Is god necessary anymore?

To the extent that "god" is a convenient backdrop to the authoritarianism of priestly castes, and to the extent that the concept shelters the delicate sensibilities of the ignorant and superstitious (what Wilso refers to as the crutch), that "god" is just as necessary to those functions as ever.

0 Replies

I am so the minority on A2K when it comes to this. I try to almost never get involved in any conversation surrounding God and peoples beliefs or disbeliefs in Him.
-------------Now------------

I think the question of whether God is necessary anymore depends on the individual and what they believe. My personal beliefs are that God is God, there's no 'explaining' either way. It's simply my faith based on the Bible (which I consder to be the inspired Word of God). I'm not here to defend my position (and I won't try to do so) simply here to say that for me, in my family according to my faith and my life and the works that I've seen in my prayer life in conjunction with my living of life....God is necessary and I would be utterly running amock and off the cuff if I didn't think so.

Also...

I see so many posts that label Believers as ignorant or nonsensical or any other sort of wording with the same effect and meaning and I must say that to me it bespeaks of an intolerance for people who simply choose to believe in God and are being sort of thrown in the mud because of it. No one bemoans those who chose not to believe...

*whew*

0 Replies

onyxelle wrote:

I see so many posts that label Believers as ignorant or nonsensical or any other sort of wording with the same effect and meaning and I must say that to me it bespeaks of an intolerance for people who simply choose to believe in God and are being sort of thrown in the mud because of it. No one bemoans those who chose not to believe...

I have never seen such a good argument for the side of believers (or plain tolerance). Good job.

0 Replies

Individual wrote:

onyxelle wrote:
I see so many posts that label Believers as ignorant or nonsensical or any other sort of wording with the same effect and meaning and I must say that to me it bespeaks of an intolerance for people who simply choose to believe in God and are being sort of thrown in the mud because of it. No one bemoans those who chose not to believe...

I have never seen such a good argument for the side of believers (or plain tolerance). Good job.

Oh yeah!

The religious of the world have always been very, very tolerant of the non-religious.

In fact, they often went out of their way to be sure they were alive and conscious when they burned them -- so they would have a chance to repent.

0 Replies

This case is definitely one of wearing any shoes which fit . . .

In response to the title question, i wrote:

To the extent that "god" is a convenient backdrop to the authoritarianism of priestly castes, and to the extent that the concept shelters the delicate sensibilities of the ignorant and superstitious (what Wilso refers to as the crutch), that "god" is just as necessary to those functions as ever.

And i see nothing wrong with pointing out that for authoritarian clergy, and laity made fearful by superstition and ignorance, god is certainly necessary. Were one a member of the clergy, and had no authoritarian urge, or were one devout, but neither fearfully ignorant nor superstitious, the remark certainly would not apply to them. It would for such individuals be a matter of their own conscious whether or not they consider god necessary, and i could have no knowledge of what that opinion would hold, absent being informed of as much. I haven't expressed any opinion upon the likely "need" of such persons, and wouldn't due the lack of any certain knowledge.

Those taking offense to what i wrote inferentially place themselves in one of those two categories.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The religious of the world have always been very, very tolerant of the non-religious...they often went out of their way to be sure they were alive and conscious when they burned them -- so they would have a chance to repent.

Thank you for your criticism but that's not what I meant at all. I made no direct connection, believers and tolerance just happened to be in close proximity. I actually hold the same sarcasm tainted views as you, most of the time.

0 Replies

Frank and Setana
Please tell me we've been over this before??
And .................
It's coming close to time for both sides to consider some tolerance and respect for differing opinions before we have to broadly paint over an indivduals personal belief and not a bunch of pent-up history. Wink

Frank you make my blood boil now and then - now is close to one.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Terry, for whatever a person deems necessary.

I believe in prayer, affirmations, and a spritual bond to a universe much greater than myself.

Agreed that individuals can find strength by believing in a god, the act of praying can have psychological benefits for both the prayer and the prayee, and that we are all connected in some way to a larger universe, but the question is still:

What is god necessary for? You can get the same benefits from a religion that does not believe in gods.

0 Replies

Individual wrote:

Terry wrote:
I see no evidence of its [god's] intervention, and doubt if anything would be different if it stopped doing whatever it is that you think it does.

According to the torah, the best mitzvah or tzedaka is anonymous. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew and it's probably a safe bet that Islam holds the same belief. So, why wouldn't god be held to the same standards?

Agreed that a god could do things anonymously, for its own obscure reasons, and expect people to believe in it by faith. But what is it that you think God actually does?

0 Replies

onyxelle wrote:

I'm not here to defend my position (and I won't try to do so) simply here to say that for me, in my family according to my faith and my life and the works that I've seen in my prayer life in conjunction with my living of life....God is necessary and I would be utterly running amock and off the cuff if I didn't think so.

Also...

I see so many posts that label Believers as ignorant or nonsensical or any other sort of wording with the same effect and meaning and I must say that to me it bespeaks of an intolerance for people who simply choose to believe in God and are being sort of thrown in the mud because of it. No one bemoans those who chose not to believe...

I have noticed that some people read things that were not said or meant into posts. This is a discussion forum, and you need to understand that people may consider your arguments to be ignorant or nonsensical without being intolerant of Believers personally.

That said, do you think that God is necessary to the world in general, or only to Believers like yourself?

0 Replies

Like some others, I never get involved in these discussions because of the seeming intolerance on both sides of the question. There are, certainly, a lot of views and, humanly, they are valid. I do not ask that you agree with me, only that my views are allowed without attack.

I believe it is a moot question as to whether God is necessary in this day and age...the simple fact, for me, is that He does exist. We only always point out the negative things in this world to ask where God is; ask what kind of God is this. There are positive things in this life which I think do point to his hand...the sunrise and sunset, the colors of the trees and flowers, the perfection of the birds, new babies and people when they do good to others.

We must remember that we are human, not perfect in our thoughts or behavior...it seems we all want people to think like us, or be like us, making us rude and cruel in the process. We are at our worst when we point fingers at others: gays, agnostics, atheists, and say, "you must be like me, and if you are not.............."

Being a believer does not make me weak or stupid...and I try not to say the same about you, whatever your belief is. For me it is a simple matter of faith, cannot be reasoned with man's need for justification or rationale. There have been many events in my life that have caused me to question this, but I always come back to it. There are many things I have read that cause me to question, also..and although many of my views have changed...this one thing remains true for me.

thank you for letting me enter my 2 Cents

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oh yeah!

The religious of the world have always been very, very tolerant of the non-religious.

In fact, they often went out of their way to be sure they were alive and conscious when they burned them -- so they would have a chance to repent.

Frank, you're right. I was speaking in terms of the A2K boards and the posts which I have read. I would not EVER presume to put forth argument that people were not persecuted because they didn't believe. I should have made my statement more clear.

Thanks for checking me :-)

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

That said, do you think that God is necessary to the world in general, or only to Believers like yourself?

I think God is necessary for the World - because my personal faith leads me to believe that he is. I simply don't believe that my life is full of Gods blessings (and punishments perhaps) and the rest of the World is not. I do not believe in coincidence.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Frank and Setana
Please tell me we've been over this before??
And .................
It's coming close to time for both sides to consider some tolerance and respect for differing opinions before we have to broadly paint over an indivduals personal belief and not a bunch of pent-up history.

Keep in mind what we are doing here, Husker. This is a forum for discussing and debating these very contentious issues. In a sense, we are like lawyers in court -- not especially interested in furthering the case for the opposition.

It is to be expected that our positions will be presented with passion and conviction. The words "heat" and "kitchen" come to mind.

In my personal life I am very tolerant. I have to be. Almost everyone in my family is religious -- and I love them very much.

My remark was sarcastic -- and meant to put an exclamation point on a perspective in rebuttal to something offered from the other side -- a remark that I deemed appropriate.

If it makes you feel any better, in another thread, I am defending religious thought as regards fundamental Christian attempts to lobby for laws that really have no other basis than religion.

Yes, we have been over this before, Husker. I suspect it will come up again. And I further suspect you will participate again -- just as Setanta and I will.

Quote:

Frank you make my blood boil now and then - now is close to one.

I would suggest two aspirins -- and a cooling shower. :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Sorry Frank, I am terribly sarcastic also but with an online forum others don't have the benefit of my voice inflection or facial gestures. Moving on...

Terry wrote:

What is god necessary for?

I'm asking whether god is necessary to carry out his divine plan, or keep the world in order, or whatever it is that you think that god does or would do if he existed.

Terry wrote:

You can get the same benefits from a religion that does not believe in gods.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, would you please explain?

0 Replies

First of all i would like to say that wondering whether God exists or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the belief on god has real impact on the life of many people.

In countries where people are live to strive for an unreachable dream complused by their goverment and advertized by those who live it a god might not seem necessary. In countries were people need to believe in something to justify their inability to help them selves. in countries that lack an all-seeing goverment. a god is necessary to maintain order.

Nontheless this does not mean that God is not necessary in coutries with strong govermets like First world countries. it is important to point out what it is exactly that we mean by God. If by God we mean someone or something that sees it all and is willing to price us por punish us we can say that goverment and policiticians have become atlternative Gods. With the introduction of moder camares and microphones, being able to see it all are no longer godly characteristics. Not to mention music starts and movie heros which withdraw all the emotion aclamations and fidelity that God once did.

Perhaps the question should not be whether or not we need God. But whether we have changed our God.

in sum i believe that men cannot live without God and it does not matter what type of god it is. What it matter is the believe it self of a superior being that deserves our respect and devotion. I am not saying that movie starts and politicians are Gods. I highly respect existing believes of different Gods and it is not my wish to offend anyone. My point is that the idea of a superior being and some kind of purpose and reason behind the bigger picture of life is what keeps us alive. Therefore God, some time of god will allways be necessary for the human race.

Jessie Venegas

0 Replies

jessie_venegas- Welcome to Able2Know!

0 Replies

I reccomend the book "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman (sp?) if only because it's a fun read.

G-d is a very helpful thought when someone passes away or you have no one else to talk to. G-d is especially appealing to poorer nations. Americans do not experience the same kind of hardships as those of poorer nations, and we have a high education level and work with the sciences (empirical thought). These factors tend to steer people away from a belief in g-d.

However, it seems that as long as there are humans, cultures will rise and fall, and the early stages of civilization make good breeding ground for g-ds.

G-ds as concepts in minds could not survive once humans become extinct, unless the dogs and dolphins have been hiding idols under their fins (and paws.)

0 Replies

truth
By the question, "Is God necessary any more?" are we referring to religion in general or only the theistic version? The anthropological picture of religion is VERY complex and varied, with many forms of mythology ritual and belief. But if we confine ourselves to the religions of Abraham, some fuzzy generalizations may be suggested. The religion of Islam still seems for the most part (Saddam's secular society would be an exception) to base political and judicial authority on religious principle. This was so in Judaism and Christianity as well, until relatively recent. With the Enlightenment and the rise of constitutional governments, the religious foundations for societal order were shaken. Dostoyevski's existentialism faced the horror of God's death: If God is dead, one of his characters exclaimed, then everything is possible--meaning moral anarchy. Nietzsche's Zarathustra proclaimed the death of God, meaning, in part, that societies no longer need religion to support authority; legal constitutions can do that.
But at the individual level, the fear of death (forget about moral order) and the oblivion of the Self, drives the weaker among us to find rest in the belief in a benevolent father. Just as societies have "grown up" in the sense of organizing themselves (not without some remnants, of course) in terms of man-made social contracts, individuals should continually strive to accept the reality of their mortality. This is not easy, but then neither is growing up.

0 Replies

A little confused!
If you are a theist, asking if God is neccessary is pointless because God's existence is a fact whether you want it or not. If you don't believe in God, then are you saying people would pray to one anyway because it makes them feel better?
If God exists the we can't just say,"Yeah, sure, but I don't need him!" You could say that men just create the idea of God to help them - is that what you're saying?
Please help me I'm confused! Is this an argument aboutr hte existence of God or the nature of God or what? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Is god necessary anymore?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know