why do people believe in god?

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Originally posted by nowonmai:
put another way:
when the tool you possess is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
and, yes, I agree that we view reality through our own unique perspective, which, in turn is created by our experiences.
my reasoning comes from the fact that, as I have said, I can explain everything around me without the necessity for a god. that and my belief in 'occam's razor' which, simply put, states that the simplest solution is usually the right one.

There is no way that I can disagree with or not respect anything in that statement. However, I think you're over-looking one very
important detail. Your views seem to barely differ from my own. To me god is as simple as anything else that is considered to be more simple. The only difference i see really is that i have acknowledged that all those beliefs are actually beliefs in god. I see so many people on this message board who believe in god and yet they dont even realize it. They think they are atheist or they smack some other label on themselves.

I base my belief structure (and yes it is a belief, but not blind faith) on this principle, and based on this, find it more credible that the universe and everything in it came about as the result of chance rather than that there is a onmipotent being/creature which is responsible for its orchestration.

my opinion is you are just misinterpreting the image that nearly all religious text is trying to convey. In the end, they are all speaking of the same thing, just different interpretations and perceptions of it. My view is no different in that sense then the rest of the other views on god. It is just another way of describing, interpreting, and percieving the very same thing. Some descriptions are simply more metaphorical then others. They are not at all meant to be taken literally. God is not some dude in the sky that shoots lighting rods down at people when he gets mad. (btw, the previous statement is just an exageration of what you mentioned, "onmipotent being/creature which is responsible for its orchestration")

I dont get it, when will people stop being so blind and finally realize that no TRUE spiritualist (one without blind faith) views god as an all-powerfull supreme being who knows everything and can do anything at any time god wishes? We dont believe god created the universe, we believe that god IS the universe and everything within it. The reason the term god is used is because it applies seriously to that view considering the fact that when you get down to it, it is what he is described as in nearly every religion. Metaphorically or literally, anyway they describe it, once you cut all the bullshit about pre-marital sex and other things along the lines of that out, you're left with the same exact thing.

you'll notice that I make a distinction between belief and faith. to me, faith is based on nothing more than faith, with no evidence, whereas a belief can be proved.

Anything that has or can be proved is not belief, it is fact. If you believe something, you believe it because you do not know whether its true or not. If you knew it was true, it would be improper to say you believe it. The more proper thing to say instead of "I believe" would be "I know". The reason you say "I believe" is because you do not know. So I dont quite understand what it is exactly you are trying to get at with the above quoted statement. Perhaps I misunderstood.

my position is really that nothing I have ever experienced gives me cause to believe that god in any form may exist.

according to most views of god, (when interpreted correctly), you, nowonmai, experience god everyday. You are a part of god, it is that simple. God is a living entity that is all of existance. You part of all of existance, you experience being a part of all of existance and are aware that you are a part of all of existance and that all of existance exists. Therefore, you experience god everyday. You do not experience god in his true form and are not god, however you still know that you obviously are a part of all of existance and cannot deny that all of existance is existant. So you in fact partially believe in god and do not even know it, like many other people. Everybody who believes that all of existance exists and that they are a part of it partially believe in god. The only thing lacking is the belief that god is a living entity.

Science is just another way of looking at and explaining how god works. Proven facts that god works and functions in any certain specific way That is all it is. It really is that simple.

True spirituality is a way of looking and god and seeking anwsers to not yet anwsered questions, which will probably be anwsered eventually by science. It is just theories that are too far-fetched by social standards to be considered scientifical. These theories are based on both scientifical fact and not scientfical fact. But, you have to understand that before something becomes scientifical fact, that is what it starts out as. Not scientifical fact and just a far-fetched theory. These theories that aren't based on scientifical fact are formed from observation of reality. A lof of these theories will be proven wrong. But, who is to say that some of them will not be proven to be right?

just to clarify, I do not claim to know anything i have mentioned above for a fact. It is simply my beliefs, because to me it seems logical not because i was taught it all my life. (I wasn't taught it all my life.)

peace and much love to all,
- Tr6ai0ls4 -

P.S. Just to clarify, I do not claim to know anything i have mentioned above for a fact. It is simply my beliefs, because to me it seems logical not because i was taught it all my life (I wasn't taught it all my life). It seems common that people assume that i was carrying some tone that implies that I know I'm right. This is not the case. I am just stating my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Just like the rest of you guys...
i will come back and edit later.. if there are errors...

 

[psychoblast]

I love how people today can claim to know that adherents of ancient religions were all thinking about an aspect of the same being. Like how the hell can you know that? Some of them might have been crap made up by some con man who knew a few tricks to impress the stupid. Some of them might have been fictional stories that evolved to be taken literally. It is just retarded to claim certainty that ALL religions all have validity as aspects of the same thing. It is a simple-minded and unsupportable generalization.
I mean, even if there is a god, and even if many religions are all talking about the same god, that STILL does not mean that some of the religions are not just full of shit made up by greedy men. Take scientology for example.
~psychoblast~

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

I love how people today can claim to know that adherents of ancient religions were all thinking about an aspect of the same being. Like how the hell can you know that? ......

Did you just not read my post or something?
Heres a quote straight out of it...

just to clarify, I do not claim to know anything i have mentioned above for a fact. It is simply my beliefs, because to me it seems logical not because i was taught it all my life. (I wasn't taught it all my life.)

missed that ???

..... Some of them might have been fictional stories that evolved to be taken literally. It is just retarded to claim certainty that ALL religions all have validity as aspects of the same thing. It is a simple-minded and unsupportable generalization.
I mean, even if there is a god, and even if many religions are all talking about the same god, that STILL does not mean that some of the religions are not just full of shit made up by greedy men. Take scientology for example.

I agree, and if you would read my post you would have allready known that instead of having to call my ideas retarded...
here's a few more quotes straight out of my post...

my opinion is you are just misinterpreting the image that "nearly all" religious text is trying to convey.

... according to "most" views of god, (when interpreted correctly), ....

I love how you conveniently missed all those parts. Also, I would appreciate it, if the next time you reply to my threads you would at least double check the accuracy of your own statements before you start putting words into my mouth, and calling my ideas "retarded".
Thanx for your time...
peace and much love to you,
- tr6 -

 

[beanergrl]

^^it's nothing new. he does it all the time to me to. you'd wonder why he waste so much energy replying to every God thread he can find. i don't waste my energy half- reading evolutionist threads and then misquote and attack him. i just don't get it. PB why? why? are you so angry? oh, i know. you don't have the joy, joy, joy, down in your heart.

 

[Aftermath]

this one's easy
we know we aer going to die
so to stay from being scared we came up with the idea of god
its called the god part of our brain

 

[NecroTrance]

People believe in god because we are stupid instinctual animals with intellects that seem to overpower our instincts. In all that chaos we question things far too much...Animals with intellects like otters for example question soemthing once and leave it at that...That's why they're able to use rocks and crack open shells of sealife. Humans, however, question things until they die. It's only logical that somewhere along the line we'd question ourselves and our being here, when in reality, the NEED for such questions is non-existant. Do we really need to know where we came from? Wouldn't it seem more logical that all we needed to know was how to survive? Then we when finally did die we would know that we were dead because we wouldn't have to survive anymore and our death would be a gift, rather than something we always try to avoid. Everyone would be much more happy if we could just stop questioning everything so god damn much. No pun intended.
Shit, I see a nice looking girl walk by and my instinct tells me to fornicate, but my thoughts make me think of what might happen or if she would think poorly of it. Jesus Christ! Who could ever think poorly of the act of creation??? Yes, my friends, fornication and reproduction are the ONLY ways we can truly create anything, otherwise we're just putting things together. See where our thoughts get us? They get us into a deep hole of woe and depression, I say we need total freedom, then and only then will we be free. Fuck god, he's the root of all our problems.

 

[nowonmai]

Trails, you spin some very persuasive arguments. By another name, the god you describe might be known as Brahma. I certainly don't deny the existence of great and seemingly ordered complexity in the universe. I am constantly awed by the detail, interoperability and beauty of the universe. I admit that I do get 'spiritual' feelings, for want of a better description, when I contemplate the complexity and elegance of nature. I remember being brought almost to tears at the beauty of a waterfall across the valley from where I used to live. However, and I believe this is the place where our arguments diverge, I don't believe that there is any 'great plan' or any other guiding force behind it all. I still maintain that everything as we see it is how it is because if it were not, we would not be here to witness it. Put another way, the universe gave rise to us (among other things, of which we are neither the greatest, nor the least) because the various physical laws allow life like us (and quite possibly different) to evolve. Determinism only works in hindsight.
One question I want to ask you... does your belief in god (in whatever form) extend to a belief in a soul, and/or other form of spiritual existence? If not, then maybe we are just suffering from a difference in terminology rather than core belief.

Originally posted by Aftermath:
this one's easy
we know we aer going to die
so to stay from being scared we came up with the idea of god
its called the god part of our brain

reductive, but not altogether wrong.
[ 20 February 2003: Message edited by: nowonmai ]

 

[nowonmai]

Originally posted by NecroTrance:
Fuck god, he's the root of all our problems.

I think you're mixing poor god up with money

 

[Bricoleur]

nowonmai,

if an answer to a quaestion can be deduced logically, I find no need to invent something else to answer the same question.

... besides ‘god’ is not an explanation, it is an explanatory cop-out.
Tr6ai0ls4,

ummm... do you think that everybody that believes in god believes because they feel the need to ?

If I were to tell you that at the end of my garden there is an invisible pink unicorn, but before you go down the path to find it you must remember that only when you truly open your eyes will you ‘see’ it. And by see I do not imply a visual signifier. But trust me, once you have truly opened your eyes the invisible pink unicorn that sneezed the universe into existence will make itself known to you. You will know without a doubt when the invisible pink unicorn has graced you – have faith.
Now you walk to the end of my garden... you use whatever means necessary to feel the presence of the invisible pink unicorn, but nothing. I would hope at this point you tell me I am crazy and that there is no invisible pink unicorn. And I answer you by asking why it is permitted for you to claim the same about a human concept called ‘god’? To me ‘god’ and the invisible pink unicorn have one thing in common, not a single shed of evidence anywhere.
So to me the invisible pink unicorn and ‘god’ need to be treated in the exact same manner. But for you the human concept ‘god’ gets treated differently, which begs the question, why do you need to believe in the existence of ‘god’?

do you think that if einstien or any other scientist or inventor such as thomas edison didn't have faith in their beliefs and theories before there was proof didn't just have faith that he or she was right then perhaps they would have never discovered what they did and forever altered the history of humanity?

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce
Faith, belief, trust and related concepts have no place in good science. Science does not need them, for example, we don't need to "believe" that the entire universe has certain characteristics including "constant-space linearity" to perform good science, in fact we have good reason to suppose it does not uniformly have this characteristic.

dont you think that all beliefs were at one point spiritual? think about what people would have thought of you 1000 years ago, if you told em everything is made up of vibrating particles called atoms which have a positive or a negative charge, molecules, chemicals, the earth being round, the elements, other stars and solar systems, gravity, electricity, magnetism??

What is more important is the process. Don’t forget that only 300 years ago there were numerous events that were not explainable and were therefore said to be the act of ‘god’, or some other supernatural explanation. But we managed to give them a ‘natural’ explanation.

also, i would like to add i have a belief that your thoughts manifest them into reality, whatever you believe will be real for you as it is for anybody else, so if you believe in god and have non-blind faith with a logical deduction and without blind-belief from just being taught god all your life, god will be very real to you and god WILL make your life better, and you WILL be more happy..

non-blind faith with a logical deduction!!!
Once one has accepted something, anything, "through faith", you have surrendered your rationality. And I have observed that such an abdication of reason tends to infuse the subject's thinking no matter how carefully the subject believes that they have partitioned their thoughts. As such, I would argue that believing in anything is harmful. Once you have accepted something through faith, you lose the ability to examine that belief. Looking at human history, it seems that believing in gods is especially harmful as they can be, and are frequently are, used to justify UTism...

I dont get it, when will people stop being so blind and finally realize that no TRUE spiritualist (one without blind faith)
Faith is the capacity to accept something despite a lack of evidence – sometimes in the face of contrary evidence. And denying that this is what they do is a part of the brain disease that faith-filled people are afflicted with.

We dont believe god created the universe, we believe that god IS the universe and everything within it.

Then why not call it the universe?
From the WWWebster
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from
uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more
at WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS:
as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct
intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the
entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars
comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed
system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or
problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks... to
choose from -- G. B. Clairmont>
So I define "The universe" as the set of all things real and imaginary. As for the idea that ‘god’ is everything, I like LaPlace to Napoleon on god, say, "I have no need for that hypothesis."

Anything that has or can be proved is not belief, it is fact.

Proof is reserved for logic and mathematics, and nothing else. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Do you know when a theory becomes a fact??

True spirituality is a way of looking and god and seeking anwsers to not yet anwsered questions, which will probably be anwsered eventually by science.

It is just theories that are too far-fetched by social standards to be considered scientifical. These theories are based on both scientifical fact and not scientfical fact. But, you have to understand that before something becomes scientifical fact, that is what it starts out as. Not scientifical fact and just a far-fetched theory. These theories that aren't based on scientifical fact are formed from observation of reality. A lof of these theories will be proven wrong. But, who is to say that some of them will not be proven to be right?
2 BIG problems here (amongst many). For something to be considered scientific – it must be FALSIFIABLE and I am afraid a ‘theory’ of god is not. And then there is the fact that ‘god’ as a ‘theory’ does not explain anything and merely replaces one mystery with another. A ‘theory’ of ‘god’ does not make any predictions either.
take care and control.
the bricoleur.
[ 20 February 2003: Message edited by: Bricoleur ]

 

[psychoblast]

Religion is the syntax error of life.
Humans evolved an extraordinary ability to understand and manipulate our environment for survival. That same ability just sort of hovers around when we aren't engaged in survival and tries to understand and find patterns and sort into groups everything around us. That ability (inadvertently) made us aware of our own mortality, because we see other humans have died and we extrapolate that we will die. Now our survival instinct kicks in to try to overcome the insurmountable end of life. The closest we can come is pretending that we have found a solution. Some hold to that so tight, others can stop pretending and accept mortality.
Oh, I thought the original post might have been trying to claim that the fact that people have believed in god for so long somehow supports the idea that god does, in fact, exist. Which is like going back a few thousand years and saying that since at that time people had a long history of believing that the earth was flat, it probably was. Faulty attempt at inductive logic, if that was intended.
~psychoblast~
[ 20 February 2003: Message edited by: psychoblast ]

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

nowonmai -

does your belief in god (in whatever form) extend to a belief in a soul, and/or other form of spiritual existence?

I believe in a soul, but it is not an extension of my belief in god. I believe your soul is the unique frequency of vibration that your body has. Every atom in your body is vibrating, the summation of the frequencies at which they are vibrating at is a big part of your soul. Another part of your soul is the energy that your body gives off, and the nature (different amounts, and frequencies) of this energy. The energy being, heat, sound, electricity, etc... When you take those two (the vibration of the atoms, and the energy) and put them together. You have your soul. (It goes a lot more in depth then that, this is a bad and really vague description.)
the only thing thing that my belief in soul has to do with my belief in god is that i believe that god is everything and since a soul is a part of everything, it is part of god just as anything else is...

I believe this is the place where our arguments diverge, I don't believe that there is any 'great plan' or any other guiding force behind it all.

Neither do I ... The only belief i have that is similar to that of one of a 'great plan' is that everybody has a unique purpose. Their purpose is to just be alive and do what they do the way they do it.
If you were somehow able to get 1000 newborns who literally know nothing to make a 50 descisions such as picking between red, blue or green lets say. Not all of them would pick the same thing because they are different. I believe if they were identical in every way and it was a controlled experiment they would all pick the same thing in every one of those 50 descisions.
(I have no proof of this, and understand that i could be wrong.)
The point i'm trying to make in the above paragraph is that everybody is different and will respond differently to their environment. Your purpose is to interact with the environment that you're in the way that you interact with it. In order for things to stay in balance and perfect as they are there needs to be somebody in the current time that you exists in that has your characteristics and affects things in the way that you do by just simply being alive and interacting with your environment.
Some people might argue that your characteristics are a variable and are subject to change depending on the way and where you were raised thereby proving that I am wrong. My anwser to this is that I believe that what isn't a variable is how you are when you are born. Not every person responds to everything identically. If you take 2 people and put them each in the same exact life (born, raised and die in the same exact place, in the same exact time, and all events that occur in their life are identical) they will not lead the same exact life and will respond to these events differently. If they were identical in every way. Their lives would have turned out identical to each others.
I do not believe in things that were "meant" to happen, or some force that controlls every event that occurs. So if thats what you were talking about, then our beliefs dont really differ much there.
Bricoleur --

... besides ‘god’ is not an explanation, it is an explanatory cop-out.

according to who? you?

If I were to tell you that at the end of my garden there is an invisible pink unicorn, but before you go down the path to find it you must remember that only when you truly open your eyes will you ‘see’ it. And by see I do not imply a visual signifier. But trust me, once you have truly opened your eyes the invisible pink unicorn that sneezed the universe into existence will make itself known to you. You will know without a doubt when the invisible pink unicorn has graced you – have faith.
Now you walk to the end of my garden... you use whatever means necessary to feel the presence of the invisible pink unicorn, but nothing. I would hope at this point you tell me I am crazy and that there is no invisible pink unicorn. And I answer you by asking why it is permitted for you to claim the same about a human concept called ‘god’? To me ‘god’ and the invisible pink unicorn have one thing in common, not a single shed of evidence anywhere.
So to me the invisible pink unicorn and ‘god’ need to be treated in the exact same manner. But for you the human concept ‘god’ gets treated differently, which begs the question, why do you need to believe in the existence of ‘god’?

Listen to yourself... you are comparing something imaginary (an invisible pink unicorn) to something existant (all of existance).
You said it yourself, TO YOU the invisible pink universe needs to be treated in the same way as god.

The only reason we say to "truly open your eyes" is because some people, are so stuck on the fact that there is no god, that even if you shoved proof right in their face they would still deny gods existance. In order to see anything, not just god, you have to be open to the fact that it might exist. If you are closed to it, no matter what anybody sais or tells you, you will just deny its existance. Do you understand at all what i'm talking about?
The only one thing in that entire quote that I do agree with, is that its bullshit to just tell somebody to open their eyes and see it. There has to be something for them to see. Some kind of signifier, visual or not visual.

Also, i would just like to say.... I DO NOT claim to know that god exists for a fact. My belief in god is no different from any other theory in anything.

Faith, belief, trust and related concepts have no place in good science. Science does not need them, for example, we don't need to "believe" that the entire universe has certain characteristics including "constant-space linearity" to perform good science, in fact we have good reason to suppose it does not uniformly have this characteristic.

How can you even say that? You're saying that there is no need to believe in anything in order to practice good science? Do you think that every scientist didn't believe anything was right or wrong? In order to have any kind of motivation to prove anything you have to either believe that it is either right or wrong. You're not just going to prove something that you absolutely do not care about watsover, unless somebody above you who cares about it tells you to do it. Then there is still belief involved.

What is more important is the process. Don’t forget that only 300 years ago there were numerous events that were not explainable and were therefore said to be the act of ‘god’, or some other supernatural explanation. But we managed to give them a ‘natural’ explanation.

and what do you suppose that 'natural' explanation that you're speaking of is explaining? Something other then reality and the way it works, which is what god is said to be? Anything 'natural' is of god, according to most views of him. Your 'natural' explanations are no different.

You are viewing as god as something which needs no explanation. In your eyes, god is just something to avoid an explanation. Because of this view, you go on about these things which actually do not even apply to my view or the statements that I made. What you are arguing against is not what I said, but something totally different.

Once one has accepted something, anything, "through faith", you have surrendered your rationality. And I have observed that such an abdication of reason tends to infuse the subject's thinking no matter how carefully the subject believes that they have partitioned their thoughts. As such, I would argue that believing in anything is harmful. Once you have accepted something through faith, you lose the ability to examine that belief. Looking at human history, it seems that believing in gods is especially harmful as they can be, and are frequently are, used to justify UTism...

Ok, i agree. But there is one thing wrong with what you're saying. Once you have accepted anything, it is not belief anymore. You're talking about people who claim to 'know' that something exists. All of this only applies when you convince yourself that something exists, not through faith, but through self-hypnosis. If you sit there and say to yourself, "there is a god, there is a god" and just make yourself "know" (not just believe) that there is one, then it isn't through faith or belief. At least not in the way that i look at faith and belief.

Faith is the capacity to accept something despite a lack of evidence – sometimes in the face of contrary evidence. And denying that this is what they do is a part of the brain disease that faith-filled people are afflicted with.

look at the definition of faith posted by you:
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

where do you see anything about accepting anything in that definition? All i see is the word belief, which implies that you do not know something for a fact.
Accepting something, and having faith in it are 2 different things. Do not confuse them with each other.
As for denying it being a brain disease.. that could be applied to anything... i can say the same about you. Denying that faith is not the acceptance of something but just a belief that something could be right is a brain disease. There I said it. What did it prove? nothing....

Then why not call it the universe?

I anwsered this question many times allready...
heres a quote out of one of my previous replies in this thread...

We dont believe god created the universe, we believe that god IS the universe and everything within it. The reason the term god is used is because it applies seriously to that view considering the fact that when you get down to it, it is what he is described as in nearly every religion. Metaphorically or literally, anyway they describe it, once you cut all the bullshit about pre-marital sex and other things along the lines of that out, you're left with the same exact thing.

theres one other thing thats missing in your definition and is the reason the term god is used... the belief in god suggests that the universe is a living entity...
instead of saying living universe and confusing people we say god because it seems to fit with what other religious and spiritual texts describe him as..

Proof is reserved for logic and mathematics, and nothing else. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Do you know when a theory becomes a fact??
Yes I am familiar with the scientific method, and as far as i know, a scientifical fact is anything that has can be proved using it. Once you observe something, you form a hypothesis, test it in a controlled experiment, after you're done you either changed the hypothesis or validated whether it was true or false. If it is true, it is scientifical fact.

So how is proof not associated with determining the validity of something?
according to dictionary.com one of the definitions of proof is:
"The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence. "
this is the proof that i'm speaking of.. I fail to see how that definition is only reserved for mathematics and logic.

2 BIG problems here (amongst many). For something to be considered scientific – it must be FALSIFIABLE and I am afraid a ‘theory’ of god is not. And then there is the fact that ‘god’ as a ‘theory’ does not explain anything and merely replaces one mystery with another. A ‘theory’ of ‘god’ does not make any predictions either.

ok .. 2 BIG problems here
1. name me one theory that is still a theory today that is falsiable....
2. i'm not suggesting god as a theory, what i am suggesting is a theory of what god is... there is a difference..
thanx for all the time everybody put into their threads..
i appreciate the feedback and would like to hear anything further that anybody has to say on this topic...
peace and much love to all,
- tr6 -
[ 21 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[Cimora]

Because of the temporal lobes?
Its an evolutionary advantage to beleive in an afterlife and an all-powerful god, it takes the sting out of death and all injustice. Its a psychological advantage as well obviously.
Otherwise wed have to come to terms with death. Not even the coldest sceptic can really accept there own impending death.

 

[Bricoleur]

Tr6ai0ls4,

according to who? you?

Then tell me what ‘god’ explains.
Once you assert, "a god did it", you preclude the ability to look further. When there is no reason to assert, "a god did it" then saying that and accepting the consequences is irrational in the extreme. To my knowledge to date, no assertion that "a god did it" has withstood long-term examination. Which provides a probabilistic basis for assuming that no assertion that a god did anything will sustain investigation. Thus logic (probabilistic, not bivalued) requires that we eschew "god did it" type answers.
‘gods’ are not answers, they are irrational question blockers.

Listen to yourself... you are comparing something imaginary (an invisible pink unicorn) to something existant (all of existance).

The point was to illustrate that a human concept of ‘god’ is as imaginary as my human concept of an invisible pink unicorn.
If you consider ‘god’ to be ‘all of existence’ then I will address this redundancy later.

The only reason we say to "truly open your eyes" is because some people, are so stuck on the fact that there is no god, that even if you shoved proof right in their face they would still deny gods existance.

Yes and you have just defined a stupid person. The problem is that as a believer you have the burden of proof and as far as I am aware you don’t have any – but if you think there is something glaringly obvious that is ‘right in my face’, please do point it out. Until there is demonstrated evidence of ‘gods’, or perhaps persuasive need for ‘gods’, it is not rational to suppose them.
Oh and if ‘god’ is ‘all of existence’ then I will address this redundancy later – I just have to find Occam.

In order to see anything, not just god, you have to be open to the fact that it might exist. If you are closed to it, no matter what anybody sais or tells you, you will just deny its existance. Do you understand at all what i'm talking about?
Yes I understand you. I understand that you are confusing possibility with probability.
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. But not everything is probable.

Also, i would just like to say.... I DO NOT claim to know that god exists for a fact. My belief in god is no different from any other theory in anything.

So a theory need not be falsifiable for you to put your belief into it? I wonder what methods you use to distinguish which theories to ‘believe’ in.

How can you even say that? You're saying that there is no need to believe in anything in order to practice good science? Do you think that every scientist didn't believe anything was right or wrong? In order to have any kind of motivation to prove anything you have to either believe that it is either right or wrong. You're not just going to prove something that you absolutely do not care about watsover, unless somebody above you who cares about it tells you to do it. Then there is still belief involved.
I say that because the scientific method (NOT motivations of individual scientists as you suggest), as a process, does not require faith or belief. When "belief" is required then irrationality is the result. Purely a matter of definition of the words. If you were to stipulate a supernatural being, or a being in which you have "belief" without having evidence for the existence of that being, that would be irrational. Do you see the fundamental difference?

Belief stands in opposition to logic. The assertion of mutable hypothesis would be a better way to describe what you are doing above, or perhaps "better" would be, the assignment of probabilities to partials in order to assess other things using those (now explicit) probabilities with the perspective that the earlier truth probability assignments can be varied in the event of conflict. Belief does not do this. Belief (Wordsmyth) "1) a strong opinion; conviction. 2) trust in a person, thing, idea, or system of ideas; confidence. 3) a notion or idea accepted as true, esp. a religious doctrine." implies the acceptance of truth; there is nothing tenuous about this. Thus belief is in its nature (definition) dogmatic.
Why is belief irrational? Simply because it assumes that which cannot be derived from observation, or denies that which can be derived from observation. Both positions are irrational.

Ok, i agree. But there is one thing wrong with what you're saying. Once you have accepted anything, it is not belief anymore. You're talking about people who claim to 'know' that something exists. All of this only applies when you convince yourself that something exists, not through faith, but through self-hypnosis. If you sit there and say to yourself, "there is a god, there is a god" and just make yourself "know" (not just believe) that there is one, then it isn't through faith or belief. At least not in the way that i look at faith and belief.

Faith is to vest belief in someone/something.
Belief is to accept something as true (or perhaps false) in the absence of sufficient evidence or the in the face of contradictory evidence for that acceptance.
Sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary.

where do you see anything about accepting anything in that definition? All i see is the word belief, which implies that you do not know something for a fact.

The clue lies in the words, “belief without evidence in what is told by one... In other words it can be restated as, you accept something (without evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence) being told to you by someone else. As for belief – see the definition above; point 3 “a notion or idea accepted as true, esp. a religious doctrine.”
Sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary.

theres one other thing thats missing in your definition and is the reason the term god is used... the belief in god suggests that the universe is a living entity...

There is another name for this; it’s called the gaia hypothesis.

instead of saying living universe and confusing people we say god because it seems to fit with what other religious and spiritual texts describe him as..

If you stated living universe and used the gaia hypothesis (as an example there are others) as an explanation, I am sure the confusion would be diminished considerably. Besides by calling the universe ‘god’ does not explain why the universe can be considered living, as all you have done is anthropomorphise it. The gaia hypothesis on the other hand at least goes some way to explaining why it can be considered living.
This is a perfect example of why calling ‘all of existence’ ‘god’ is merely a doubling of entities. If we cut out ‘god’ with William of Occam’s razor we find that nothing is missing – which is precisely why LaPlace stated, “I have no need for that hypothesis.”

Yes I am familiar with the scientific method, and as far as i know, a scientifical fact is anything that has can be proved using it. Once you observe something, you form a hypothesis, test it in a controlled experiment, after you're done you either changed the hypothesis or validated whether it was true or false. If it is true, it is scientifical fact.

There are no "scientific facts" there are only entities and events, together with a method which allows us to observe them, hypothesis and draw conclusions about them, and determine the likelihood of the hypotheses or conclusions being inappropriate. A conclusion cannot be a metaphysical assumption. A conclusion is an inference reached by reasoning.
"Science" cannot be "proved" or "disproved" - that is reserved for logic and mathematics. A scientific model can be shown to be a good model or a bad model. That is all. So the scientific method gives us the capability to evaluate the models we build of reality.

according to dictionary.com one of the definitions of proof is:
"The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence. "

this is the proof that i'm speaking of.. I fail to see how that definition is only reserved for mathematics and logic.
A fact is neither true nor false, it just is, while a theory, any theory, no matter how strong, is always provisional and at least theoretically falsifiable, else it is not a scientific theory. Accepting something always requires sufficient evidence for a determination of a provisional truth value, as opposed to believing something, which always requires insufficient evidence for such a decision.

ok .. 2 BIG problems here
1. name me one theory that is still a theory today that is falsiable....
2. i'm not suggesting god as a theory, what i am suggesting is a theory of what god is... there is a difference..

I thought you said you were familiar with the scientific method? Were you just stretching the truth, or just straight out lying?
To answer your points:
1. For ANY theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. Science makes no claims to show anything to be true. Science proceeds by demonstrating things to be untrue (falsifiable) by means of the scientific method.
2. A conclusion cannot be a metaphysical assumption.
take care and control.
the bricoleur

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Bricoleur,
very interesting.. you have brought a few things to my attention that i have never heard of prior to this...

Then tell me what ‘god’ explains.
Once you assert, "a god did it", you preclude the ability to look further. When there is no reason to assert, "a god did it" then saying that and accepting the consequences is irrational in the extreme. To my knowledge to date, no assertion that "a god did it" has withstood long-term examination. Which provides a probabilistic basis for assuming that no assertion that a god did anything will sustain investigation. Thus logic (probabilistic, not bivalued) requires that we eschew "god did it" type answers.
‘gods’ are not answers, they are irrational question blockers.

ok, you got me, i had misundertood your previous statement. You're absolutely right god does not explain anything. But, take note that never in any of my posts did I use god to explain anything. Instead I was explaining god, from my perspective. Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this to my attention..

The point was to illustrate that a human concept of ‘god’ is as imaginary as my human concept of an invisible pink unicorn.
You are speaking of only one particular view of god, which my beliefs and a lot of other peoples beliefs do not correspond with.

...The problem is that as a believer you have the burden of proof and as far as I am aware you don’t have any – but if you think there is something glaringly obvious that is ‘right in my face’, please do point it out. Until there is demonstrated evidence of ‘gods’, or perhaps persuasive need for ‘gods’, it is not rational to suppose them.

You are correct in saying that I do not have any proof and I do not think think that something is glaringly obvious that is 'right in front of your face'. Although I do think that there is something that is not so obvious. This something being gods actual existance and the fact that something does not require proof in order to be rational. Logic seems to suggest to me and provide reason to believe that there is in fact a god. It all depends on what your view of god is.
There does not need to be proof in order for something to be rational. All that needs to be present in order for something to be rational is reason derived from logic. This is present, therefore there is nothing irrational about it.

Yes I understand you. I understand that you are confusing possibility with probability.

I fail to see exactly how I am doing this and I believe that you are wrong in saying that. If you can somehow further explain and show me how I am doing this, I will gladly accept and admit that I am wrong with a huge grin on my face that will be a result of me having learned something which I previously did not know.

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. But not everything is probable.

Nothing is true? Nothing is probable? How so ? so transparent glass isn't see through and you can breathe in space without any equipment? I dont understand what you are trying to say here.
As for not everything being probable, that is blatantly obvious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So a theory need not be falsifiable for you to put your belief into it? I wonder what methods you use to distinguish which theories to ‘believe’ in.
Before anything, i would like to say that I withdraw what i had previously said about you naming one theory that is falsiable. I misunderstood what you meant. I assumed that if something has the potential to be proved wrong then it allready has been. This was a mistake on my part. Sorry...

How is my theory in god any less falsifiable then the theory of relativity or any other theory that still remains a theory to this day? I do not believe that my theory is in any way different from them. Show me some evidence or provide some kind of explanation that has a logical reason behind it showing that i'm wrong, and i will gladly accept that I am. Until then, I will assume that i'm right, because i have reason to believe that I am. This reason being that gods existance is just as much capable of being proven wrong as it is capable of being proven right.

I say that because the scientific method (NOT motivations of individual scientists as you suggest), as a process, does not require faith or belief. When "belief" is required then irrationality is the result. Purely a matter of definition of the words. If you were to stipulate a supernatural being, or a being in which you have "belief" without having evidence for the existence of that being, that would be irrational. Do you see the fundamental difference?

Point well taken. Belief is not required in the scientifical method thereby making science completely independant from all belief in anything. As a result of your postings I now realize that belief is not even necessary for motivation. The motivation simply is to find out the anwser.

However as i mentioned earlier, belief with reason, (non-blind faith) does not automatically make something irrational. As long as there is a logical reason to believe in anything, it is just as rational as anything else.

There was some mis-communication here though. I did not actually mean what I had said. What i really meant to say was that its not scientifical method that requires the belief, but the experiment that you would be performing using the scientfic method.

If an experiment requires that you believe in something, let just say god. How is this in any way irrational? It is not the scientific method that is requiring the belief. It is the experiment itself. Belief is simply a controlled factor of the experiment.

The observation: Rational belief in god seems to make people feel more satisfied with their life, result in them being generally happier, improve the quality of their perfomance in any task, and result in them expressing more kindness, affection and love towards other people.

The hypothesis is: A rational belief in god makes a person feel more satisfied with their life, result in them being generally happier, improve the quality of their perfomance in any task, and result in them expressing more kindness, affection and love towards other people.

What you have to do for this experiment is the same as for any other experiment. There has to a variable or 2 which is the rational belief in god, or dis-belief in god in this case, and a control which would be neither belief nor dis-belief in god.
There you have it. A perfectly rational experiment constructed using the scientific method, that incorporates and requires the belief in god.

You see?

I understand that this experiment, would not prove the existance of god, it would simply prove whether or not the belief in god yields certain results. I have performed this experiment and have found that the hypothesis was correct. Experiments such as this have been performed and guess what? The experiments showed that in nearly all cases the hypothesis was right.

Now considering the fact that the hypothesis was right, and that nearly all religious and spiritual texts seems to imply that once one discovers god, one will attain some if not all of the things mentioned in the hypothesis. Wouldn't you say that is at least just one logical reason to believe that god is real?
This is just simply one of many more logically deducted reasons as to why I believe in gods existance. Just this reason alone isn't enough to believe in gods existance, but there are many many many more.

Belief stands in opposition to logic. The assertion of mutable hypothesis would be a better way to describe what you are doing above, or perhaps "better" would be, the assignment of probabilities to partials in order to assess other things using those (now explicit) probabilities with the perspective that the earlier truth probability assignments can be varied in the event of conflict. Belief does not do this. Belief (Wordsmyth) "1) a strong opinion; conviction. 2) trust in a person, thing, idea, or system of ideas; confidence. 3) a notion or idea accepted as true, esp. a religious doctrine." implies the acceptance of truth; there is nothing tenuous about this. Thus belief is in its nature (definition) dogmatic.

straight out of your quote
[/b]belief - "a strong opinion; conviction."
conviction - A fixed or strong belief.
there is nothing in those particular definitions that implies the acceptance of anything to be true. Just because you believe anything to be true, does not mean that you have 100% acknowledged that it is.

The first part of the quote confused me... i'm not sure what you're talking about.

Why is belief irrational? Simply because it assumes that which cannot be derived from observation, or denies that which can be derived from observation. Both positions are irrational.

This is just wrong. Belief is not irrational. If there is logical reason to believe in anything. It is not irrational to believe in it. Also, belief can but does not always assume that which cannot be derived from observation or deny that which can be derived from observation. If you dont believe me, go find out for yourself.

Sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary.

You're right..but wats your point?

There is another name for this; it’s called the gaia hypothesis.

Just in the last three days i have heard at least 5 different names for this. Personally, I do not care about any one of them. My beleifs are beliefs in god existance and what god is.

If you stated living universe and used the gaia hypothesis (as an example there are others) as an explanation, I am sure the confusion would be diminished considerably. Besides by calling the universe ‘god’ does not explain why the universe can be considered living, as all you have done is anthropomorphise it. The gaia hypothesis on the other hand at least goes some way to explaining why it can be considered living.

I believe you are wrong here because I've never even heard of anything called gaia hypothesis up until now, and i'm sure neither have a lot of other people. Everytime i said gaia hypothesis people who allready believe in god would be like what is that? After which i would tell them god. So why not just say god and avoid all that?

Also, I didn't anthropomorphize anything. Being alive isn't just a human characteristic, there are many things which are alive that aren't human.
Saying "god" has worked just fine, better then anything else that i have tried.

There are no "scientific facts" there are only entities and events, together with a method which allows us to observe them, hypothesis and draw conclusions about them, and determine the likelihood of the hypotheses or conclusions being inappropriate. A conclusion cannot be a metaphysical assumption. A conclusion is an inference reached by reasoning.

Ok, my conclusion is not a metaphysical assumption. It is a metaphysical inference reached by reasoning. There is a difference between the two.

"Science" cannot be "proved" or "disproved" - that is reserved for logic and mathematics. A scientific model can be shown to be a good model or a bad model. That is all. So the scientific method gives us the capability to evaluate the models we build of reality.

Fine.

... A fact is neither true nor false, ..

This is news to me.. as far as i know fact is,
fact - Reality; actuality; truth;

This is what i believe people are saying when say fact. If they dont mean that then they shouldn't use that word, in my opinion because that is what it means. Even if there is another definition of it that sais that fact is not actually true or false, i believe that the word fact should not be used in cases where this is what it means.

What you are saying is fact is actually not just actuality or truth, but rather belief of truth or actuality.
This could be applied to my own beliefs. But yet I do not use the word fact. Why? How do you think people would react if I told them that it is a fact that god exists?

I thought you said you were familiar with the scientific method? Were you just stretching the truth, or just straight out lying?
To answer your points:
1. For ANY theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. Science makes no claims to show anything to be true. Science proceeds by demonstrating things to be untrue (falsifiable) by means of the scientific method.
2. A conclusion cannot be a metaphysical assumption.

1. Ok, as far is know falsiable means that something is capable of being wrong. Are you saying that my theory can't be wrong? If you are, you are wrong in saying that. It can be wrong just like any other theory.

2. You're right it can't. But it can be a metaphysical reference reached by reasoning which is what my theory is.

Nice.. your post was very intersting, exactly the kind of stuff that i was looking for. Thanx for your time

peace and much love to all,
- tr6 -
P.S. I am so fucking glad i'm finally done writing this thread. heh... it took forever
[ 22 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[psychoblast]

Good one, Bricoleur.
~psychoblast~

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

psychoblast, or anybody else who shares his views ---

Religion is the syntax error of life.

saying that is no different then just saying, "god exists", in the sense that you cannot prove that statement to be either true, or false.

Humans evolved an extraordinary ability to understand and manipulate our environment for survival. That same ability just sort of hovers around when we aren't engaged in survival and tries to understand and find patterns and sort into groups everything around us. That ability (inadvertently) made us aware of our own mortality, because we see other humans have died and we extrapolate that we will die. Now our survival instinct kicks in to try to overcome the insurmountable end of life. The closest we can come is pretending that we have found a solution. Some hold to that so tight, others can stop pretending and accept mortality.

This is why i believe you are wrong,

In general God doesn't really have anything to do with the after-life. Only in some beliefs. The existance of a greater being does not imply the existance of an after-life. It is a seperate concept. One could believe that there is an after-life and not believe in god at all. Or one could believe in god, without believing in an after-life. Both are possible and there are people who have such beliefs. So if somebody was using only their survival instincts to try and avoid death why wouldn't they just make up after-life without god? Why did they come up with the idea of god as well? Explain that...

Even if you consider what you're saying to be true, it would still only apply to some people. Not all believers. Even if it is true, it would be incorrect to say that that is the sole reason that people in god. I accepted death way before i believed in god. I considered myself to be an atheist, claimed that it is absolutely retarded to believe in god, that everybody was "pretending" that there is someone to talk to so that they dont feel alone or that god will make everything better for them. I used to be perfectly comfortable with the fact that one day, i'm going to die, just like everybody else. It wasn't any survival instinct that made me believe. It was logic and reasoning.

What my perception now is that the belief in god in less intelligent people with blind belief simply acts as a catalyst to manifest their thoughts into their life. What actually happens is, the only reason things get better is because they just believe so much that god will make them better that their perception starts to change and they start picking out things as to how its going better. After their perception is this way, their thoughts manifest and shit really does become better. If a person percieves life as something that sucks, it will suck even more most of the time as a result of that perception. If a person perceives life to be good, life will be good most of the time. After things get better they assume that god made them that way, when it was really just them and not god. It was god only in the way that what happened was simply part of how god works. Your thoughts manifest because it is how god works. So in that sense, it is god making your life better. But other then that. Its just you.

A lot of people who believe in god aren't just pretending that god exists to make themselves feel better. No person with a high level of intelligence believes in god for no reason. They are most of the time very in touch with their subconcious and would know if they were just pretending that god exists to feel better about life. It is something that I think most of us believers have allready taken into consideration. At least I did.

Oh, I thought the original post might have been trying to claim that the fact that people have believed in god for so long somehow supports the idea that god does, in fact, exist. Which is like going back a few thousand years and saying that since at that time people had a long history of believing that the earth was flat, it probably was. Faulty attempt at inductive logic, if that was intended.

You misunderstood. It is not just saying because people have believed in god for so long it is more likely that he exists. What it was trying to say is that because for thousands and thousands of years, people who did not know each other or have not spoken to each other and saw what they believed to be god on their own without outside influence from other existant religins, mostly came up with the same exact view as to what god is. Just different perceptions of it.

Estimate the probability of these two things happening.

1. God exists and people from all over realize it and see what he is, on their own, without outside influence.

2. God doesn't exist and people from all over make him up in their head and somehow this made up image of him, that is created starting from scratch disregaring everything that is believed of him in other religions seems to be almost the same thing in most cases.

Hmmm, which one do you think is more likely to happen? Seems to me like number 2 has less of a chance of occuring.

As for it being the same as people believing the earth is flat it is impossible to compare the two. Even though they are beliefs they are too different to be compared to each other.

1. There is a massive amounts of people that believe that there is a god and a massive amount of people that believe that there isn't one and a not so massive but still extremely large group of people who do not believe there is a god or that there isn't one, but simply remain neutral.

With the belief that the earth was flat, it was just two groups of people nearly everybody believed it was flat and a ricilously miniscule portion maybe even less then 1% of everybody believed it was round. (I have no way of knowing this and i'm just assuming its true based on what I know of the history of our people, and i could be wrong).

2. There are many different perception and views of gods existance.

There was only 1 view with the earth being flat, the view was that the earth was either flat or wasn't.

3. The belief that the earth was flat was derived from the observation of it just looking like it is.

The belief in god is supported by logical reasoning not just, hmm it seems like there is a god so there must be one, which is what the belief in the earth being flat was. It was just, the earth looks flat, so its flat. Because that is what it looks like.

I wouldn't use any more examples like this if i were you because they actually go against your beliefs instead of supporting them.
For example, your stance on whether or not there is a god seems to be that it is not rational to believe in god because there is no known evidence that supports this belief.

How is this any different from the belief that the earth was flat back in those days? People then were thinking the same thing that people with your stance are thinking. They had your stance on the whole earth is round issue being well there is no evidence that the earth is round so it is irrational to believe that it is. And yet look, it was round after all.

Now do you think if nobody ever believed the earth was round and just kept thinking it was flat, would they have discovered that the earth is round as soon as they did? Do you think galileo would have figured out that the earth is round if he just simply thought it cant' be, the whole idea of it is just irrational. Do you think christopher columbus would have discovered the Americas if he didn't believe that the earth was round and simply ignored the belief because it was irrational?
think about it.......

if you didnt know the earth is spherical and there was no known evidence that supported that it was, would you still claim that it is irrational to believe that it is? (it still would be by the way)
I understand that this therad is long, and judging by how you've read most of my other threads i do not expect you to read fully through this one, but if you anwser anything in this thread i hope you at least anwser the above question. I am really curious as to how you're going to get out of this one.

peace and much love,
- tr -

p.s. To people who just entered this thread for the first time or didn't feel like replying to it. Please do not be hesitant just because you do not feel like reading through every single long ass post. If you have something or anything to contribute to this thread, about anything that you saw, this is my attempt to encourage you to do it. Please... i'm interested in what any of you have to say, and want as many opinions on anything being discussed as possible.
[ 23 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[psychoblast]

In your examples above, you are assuming people all over made up the same definition of god. They didn't. It is not like, "How could dozens of different, geographically separate peoples come up with the idea of God giving his son to be crucified for us." Nope, not like that at all. If that HAD happened, I would actually tend to agree with you that the similarity of ideas evolving separately might support (though not prove) the truth of those ideas.

But instead you have Aztecs practicing human sacrifice, Africans thinking if you eat a person you obtain their attributes, Asians believing their ancestors depend on them to honor them, Indians believing you can be reborn as a gnat if you are bad or a cow if you are good, etc. etc.

The existence of all these VERY DIFFERENT AND DISPARATE views of god do NOT support the existence of some god. Not at all. And the oh-so-modern and p.c. attitude that "all religions are true in a sense" or whatever, does not solve the problem, but it is a lame pretense that all past religions were, in essence, monotheistic recognitions of a higher force of love and unity. THEY WERE FUCKING NOT AT ALL. Many religions did not have loving Gods, but instead petty and selfish gods. Most religions had Gods that only cared about one particular people and wanted to help those people defeat, enslave and subjugate any other peoples.

So, you start from an incorrect premise that all religions have some inherent similarities of promoting universal love, then you reach the incorrect conclusion that the historical perfusion of religions that all promote universal love is evidence there IS a God of universal love and all religions are just recognizing an aspect of that.

Also, the fact that all these different peoples believed in God, so God must exist, is like reasoning that since all different peoples have had their different versions of snake-oil selling con men, snake oil (or its modern versions, like the Q-Ray bracelet) must work. It is possible that it is inherent in any civilization that one day some people will realize they can sell a fantasy to gullible people and profit by it, and they choose to do so. Same explanation can apply to why different societies have religion.

Also, I do not suggest that "God" must, implicitly, govern or offer an afterlife. I recognize that it is conceivable to have a god but no afterlife or reincarnation or any existence after death in this world (though I know of no religion that postulates such a god).

What I was talking about was the ORIGINS of religion. And I think that God may have originated everywhere as the explanation for the unknowns facing peoples, each explanation being filtered by the various different cultures and so giving different faces to this unknown, and one of the driving unknowns was what happens to your consciousness when you die. So, anyway, I think fear of death and a desire to cheat death were driving factors in the origination of religions world-wide.

I mean, religions all sound a lot like the Santa Claus myth. "If you are a good boy or girl, when you die you will be wisked away to fantasy land for all eternity where you will romp and play and see all your loved ones and never want for anything ever again, but if you are naughty, you will burn forever and ever as punishment." See, now that we are in a scientific age and people -- like you -- are being educated, a lot of people consciously or subconsciously recognize the absurdity of believing this kind of fairy tale. So they re-vamp it to a more "adult" and "mature" version they can still believe in. They take away the silly specifics and retreat to a vague, "God is love, god is everything," kind of place because we are so bombarded with "faith good, skepticism bad" in the media that it is a relief to feel like you are part of the faithful, however you define that.

Hell, I think I'd feel a weight lift from my mind if I define God as my shoes so that I can FINALLY just give in and say, "I believe in God." Or, more practically, define God as reality. Since I believe in reality, I could again stop being an atheist by doing this. I could say the universe is alive (thought that is a meaningless assertion...life being a word defined by man, you can define life to include the universe and no one can gainsay you, but that does not make it a revelation of any sort...we all know the universe contains living matter and non-living matter, just like a human body or a city...are all these things properly viewed as "alive" and, if so, what is the point? What has been gained other than the right to say, "I'm not an athesit" and why does that matter so much? Why not say "I'm an atheist who believes the universe is a living being.")

~psychoblast~

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

In your examples above, you are assuming people all over made up the same definition of god. They didn't. It is not like, "How could dozens of different, geographically separate peoples come up with the idea of God giving his son to be crucified for us." Nope, not like that at all. If that HAD happened, I would actually tend to agree with you that the similarity of ideas evolving separately might support (though not prove) the truth of those ideas.
But instead you have Aztecs practicing human sacrifice, Africans thinking if you eat a person you obtain their attributes, Asians believing their ancestors depend on them to honor them, Indians believing you can be reborn as a gnat if you are bad or a cow if you are good, etc. etc.

You're talking about something different from what i'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that most religions were the same. I'm suggesting that most religions view god to be the same thing. Not what he sais, not any of his actions, or not how you must live your life according to the religions. What i'm referring to is simply what they saw him to be minus all the bullshit they made up afterwards to act as a catalyst for their thoughts manifesting into reality.

The bullshit (rituals, prayer, what god said, how you must live your life accordnig to some stupid rules) was made up to help them convince themselves that certain things will be a certain way. Once they did the ritual it was easier for them to start looking for things that the ritual was supposed accomplish in reality. They start just picking out anything and believing that it was gods actions when it was in fact their own.

The existence of all these VERY DIFFERENT AND DISPARATE views of god do NOT support the existence of some god. Not at all. And the oh-so-modern and p.c. attitude that "all religions are true in a sense" or whatever, does not solve the problem, but it is a lame pretense that all past religions were, in essence, monotheistic recognitions of a higher force of love and unity. THEY WERE FUCKING NOT AT ALL. Many religions did not have loving Gods, but instead petty and selfish gods. Most religions had Gods that only cared about one particular people and wanted to help those people defeat, enslave and subjugate any other peoples.

The view of god once all the bullshit that i was speaking of earlier is cut out is not different in most religions. Also, i never said all religions are true in a sense. However, whatever you want to see in reality, is what you will see reality.

Also love does not have anything to do with what god is. It is another view that is added on and has to do with how you should lead your life, not what god is. Even though i believe that we should love as part of our lifestyle it doesn't add any attributes to what god actually is. The reason I believe that is because there have been scientifical experiments that show and support that people who love and feel other positive feelings are less likely to be depressed and or die, and a lot more likely to live longer, perform tasks that they do well, and be more kind to people by letting them pass on the highway when they need to get in instead of speeding up for example. We were desired to feel love from birth, the reason for that being that it results in all of the things i mentioned above. So since we were spawned as a part of god, and live longer from practicing positive feelings. It is not irrational to say that perhaps, God wants us to and has created us to love if he exists. If he carry out his will we will longer and be happier. That is just a non-scientifical explanation for the same thing that I said above and one that more people can understand.

Also many religions that had many gods, had that one god that was above all others. Zeus for example. The view of that god also pertains to what i'm talking about. He was at the top, it could be compared to my view in the sense that there are gods in my view, i do not consider them gods though, just other life forms. Like what i was saying about cities, and planets, and solar systems to be alive. It is just like that. All these people did was simply recognize the characteristics of life in something and put the title of god on it. Sometimes this something was something that was of a bad-nature, hence the selfish gods you are speaking of. Somethink like "the storm god", the "volcano" god or some other stupid shit. Then they added all the bullshit about how you must worship and sacrifice and all that other crap as a catalylst to manifest their thoughts. It really isn't a much different view. Almost no matter what religion you look at. Also, those gods do not pertain to what i'm talking about in the sense that they do not refer to one god above all others. Whoever is at the top of the chain in these religions is the god that would be used to make the comparison.

If you do not believe me, give an example of any religion and i will explain in what way their view of god is extremely similar to every other religion.

So, you start from an incorrect premise that all religions have some inherent similarities of promoting universal love, then you reach the incorrect conclusion that the historical perfusion of religions that all promote universal love is evidence there IS a God of universal love and all religions are just recognizing an aspect of that.

I did not start from an incorrect premise that all religions have some inherent similarities of what you said. All i said, was that in the end, most of them view god as the same thing, not gods actions, or will, or any of that crap. Just what he is.

But you're right, if i did do that it would be an incorrect conclusion.

...Also, the fact that all these different peoples believed in God, so God must exist, is like reasoning ...

I never said god must exist..thats all you.

What I was talking about was the ORIGINS of religion. And I think that God may have originated everywhere as the explanation for the unknowns facing peoples, each explanation being filtered by the various different cultures and so giving different faces to this unknown, and one of the driving unknowns was what happens to your consciousness when you die. So, anyway, I think fear of death and a desire to cheat death were driving factors in the origination of religions world-wide.

This theory is invalid because there does not need to be a god for to explain the the unknown. Just like the after-life could be explained without god, so could 90% of the other unknown things.

The only things that seem to spawn the view of god is questions like, why are we born? not what happens when we die? So it is not fear of death. Instead it is the questioning and curiousity of life, reality and how it works.

I mean, religions all sound a lot like the Santa Claus myth. "If you are a good boy or girl, when you die you will be wisked away to fantasy land for all eternity where you will romp and play and see all your loved ones and never want for anything ever again, .....

Didn't you just say that you recognized that god and the after-life (fantasy land) are seperate things? Stop confusing god with a view of the after life.

So they re-vamp it to a more "adult" and "mature" version they can still believe in. They take away the silly specifics and retreat to a vague, "God is love, god is everything,"
My views resulted from the observations i have made, not other religions. I had them before i decided to study different religions and what they're all about. I didn't re-vamp anything. There wasn't anything to re-vamp.

Are you calling my view of god vague? If i was to fully describe him in his full, it would be tens maybe hundreds of thousands of pages of single spaced text. Even then, i wouldn't fully describe god. How is that vague?

All of science is just rational explanations as to how god works. Would you say all of science is vague?

what is the point? What has been gained other than the right to say, "I'm not an athesit" and why does that matter so much? Why not say "I'm an atheist who believes the universe is a living being.")

am i really going to have to anwser this question every single time you or somebody with your views posts? The point is to learn more about your environment, what you are and what you are a part of. What has been gained is the possibility to better understand reality and everything that pertains to it, by not ignoring beliefs which have no direct evidence to support them. Not, the ability to not be called an atheist.

As to why i dont say i am an atheist who believes the universe is a living being. I can't say i'm an atheist i believe in the existance of god. Atheism is the dis-belief of god. I am not an atheist because i believe in god. Doesn't that at all make sense to you? The belief that the universe is a living-being and is god is a belief in god.

NOTICE THIS and do not just skim through itAlso you conveniantly avoided my question in the previous post. anwser it please.. i'm curious as to what you have to say

This is it...

I wouldn't use any more examples like this if i were you because they actually go against your beliefs instead of supporting them.
For example, your stance on whether or not there is a god seems to be that it is not rational to believe in god because there is no known evidence that supports this belief.
How is this any different from the belief that the earth was flat back in those days? People then were thinking the same thing that people with your stance are thinking. They had your stance on the whole earth is round issue being well there is no evidence that the earth is round so it is irrational to believe that it is. And yet look, it was round after all.

Now do you think if nobody ever believed the earth was round and just kept thinking it was flat, would they have discovered that the earth is round as soon as they did? Do you think galileo would have figured out that the earth is round if he just simply thought it cant' be, the whole idea of it is just irrational. Do you think christopher columbus would have discovered the Americas if he didn't believe that the earth was round and simply ignored the belief because it was irrational?

Thanx for your time.....
- tr6 -
[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

The previous post wasn't written from beginning to end, i had to leave a couple of times and did not have to finish it right away.. Sometime in the middle of it being finished... i was searching for quotes by einstien to put in my away message on AIM..
What i have found seems to support my stance as well, in the way that i wasn't aware of any of these quotes prior to posting all this but yet, of all people einstien somehow seems to share my views.
here they are...
-- "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
-- ""My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Some more just for those who want more... some of these are also somewhat are relevant to the topic at hand...
-- "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
-- "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
-- "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-- "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
-- "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
-- "The only real valuable thing is intuition."
-- "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
-- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-- "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
-- "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
-- "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
-- "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
-- "
Let me know your thoughts....
peace
- tr6 -

 

[Bricoleur]

Tr6ai0ls4,

ok, you got me, i had misundertood your previous statement. You're absolutely right god does not explain anything. But, take note that never in any of my posts did I use god to explain anything. Instead I was explaining god, from my perspective. Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this to my attention..

No problem. But I must ask, what point does your explanation of god serve, if it does not answer any questions?

You are speaking of only one particular view of god, which my beliefs and a lot of other peoples beliefs do not correspond with.

My comment stands if someone is talking of a ‘god’ that exists ‘out there’ – and by ‘out there’ I do not include people who are simply playing with metaphor i.e. ‘god’ is this table, therefore I believe in ‘god’.

You are correct in saying that I do not have any proof and I do not think think that something is glaringly obvious that is 'right in front of your face'. Although I do think that there is something that is not so obvious. This something being gods actual existance and the fact that something does not require proof in order to be rational. Logic seems to suggest to me and provide reason to believe that there is in fact a god. It all depends on what your view of god is.

There does not need to be proof in order for something to be rational. All that needs to be present in order for something to be rational is reason derived from logic. This is present, therefore there is nothing irrational about it.

“This something being gods actual existence” – You definition of ‘god’ is ‘all of existence’ (quoted from pervious post). What I am suggesting is that this is not a rational foundation. If I were to state that this table is god, and therefore I believe in god’s existence, does my statement seem rational to you? If it does not I rest my case. However, if it does seem rational, then you must demonstrate the unique qualities and characteristics that require we substitute ‘all of existence’ for ‘god’.

What are the attributes of your ‘god’?

Apart from you comments below that belief in god makes people happier (which I will address below), you have still not given any grounds for substituting ‘all of existence’ with ‘god’. Calling this table ‘god’ does not make it so. Calling ‘all of existence’ ‘god’ also does not make it so.

Nothing is true? Nothing is probable? How so ? so transparent glass isn't see through and you can breathe in space without any equipment? I dont understand what you are trying to say here.

As for not everything being probable, that is blatantly obvious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Nothing is true – Are you familiar with Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem?

Everything is permitted – possibility has no limits.
Not everything is probable – very relevant to the topic, as you are attempting to postulate a ‘god’ based on the fact that there may be the remotest of chances that one does exist. In a previous post you stated, “In order to see anything, not just god, you have to be open to the fact that it might exist.” Do you now understand why I said you are confusing possibility with probability?

How is my theory in god any less falsifiable then the theory of relativity or any other theory that still remains a theory to this day?

Give me at least 3 scientific experiments that I can use to falsify your conclusion.

This reason being that gods existance is just as much capable of being proven wrong as it is capable of being proven right.

Give me at least 3 scientific experiments that I can use to falsify gods existence.

If an experiment requires that you believe in something, let just say god. How is this in any way irrational?

It is irrational by the fact that the experiment requires belief in something. Belief, faith and trust have no place in science.

Are you familiar with the role of axioms in science? I would suggest a revision of yours.

Critical thinking is an important aspect of being rational. It is an important aspect of determining whether a proposition is useful and believable. If something is proposed, for example the idea of a god, then the onus rests upon the proponent of such an idea to demonstrate the evidence leading them to propose such an hypothesis (your is lacking), the manner in which their theory is falsifiable (yours is lacking), and the useful predictive capability their theory provides (your is lacking). In the absence of this, their theory is unsupportable and their belief is, by definition, "irrational". Once a person bases their thinking upon an "irrationality", they cannot claim to be rational and thus their arguments are not useful.

The observation: Rational belief in god seems to make people feel more satisfied with their life, result in them being generally happier, improve the quality of their perfomance in any task, and result in them expressing more kindness, affection and love towards other people.
The hypothesis is: A rational belief in god makes a person feel more satisfied with their life, result in them being generally happier, improve the quality of their perfomance in any task, and result in them expressing more kindness, affection and love towards other people.

I see your idea of happiness has no place for truth – interesting.
This type of study has been attempted before – along the lines of people who believe in god, or who hold strong "spiritual" affinities, have lower blood pressure, recover from diseases and surgery faster, have greater longevity, are generally happier, and in general show many indicators of superior general health. In other words, spiritual health equals physical health.
These are numerous problems associated with this manner of inquiry (short list of a very long one):

1) Lack of control of intervening variables. Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socio-economic status, marital status, and degree of religiosity or religious devotion.

2) Failure to control for multiple comparisons.

3) Conflicting findings. In some studies a number of religiosity variables were used but only those with a significant correlation were reported. Meanwhile, other studies using the same religiosity variables found different correlations and, of course, only reported those. Moreover, when the entire scale was used, the relation between religion and mortality failed to reach significance. Inconsistencies also arise within studies not based on large epidemiological samples.

4) Problems of definition.
For the sake of brevity I will stop at 4...

I have performed this experiment and have found that the hypothesis was correct. Experiments such as this have been performed and guess what? The experiments showed that in nearly all cases the hypothesis was right.

I would like to hear a description of your experiment, and also could you cite those experiments where you claim they support your theory?

Wouldn't you say that is at least just one logical reason to believe that god is real?

Having looked at many studies along these lines, I conclude “no.”

This is just simply one of many more logically deducted reasons as to why I believe in gods existance. Just this reason alone isn't enough to believe in gods existance, but there are many many many more.
Care to give me a few others... ?

there is nothing in those particular definitions that implies the acceptance of anything to be true. Just because you believe anything to be true, does not mean that you have 100% acknowledged that it is.

Except for 3. a notion or idea accepted as true, esp. a religious doctrine

This is just wrong. Belief is not irrational. If there is logical reason to believe in anything. It is not irrational to believe in it. Also, belief can but does not always assume that which cannot be derived from observation or deny that which can be derived from observation. If you dont believe me, go find out for yourself.
You have contradicted yourself – which is irrational.

If something is observable – belief is unnecessary. Belief is required if that thing cannot be observed. Sufficient evidence would render belief unnecessary – see my point now?
If something is observed, the computer in front of you, and you deny its existence, then that is irrational.
Show me your way out of this …

Just in the last three days i have heard at least 5 different names for this. Personally, I do not care about any one of them. My beleifs are beliefs in god existance and what god is.

Careful, your dogma is showing.

I believe you are wrong here because I've never even heard of anything called gaia hypothesis up until now, and i'm sure neither have a lot of other people. Everytime i said gaia hypothesis people who allready believe in god would be like what is that? After which i would tell them god. So why not just say god and avoid all that?

Because god does not explain anything!!! Giving someone a book to read on the gaia hypothesis will at least go some way to explaining to them why the universe can be considered ‘living’ – telling them that the universe is god does not explain why it can be considered ‘living’, unless you anthropomorphise.

Also, I didn't anthropomorphize anything. Being alive isn't just a human characteristic, there are many things which are alive that aren't human.

What are the attributes that you consider make a thing ‘living’?

Ok, my conclusion is not a metaphysical assumption. It is a metaphysical inference reached by reasoning. There is a difference between the two.

Here are the problems with your ‘theory’ and why it can’t even be called one.

In science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed".

The scientific method simply takes the best "rules" that we have found, makes them axiomatic and uses them as a foundation for further thinking, without "knowing" whether the axioms are valid or not. The test of a scientific axiomatic base is not its theoretical or ontological "validity", it is whether the systems we construct using those axioms are internally consistent and "useful"; in other words, are they free from internal contradiction (no reductio ad absurdums within the contention) (yours is not), do they match our perception of the universe (there is no logical conflict with contiguous truths) (yours does not) and do they allow us to make predictions about this universe? (the proposition seamlessly represents an observable state/process of affairs) (yours does not). When they fail one of these tests, we reformulate our thinking and try again. Changing the base axioms is an immense step, as it means we should ideally re-examine all of our previous work in order to establish that it is still valid under the new axioms. So we try to make the (needed) axiomatic platforms as small as possible, and use only well established things as axioms.

Belief in ‘god’ is not an axiom. If you think your axiom is not ‘belief in god’, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to make your axioms explicit. If you have no axioms, I would like you to explain how you managed to erect a rational system. I say you haven’t erected a rational system. Without a rational system, your conclusion can be nothing other than a metaphysical assumption.

This could be applied to my own beliefs. But yet I do not use the word fact. Why? How do you think people would react if I told them that it is a fact that god exists?

A fact is indistinguishable from a ‘strong theory’ - in other words, it is provable to any degree of certainty that a particular situation demands. In this sense evolution can be considered a fact, while the mechanisms of evolution are considered ‘theory’.

You can see why ‘god exists’ cannot be considered a fact, and I have already demonstrated why it can’t even be considered a theory.

1. Ok, as far is know falsiable means that something is capable of being wrong. Are you saying that my theory can't be wrong? If you are, you are wrong in saying that. It can be wrong just like any other theory.

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that you firstly do not have a theory (see above), and that proving the existence of god is not falsifiable – it is not a testable assertion.

All truths are potentially falsifiable.

And here is a quote from Einstein you may find interesting.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
- Albert Einstein

take care and control.
the bricoleur.

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
- Kurt Vonnegut