On the issue of god

There is a third approach. I believe that the entire concept of a God is a non-issue. The only concern that I have about it, is that it is superimposed upon me by other people.

I need to consider the concept because people are going to war, and killing each other over it. I need to consider the idea because people are attempting to pass laws limiting what I can do with MY life based on their interpretations of what a God supposedly instructed them.

If it were up to me, I would not think at all about a God. It has no meaning for me.

I understand and agree. But you'd still have questions about your origin, the way of the world and all other things you don't understand, don't you think? I know I would.

But another thing just occured to me. Based on the perspective of your post we can say that god is entirely real. It is a factor that we must take into consideration for the reasons you mention. Made by man or man's maker is suddenly beside the point.

By the way phoenix, why are your letters big and green? Did the birds and the aligators do that?

Agnostics deny neither faith nor reason.

Agnostics sound like reasonable people.

Maybe I'm a bit agnostic, because I have this idea that everything computes, even if I don't understand how. If something is illogical to me, then most likely it is my logic that is flawed, not the information i recieve. If your idealism or your religion has trouble incorporating new knowledge into it's systems, then those systems are inadequate.

You are all way to clever for me but in my own simple way I will explain what I think.

WE INVENTED GOD.

WE INVENTED RELIGION.

Do you think God would exsist if there were no people on the planet.
Would the animals and single celled ameobas worship a God?

From what I can see religion has caused violence and yet its supposed to preach love.

I believe there is 'something'.Not a God but a power that we all have to amass a 'feeling'.(cant really explain that one)

People shouldnt force there beliefs/religion on others in the same way I shouldnt force this opinion on anyone.Then again this forum would be half empty if it wasnt for religion.

BTW Pheonix-I like big and green,like The Hulk.

Re: On the issue of god


As you have "just wanted to hear some thought on the subject," i'll give you some of mine. I've selectively edited what you wrote for a purpose: i am one of the non-religious people of whom you speak, and am responding to what you have written.

There are several inaccuracies in what you've written, at least as regards my outlook. I don't "cling" to reason. Reason is a tool, and i use it as such. A completely reasonable train of thought can sometimes lead to a "wrong," which is to say, a non-utilitarian conclusion. Because reason is a tool, if that occurs, then the obvious suggestion is that i've misused the tool. You also contend that those who "cling to reason" then deny faith because of logic. That is a false assumption as well. Given that my reason may lead me to a conclusion which is for the time being functional, i will have faith that what has been concluded will continue to be usefull. However, should this prove not to be true, i will attempt to modify the train of reason to account for the previous success as well as to take into account the falsifying event. It is clinging to "faith," and especially to a faith based only upon contention as opposed to previous observation and experience which i consider the pernicious activity.

I do not define god as an impossibility. I consider all explanations of the nature of a deity which have heretofore been advanced of which i am aware as improbable, and therefore not anything which enters into the means by which i account for what i observe and experience.

The remainder of your disquistion is simply a convenient, and false, statement to support your thesis. Method is another description of an intellectual tool, it is not false, although a faulty method may lead to false conclusions. In such a case, one doesn't abandon the tool, or metaphorically throw up one's hands in disgust--the thing to do, which seems obvious to me, is to revise the method to make it more effective.

Sorry if that doesn't fulfill your expectations, or if it is insufficiently spiritual for you. This statement of yours is more than simply subjective, it is willfully constructed so as to suggest that those who operate in life without god or a concept of god are flawed thinkers. No one is likely deserving of a description as a perfect thinker. Failing of perfection is a paltry excuse not to attempt to use mental tools, and to improve mental tools, to provide oneself a means of effectively dealing with the world in which one lives.

I give your attempt here very low marks for construction. It appears to me nothing other than an ill-reasoned attempt to provide a set of terms for a discussion, the result of which you would like to predict in advance.

I like Phoenix and Set's take on it. If it were not for deists and agnostics trying to force their interpretations on the rest of us the world would go around without wobbling so much.

Setanta wrote:


I was trying to put it as black and white as I could. But that is not to say that the attempt wasn't indeed far fetched.



Oh it fulfills my expectations perfectly. I am not out to point to people's flaws, but to unearth my own. I think trust without understanding can be more damaging to the individual than mistrust for the sake of higher learning. When it comes to who are flawed thinkers, aren't we all?

Yes, you are right to call my statement willfully constructed, though not with the intention you predict. If I'd paid for this I'd say I've gotten my money's worth.

Thanks.

Seeing as agnostics are either those who believe it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not, or those that are sceptical about the existence of God but do not profess true atheism, I severely doubt they're forcing their interpretations on the rest of us.

I class myself as agnostic, as there is insufficient evidence to form any conclusions on the existence of God.

Deists? Yes, some deists do force their interpretations on us and that is abhorrent. The terrorrists? Oh, the Islamic ones are doing it. The Islamic Dictatorships? You can bet they're forcing their interpretations. The old Catholic Church? Definitely. The new Catholic Church, in a way, it is.

Even some atheists are doing it.

Agnostics, though? No, I can't see that happening.

It's mainly a rabid, ferverent minority of extremists that are forcing things down our throat, and I think Cyracuz's opening statement can apply only to them, even if Cyracuz didn't intend that application.

I met a young woman the other day who was wearing a necklace with a silver-colored metal capsule. I asked her about it and she said that the capsule was "polarized" and that it would purify foods and keep cut apples from turning brown.

It seems that people can have irrational faith in science as well as gods.

There may be divine powers of unknown origin and intent acting in the universe. There may not. But people need something to believe in when faced with an incomprehensible universe where life is a constant struggle for survival, Satan/Nature conspires against us, unseen menaces abound, and apples inexplicably turn brown.

That isn't even real science. There is no real science behind it and it's just gobbledy-gook.

There are those people out there who are predisposed to believing. It doesn't matter what. They are predisposed to believing in something that requires faith and has no proof. The mainstream are religious people. The non-mainstream are believers in alien UFOs coming to this Earth from far-away planets and believers in New Age quackery.



Not all do, just those that are predisposed to faith.

"I confused things with their names: that is belief."
--Jean-Paul Sartre

You can believe in the idea of a God without believing that such a God "physically" exists, for all that is actually important transcends what is "physical", anyway. The debate between believers and non-believers is caused by misconception on the part of both groups: believers think that the legitimacy of their belief, a life dedicated to love and compassion in ideal if not actually practice, proves the physical existence of a God that mandates such laws- on the other hand atheists see no justification for such a law-giver and therefore criticize belief in an idea mistaken for a name that is God. In either case, both groups are partially correct in their affirmation of what they believe to be true and in their critique of what is false in the opposing perspective - a critique that becomes conflict when neither group can see that both perspectives are true in part, although what is closer to truth goes beyond both.

but what of the gap that most religions leave in the mindof those who want ot belive, but also want to know more. Is it such a bad thing to belive in both, god and science, creation and evolution? Diesm leaves that door open, god creates the earth, and sits back, while evolution takes a hand at driving. Or, God is a loving father, who asks you a question you don't know the answer to, so you have to find it( through science) and though some say that there is no pure science, i say that there is no pure religion. Old Age Catholics completly denied science and killed those who accepted scientific method as an answer to their unanswered questions, which their religion made for them. Part of this was an attempt by the clergy to gain power over every thing. Even in relgion, as in the world of science, we find power hungary people.

I view a balance in life, not some quagmire of beliefs and findings. I'm diest, i know that it's not widely accepted, but it comes closest to what i believe in what acctually happened. God made the big bang, watched the war between matter and antimatter, saw that matter won, and went to work with that. He allows everything to pool together and form galaxies and planets, and he desides he's going to experiment. On our planet, he creates single celled ameobas and other single celled organisms, and since the atmosphere was still changing when he got ahold of it, changes happened in the organisms. Boom, there you have creationism and evolutionism, and they co-exist perfectly. And, scientest don't just test one tube, they have like five or more tubes with the same experiment under diferent conditions being preformed. Enter the Aliens. God choose other Plantes with different atmospheres and gravites to see the differences of change in organisms. The cell that eventually evolved into us, may have changed into some kind of Giant Purple Blob that is very easily pissed off, or into some little green dude who floats around and winks to make things happen.

Death may be an evolution. One trancends from the physical into an energy being( Ghosts) and they have the same memories they had in their physical bodies. Some that evolve prematurly, are still physically attached to the world and are considered manifestations. They just need the proper time to evolve completly. Eventually they may evovle to the level were they are on the same plane as God. ( I know this completly denies satan and hell but i don't like to belive in him/her and there.) Maybe there is no Heaven, maybe it's just the final evolution to hope to reach with out being destroyed before you reach there and being completly wiped out.

I think i've shown a way the science and relgion can Co-exist, atleast it does to me.

My point was that science and God are in fact the same thing, God becoming self-conscious through and in science/history.

The agnostics work just as hard as the deists to get us to accept "something."