Do you believe in God?

@gojo1978,

Although I was raised Mormon and initially Lutheran, but strayed away from religion at an early age, and although I can understand the underlying psychology of people who are fundamentalists... I find it intellectually unfathomable how people can be so religio-centric (for lack of a better word) as to express complete lack of understanding that people don't regard the scriptures they believe in as true.

That wasn't a personal attack against you, Johnny, just an observation on the ultra-religious mind. Please don't take it as such, considering I don't know you and thus have no reason to be rude.

On a related note, I have absolutely no fear of damnation, hell, anything like that. Plenty of people who have given up religion often still have moments of "what if"; I've had that, but on a personal note, it no longer even comes to my mind as a possibility.

------------

I'm a secular individual. I adhere to no religion, no scripture, and no ideology (even a non-religious one) will trump my understanding of science. While I can debate to myself things like what caused the big bang, conjecture is where it ends for me. My personal beliefs and my public life are not compatible with a secular ethic.

However, I suspect something in this universe exists that created it, exists as its guardian, exists as its greatest force, or something. If you want to call that god or gods or something more mundane, or obscure, be my guest. I identify religiously as agnostic, and I honestly have no clear inclination toward any label for this "force" I think may possibly exist. I do not feel it affects my life, nor do I feel it is necessary or welcomed to pray or worship whatever it might be. I don't think it influences Bronze Age shepherds to create sexist, judgmental, violent scriptures (I also recognize moral teachings in many scriptures as well).

If humans were to go extinct, I don't think this "god" would intervene. This universe is not anthropocentric. We own our own destinies.

I also think such a god is above good and evil. These things are what we do to each other. We have no one else to blame, much less a devil many of us use to escape accepting responsibility, for the evils we create but ourselves.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Good post, Baltar.

I have a LOT of respect for people who had the misfortune to be indoctrinated and brainwashed from birth, but the strength of mind to reject it when they are capable of formulating their own, independent, beliefs. My partner and a close friend of mine both belong in that category. In fact, my friend was actually in training to become a priest (!) when he turned.

That takes a lot more strength than, say, my own position of being born an atheist into an atheist family and making the simple choice not to believe in god. I should point out, I was never forbidden to; I was permitted to make up my own mind. But, as I was born into an age of reason, science and technology, without theistic interference, naturally, I gave it no credence at all.

I firmly believe that if it was somehow possible to insulate humans born today from all notions of god/religion, few of them would ever come to consider the notion, and those who did would reject it as fantasy.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;99405 wrote:

Good post, Baltar.

I have a LOT of respect for people who had the misfortune to be indoctrinated and brainwashed from birth, but the strength of mind to reject it when they are capable of formulating their own, independent, beliefs. My partner and a close friend of mine both belong in that category. In fact, my friend was actually in training to become a priest (!) when he turned.

That takes a lot more strength than, say, my own position of being born an atheist into an atheist family and making the simple choice not to believe in god. I should point out, I was never forbidden to; I was permitted to make up my own mind. But, as I was born into an age of reason, science and technology, without theistic interference, naturally, I gave it no credence at all.

I firmly believe that if it was somehow possible to insulate humans born today from all notions of god/religion, few of them would ever come to consider the notion, and those who did would reject it as fantasy.

Thank you, Gojo.

I'd say I was indoctrinated. I would also say it's less of a conscious act by many religions, and more of a continuously-supported policy lacking coherent direction. The need to "save" as many people as possible, or keep your children from going to hell can be a strong factor for fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes. As a Mormon, there was a lot of reinforcement of the church and the faith. I have little bitterness against Mormonism, and in general I see it as a better faith than many others I've had dealings with. Mormonism does provide for charities and thrift industries, food storehouses for those living under their means, and does promote a close family with notions of an eternal family in the afterlife.

Others who leave their religion tend to possess so much anger and bitterness, which is understandable. I went through that period in my life when I distanced myself from Mormonism, but bitterness is such a waste of my emotions in my short life in this pale blue dot we live on. Smile

To insulate people from such ideas would be to take away human freedom, imagination, and personal beliefs/thoughts. If we were to forget the concept of a god or higher power, we'd create it all over again. After all, the first concepts of a higher power (to date, a mother goddess of sorts) did originate from a humanity that lacked such concepts. I.e., the concept will spontaneously appear just as it did long ago when humans barely had a society at all.

You can't get rid of these concepts, and you can't create an atheist world just as no one can create a Mormon world, Islamic world, Christian world. What we can do is focus on education, eliminate superstitions and fundamentalism (slowly), and help propagate a more enlightened, but individualistic and richly opinionated humanity. I think that's the right way to think about the issue. Smile

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99368 wrote:

Why do us as humans immediately discard the bible as proof

Perhaps because it is proof of just about anything... That is why the Catholic Church never taught the Bible except under duress... The book should be called the great can of worms, and it is for that reason that protestants as soon as they broke from the church soon split among themselves... Sure, they sort of have a garbage take on the Bible, but the Bible is good for that...No one immediatly discards the Bible... I study the Bible, and last month picked up some very good books on the subject... It is not what it seems...The intent of its many authors was self service...

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;99347 wrote:

I heard my sister ask this long ago (40+ years) ... "If God created the universe then where did God come from?"

The question is intuitive and logical. We can't just posit some Eternal Being and think we've resolved the question of why all things exist. All we've done is push ourselves to an even more difficult position to defend by leaving ourselves open to an even more difficult question. I believe this is why there can be little said against the logic of chosing atheism over theism. Had I no argument myself to defend my beliefs, I most likely would chose atheism over theism, because I find the position more easily defensible. To a theist all we need ask is this simple question: "So what created god?" And it is a very intuitive and logical question. It does not assume that something created god -what it does is press us to keep looking for a more logical answer to why all things exist. God is just a word, and nothing more, if we can't provide a meaningful definition of God; and I think this is also where atheists have the upper hand over believers, hands down.

And this is coming from someone who has an unshakable faith and understanding that there does exist a Supreme Being.

You are right. But that doesn't mean that God cannot be the explanation of the universe. It only means that God is not his own explanation. God can still be the explanation of the universe, but not his own explanation. The cause of something need not itself be explained for it to be the cause of that something.

---------- Post added 10-23-2009 at 08:48 AM ----------

Fido;99348 wrote:

Every word is a form...It is simply a fact that some forms are moral forms, which is to say they do not describe a finite reality... God is the ultimate of infinites, and if God were not real to people, he, or it could be easily trashed...To us, there is no difference between the thing and the name of the thing... This is why to the primitive mind, which is still our mind, the name gave power... Witness the "word" in John; or the story of rumplestilskin...If you have the name, you have the thing...

I don't know what you mean by "form". But you seem to be saying that every word is a name, and that is certainly not true. "Although" is not a name.

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Shostakovich wrote:

To a theist all we need ask is this simple question: "So what created god?" And it is a very intuitive and logical question. It does not assume that something created god

It doesn't? It sounds very much like the question "So what created god?" presupposes that a) god exists and b) something created god.

Quote:

God is just a word, and nothing more, if we can't provide a meaningful definition of God; and I think this is also where atheists have the upper hand over believers, hands down.

You think atheists have a meaningful definition of "god", or what do you mean by "upper hand"? Theists and atheists are not in competition, placing the fundamental theists and political atheists aside. It could be that someone doesn't believe because they don't have a meaningful definition. Also, as was noted earlier by kennethamy, there are weak atheists and strong atheists. Strong atheists believe there is no god, weak atheists don't believe there is a god. There's a distinct difference as weak atheists are not asserting that a god does not exist, but simply rather that they do not believe. Strong atheists are asserting a god does not exist. Personally, I think strong atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

Johnny Fresh wrote:

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but like i said on page 60 God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

I see you're anthropomorphizing "god" here (you've applied a human identity "he"). What notion of "god" are you referring to? The Christian one? How do you know god isn't a she?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;99415 wrote:

You are right. But that doesn't mean that God cannot be the explanation of the universe. It only means that God is not his own explanation. God can still be the explanation of the universe, but not his own explanation. The cause of something need not itself be explained for it to be the cause of that something.

---------- Post added 10-23-2009 at 08:48 AM ----------

I don't know what you mean by "form". But you seem to be saying that every word is a name, and that is certainly not true. "Although" is not a name.

Although is a concept, and the word: although, is the name of the concept, that is, the form: "Although"...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;99424 wrote:

Although is a concept, and the word: although, is the name of the concept, that is, the form: "Although"...

I don't know whether there is a concept of although. But are all words names of concepts? I thought that, for instance, "Rover" is the name of my dog. When I call, "Rover", Rover come over (sometimes), but no concept comes over.

1 Reply

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99368 wrote:

Why do us as humans immediately discard the bible as proof

p1: absolute truth contains no errors or contradictions
p2: the bible is full of errors and contradictions
c: the bible is not absolute truth

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;99430 wrote:

p1: absolute truth contains no errors or contradictions
p2: the bible is full of errors and contradictions
c: the bible is not absolute truth

Well, he didn't say "absolute truth", so I don't know what your argument is to show.

What he did say is "proof", but I'm not quite sure what he is supposing is proven by the bible. There are things which the bible can lend proof to, such as historical references e.g. names of kings, apostles, nations, disputes etc., which we believe, for the most part, did actually occur or were real.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99434 wrote:

Well, he didn't say "absolute truth", so I don't know what your argument is to show.

What he did say is "proof", but I'm not quite sure what he is supposing is proven by the bible. There are things which the bible can lend proof to, such as historical references e.g. names of kings, apostles, nations, disputes etc., which we believe, for the most part, did actually occur or were real.

I am simply stating that you cant use the bible as proof for the existence of a god or gods. Since it contains errors and contradictions that a god would have had to know but clearly points out didn't. It doesn't reflect the mind of a god, it reflects the mind of bronze age knowledge.

As far as some elements of the bible being accurate to history is still debated. I generally feel that most just assume the bible as an accurate historical document and lean heavily towards that rather than using other sources. I am not saying names, places or even events are not accurate, I am saying there is a huge bias with many researchers even.

I saw this show on the discovery channel, but can't remember the name of it. I think someone here might know what I am talking about after mentioning what it was about. The host considers himself a biblical researcher even though he has no academic credential to be a researcher of any kind. Anyways during one of these episodes he was trying to find the site of saddam and gomorrah.

For twenty minutes they showed what could have been a settlement at one time but all they did was prick their finger at these little tiny globules of salt deposits in the dirt. They called this "convincing evidence" and hard to dismiss making it a crediable site for these two cities that were destroyed by god.

I couldn't help but think that all the money that was wasted in the making of this so called documentry show. But anyways to get back to my point. Using the bible as proof of anything is highly suspect in my opinion. Can the flood story hold up to scientific scrutiny? Not at all, and I can point out about two dozen flaws. But people are slowly relinquishing that story as just a metaphor or moral tale and not an actual event. Even still there are people who believe it to be an actual event.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99434 wrote:

What he did say is "proof", but I'm not quite sure what he is supposing is proven by the bible.

Infinite human gullibility?

Just a suggestion...

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Krumple wrote:

Using the bible as proof of anything is highly suspect in my opinion.

Why is it any more suspect than any other ancient text? I am not claiming that we should, without doubt, assume the bible is proof of anything. But, the fact is, there are things which it is proof for. For instance, the accounts of the kingdoms Judah and Israel, written about in the the book of "Kings", are considered largely historical. I believe many of the kings written about are also considered to have actually lived during the time period. We have other evidence from ancient civilizations which corroborate some things which are written in the bible, making the bible historical proof for some things.

Things like the flood story, in my eyes, are in an entirely different category. We have no evidence for this happening ever in human history, nor do we have any evidence that a man can survive inside of a whale for three days. In fact, we have evidence that the latter cannot happen. But, as you noted, I think these things are slowly but surely becoming understood as parables, rather than actual events. As they should be.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99450 wrote:

Why is it any more suspect than any other ancient text? I am not claiming that we should, without doubt, assume the bible is proof of anything. But, the fact is, there are things which it is proof for. For instance, the accounts of the kingdoms Judah and Israel, written about in the the book of "Kings", are considered largely historical. I believe many of the kings written about are also considered to have actually lived during the time period. We have other evidence from ancient civilizations which corroborate some things which are written in the bible, making the bible historical proof for some things.

There is one odd literary question that arises since you mention kings. The pharaoh mention in the bible is not given a name. Some historians call this into question because it would be the equivalent of saying king as a individuals name. It references no one by saying king. So why wasn't the pharaoh addressed accurately? Even if it was used in the form of respect to address him as pharaoh is highly questionable since he is often painted as being less than a king in some sense. So why continue to leave him unnamed? If this one tiny thing had been done, it could have easily been matched up with current historical knowledge of ancient Egypt. Perhaps this is why he is unnamed? So these events couldn't be tracked?

Zetherin;99450 wrote:

Things like the flood story, in my eyes, are in an entirely different category. We have no evidence for this happening ever in human history, nor do we have any evidence that a man can survive inside of a whale for three days. In fact, we have evidence that the latter cannot happen. But, as you noted, I think these things are slowly but surely becoming understood as parables, rather than actual events. As they should be.

The problem becomes, just how many stories are not stories at all? The resurrection? Is it accurate? Or just another tale? This is where most just pick and choose but picking and choosing is not accurate in the least bit. It is no different than saying superman is real but batman is just a tale.

Here is one question I think that gets left out a lot in this kind of discussion;

What was god doing for all that "time" before he created the universe?

note: I reject the theory that god exists within a timeless dimension. So that argument with me doesn't hold up to anything. My reasoning is simple. You can't do anything without time, therefore you couldn't create anything.

However; if you truly want to make the argument that god exists in a timeless dimension it still does not answer to question to leave it at that.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99417 wrote:

It doesn't? It sounds very much like the question "So what created god?" presupposes that a) god exists and b) something created god.

The question could easily just mean something like, "If God created the world, then who created God?". And that certainly does not assume God exists. But, as I pointed out, whether or not there is an answer to the question, who created God (supposing God exists) it is a different question from the question, who created the universe? for which the answer might be, God did. That I cannot answer the question, who created God? shows nothing about the answer, God created the universe.

The weak atheist has nothing to prove (except that he does not believe in God) but the strong atheist has to say why he believes God does not exist. That is not to say that the SA may not have good reasons. So, he need not rely on faith.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

kennethamy wrote:

The question could easily just mean something like, "If God created the world, then who created God?". And that certainly does not assume God exists. But, as I pointed out, whether or not there is an answer to the question, who created God (supposing God exists)

Why did you just type "(supposing God exists)" after hypothetically entertaining the question, "Who created God?", but then in the sentence before state "What created God" (the question that I was referring to in my post) does not assume that God exists? How doesn't "What created God?" assume that God exists? I don't understand. If God didn't exist, what would be the point of the question?

Quote:

That is not to say that the SA may not have good reasons. So, he need not rely on faith.

I've never heard of any reasons for an atheist believing there is no god that were better than the reasons for a theist believing there is a god. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Also, if strong atheists don't have to rely on faith, then it appears theists don't either, right? Or, why would theists have to rely on faith and strong atheists not, assuming they both had good reasons?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99471 wrote:

Why did you just type "(supposing God exists)" after hypothetically entertaining the question, "Who created God?", but then in the sentence before state "What created God" (the question that I was referring to in my post) does not assume that God exists? How doesn't "What created God?" assume that God exists? I don't understand. If God didn't exist, what would be the point of the question?

I think him writing it that way is a way to show his position as well as his arguments position. It's for clarity and to remove any hint of confusion. Just like I don't believe there is a god, yet I can fashion questions what would god think. To some they would assume that my question was hypothetical but others might be confused and pull out a contradiction where there isn't really one. If I don't believe in god, why am I asking this question?

Zetherin;99471 wrote:

I've never heard of any reasons for an atheist believing there is no god that were better than the reasons for a theist believing there is a god. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

A pretty good reason is the same as why I don't believe in gremlins. Sure they appear in books, dreams and movies, but do they really exist? I hold this same reasoning for god. Just because god appears in conversations, books and movies, doesn't mean it exists.

Zetherin;99471 wrote:

Also, if strong atheists don't have to rely on faith, then it appears theists don't either, right? Or, why would theists have to rely on faith and strong atheists not, assuming they both had good reasons?

Theists must rely on faith because they lack evidence to back up the claim that god exists. But since the atheist sees no evidence of god they can come to the conclusion that no go exists. It is exactly the same reasoning I gave before with gremlins. If there is no substantial evidence for the existence of gremlins, why would I need faith to believe they don't exist? That is just silly. The theist doesn't have that luxury because faith is the only basis they have to explain the existence of god.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Krumple wrote:

Theists must rely on faith because they lack evidence to back up the claim that god exists. But since the atheist sees no evidence of god they can come to the conclusion that no go exists. It is exactly the same reasoning I gave before with gremlins. If there is no substantial evidence for the existence of gremlins, why would I need faith to believe they don't exist? That is just silly. The theist doesn't have that luxury because faith is the only basis they have to explain the existence of god.

As was discussed earlier, all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your not observing god or not having evidence for god does not mean that god does not exist. In the case of gremlins, your reasons for not believing they exist can be justified. For instance, you may choose to show that they (gremlins) don't fit in evolutionarily (into any species of creature).

What evidence does a strong atheist have that god does not exist (I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm not versed in their arguments)? I am a weak atheist, for the record. That is, I do not believe in god. This does not mean that I am asserting that god does not exist, though. I don't believe that my mother is in her kitchen right now, either, but it doesn't mean she's not. My believing and the thing actually existing don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Quote:

A pretty good reason is the same as why I don't believe in gremlins. Sure they appear in books, dreams and movies, but do they really exist? I hold this same reasoning for god. Just because god appears in conversations, books and movies, doesn't mean it exists.

Also, just for the record, you never stated a pretty good reason here, did you?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99482 wrote:

As was discussed earlier, all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your not observing god or not having evidence for god does not mean that god does not exist. In the case of gremlins, your reasons for not believing they exist can be justified. For instance, you may choose to show that they (gremlins) don't fit in evolutionarily (into any species of creature).

See I find your response to this incredibly humorous. Why do you make god exempt to the same reasoning as the existence of gremlins? You are presupposing that god does not carry the same characteristics therefore is exempt to standard evidence. But HOW do you come to that conclusion? You are adding in something that I find missing. You are adding a secret ingredient into the equation but never stated what it is. You can't do that or your argument is completely and utterly baseless. So you must provide how is it you come to the conclusion that god is exempt from standard forms of observational evidence.

Zetherin;99482 wrote:

What evidence does a strong atheist have that god does not exist (I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm not versed in their arguments)? I am a weak atheist, for the record. That is, I do not believe in god. This does not mean that I am asserting that god does not exist, though. I don't believe that my mother is in the kitchen right now, either, but it doesn't mean she's not. My believing and the thing actually existing don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Yes but you have to have a standard as a basis first or else all other statements built upon that basis are questionable. Because I have never met your mother, couldn't I say she doesn't exist? You failed to consider my position. So we would have to go to the next step and say, since you exist, therefore you must have had a mother at some point. Since no one has ever been born without having a mother. (at least not that I have ever seen) So does she exist? It is possible, but where is the evidence? It is only in one place. The fact that if you exist, you must have had a mother.

With god we can't do this sort of deductive reasoning. There is no basis yet theist like to invent a basis and they assume that everyone accepts their basis. They are so unaware of this fact that they do this, they tip toe around it because they don't want to damage in any way this weak basis.

Zetherin;99482 wrote:

Also, just for the record, you never stated a pretty good reason here, did you?

I did but you refuse to accept that gremlins and god are equivalent in their characteristics of existence. Which goes back to my first paragraph's question.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Krumple wrote:

Because I have never met your mother, couldn't I say she doesn't exist?

Yes, this would essentially mean she were dead. If I say Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist, I would mean he were dead, not that he never existed. So, yes, you could say this, but you'd have no basis for making this claim as you don't know my mother.

Quote:

So does she exist? It is possible, but where is the evidence?

You'd need further evidence than the simple fact that I exist to answer the question "Does she exist?". I think you must mean here, "Has your mother ever existed?", and, in this case, I think the core piece of evidence would be that I existed.

Quote:

I did but you refuse to accept that gremlins and god are equivalent in their characteristics of existence

You sound like a fundamental theist, trying to force a notion of "god" on me. What makes you think god has the same characteristics of existence as any creature? The burden of proof is on you, not me. I never claimed "God" was anything. I merely asked what evidence strong atheists have for "God" not existing. Do you know the answer to this question?

Quote:

With god we can't do this sort of deductive reasoning.

Of course you can. And many have. Have you heard of Thomas Aquinas? One can prove the existence of god through an argument, but this does not necessitate that god exists. The argument can be valid, but the soundness of any of the premises or conclusion can be debatable. Here's an example:

P1: All fruit are made of aluminium.
P2: Oranges are fruit.
C: Oranges are made of aluminium.

The argument is valid, but the conclusion and premises, as far as we know fruit, are unsound. People can make up deductive arguments for whatever they desire, but it doesn't necessarily make the thing they're arguing for or against true (or false).

Quote:

You can't do that or your argument is completely and utterly baseless.

What argument of mine do you find baseless, or did you not mean that one of my arguments was baseless?

2 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know