, I do not know, but it's certainly implicit at least. So, if 3 billion are wrong, realistically, what are the chances that the other bunch are correct? :brickwall:

It's all just a distraction and a waste of time.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

xris wrote:

As an agnostic, i believe the chasm between me an atheists can be as big as any i have with the believers. We are not to be confused with either positions. The other two views, in my opinion, just mark them out as dogmatic.

You're aware there's a such thing as an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist, right?

Agnosticism is an epistemological position. That is, a position dealing with the knowledge of metaphysical claims (usually). Atheism and theism are positions of belief. There's a distinct difference. If you don't believe in a God, you would be considered atheist, regardless if you believe it's possible a God exists.

2 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know