God, why do people believe in the idea?

[xphillyx]

Pardon the old analogy, but this is truly what I believe.

 

To me, God is like the wind. No, you cannot see the wind. You cannot see it, but you can clearly see the effects of it. To me, God is the same way. I cannot see God. I will NEVER be able to see God while I am on this earth. But I can CLEARLY see the effects of His power having an impact on my life.

 

If you have ever been in an area with just a lot of Christians for, say a week, at some sort of function, like a camp, then you will feel God's presence so prominently that it is impossible to deny His existance.

[killbot1000]

Pardon the old analogy, but this is truly what I believe.

 

To me, God is like the wind. No, you cannot see the wind. You cannot see it, but you can clearly see the effects of it. To me, God is the same way. I cannot see God. I will NEVER be able to see God while I am on this earth. But I can CLEARLY see the effects of His power having an impact on my life.

 

If you have ever been in an area with just a lot of Christians for, say a week, at some sort of function, like a camp, then you will feel God's presence so prominently that it is impossible to deny His existance.

 

Coming from someone who believes in god...Seriously, people who don't believe just have a piece missing, that connection just ISNT THERE in any way shape or form, and everybody around us who has that "connection" seem a little crazy, thats honestly how it is. For example, when a theist sees a "miracle" we see "a lucky coincidence" when a theist sees people doing "gods work" we see people talking in a building to other people. And for that matter when theists see a "church" (a holy place), we see a building shaped differently than other buildings where people go to warship "something". When theists "pray" we see somebody kneeling and talking to themselves. Its all relative, and that's my point...

 

I said the same thing, but nobody wants to believe it.

Which is by definition .... choice. 'Choice' as stated from my earlier posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice

 

DUH.

 

OR. You can choose NOT to believe that too.

 

 

But you say choice so easily, as if no matter what I "choose" my view is no more valid than your view, but thats wrong, really it is. My "choice" is based on evidence (or lack thereof). It would be like having two paths, one is paved, with no trees, and one goes into a forest with lava flowing through it, and somebody next to you says "which is safer?". Well from the evidence, surely the paved path looks safer, based on the evidence of what you see before you, the lava dirt path COULD be safer, but its less likely to be safer. God is no different, God MAY exist, but the evidence that I have before me would suggest otherwise. Its not a choice, its just common sense. I don't know what I can say that will get that message through, but thats the way it is...

Edited February 17, 2007 by killbot1000

[gwprod12]

I do not choose not to believe. I am not ambivalent. I actively disbelieve. Since everything comes down to choice, I suppose you could make the argument that I choose to disbelieve.

 

I have absolute irrational faith that God does not exist. Better?

[OryHara]

My "choice" is based on evidence (or lack thereof).

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

You are fooling yourself.

 

I do not choose not to believe. I am not ambivalent. I actively disbelieve. Since everything comes down to choice, I suppose you could make the argument that I choose to disbelieve.

 

I have absolute irrational faith that God does not exist. Better?

Your faith in man, misplaced ye be.

 

[killbot1000]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

You are fooling yourself.

Your faith in man, misplaced ye be.

 

 

 

No, what I am saying is that there is no evidence that has LED me to believe in god, so why would I travel down that path if theres no evidence leaning there? Heres an example: if you were doing an experiment to see if mold killed bacteria in the human body, you've tried mold, you are figuring out that it is working, would you be fooling yourself if somebody told you "mold doesn't work, use chemical X" but the first person says to the second "But the evidence I am using in my experiment shows that mold is working, why would I just start using chemical X?" the second person says: "Because it works, absence of evidence (that chemical X works) is not proof that chemical X doesnt work".

 

My point is that this "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" talk is irrelevant when it comes to talking about god. My other point is that no evidence has led me to god as an explanation, natural explanations seem to be the way to explain how the world works, so if I am FINDING a real reason for how something works, why would I suddenly bring god into the equation (much like the hypothetical scientist suddenly bringing Chemical X into the equation when mold is working). All I'm saying is that you are fooling yourself, believing in something without a shred of evidence. You say I'm fooling myself, but whats worse: Believing in something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up, or not believing in something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. I hope the answer is clearly the former, and if its not, then learn a little logic, please.

 

Atheism is not irrational, unlike theism, the word literally means "a lack of belief". I don't believe in god because its irrational and the idea doesn't make any sense, not because I have "faith" that he/she doesn't exist. I honestly don't know, but I am leaning toward "No" until I see evidence for the contrary (another example: somebody tells you "I can jump 10 feet in the air" and what would you do? Would you say "oh you can?" or would you say "bull {censored}, show me right now" and they say "I cant right now, I'm not ready" (or any other {censored} excuse) Would you assume that they couldn't jump 10 feet in the air based on common sense? I think most people would answer "yes" to this question. All I'm saying is the evidence isnt there so I have no reason to believe it, its not faith, its common sense.

 

Nobody seems to get what I'm saying, am I totally off base here? Anybody out there in the same boat as me?

Edited February 19, 2007 by killbot1000

[kinobe]

What do u belive created this universe killbot1000? What ever you answer on that it will acually be your god. If it was a pink lollypop that set the world in motion then that pink lollypop is your god=creator. Lets say universe started with bigbang. Something caused that big bang and what ever that was is the creator of this chain reaction that led us to this day. You seem to limit the concept of god to something you could interact with or what ever view u have on what god could be. BUt anything that creates something falls under the concept of "god". God=cause to a creation of anything in any form. Its not God=bible or God=graybearded man/woman.

Edited February 19, 2007 by kinobe

[killbot1000]

What do u belive created this universe killbot1000? What ever you answer on that it will acually be your god. If it was a pink lollypop that set the world in motion then that pink lollypop is your god=creator. Lets say universe started with bigbang. Something caused that big bang and what ever that was is the creator of this chain reaction that led us to this day. You seem to limit the concept of god to something you could interact with or what ever view u have on what god could be. BUt anything that creates something falls under the concept of "god". God=cause to a creation of anything in any form. Its not God=bible or God=graybearded man/woman.

 

 

My answer is that "I don't know" I feel like its presumptuous to know, so is "I dont know" my god? I think not. I guess I am the way I am because I don't know, and I don't really think its relevant so I don't care, I guess thats why I don't believe.

[gwprod12]

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. That is absolutely true. The fact that there is no credible evidence for an inexplicable supernatural being that by it's very nature cannot be proved and, in theory, wants it that way, does not prove that that inexplicable supernatural being does not exist. (if you follow). Anyone who claims that they can prove God doesnt exist is on the same wrong path as those who think they can prove he/she/it does exist.

 

The question here has gotten so distorted, so I will give a completely valid reason why I might (though I dont) believe in God. I might believe in God because I like the idea that there is an architect for the universe, that somehow makes it function properly, and I can think to myself, even though God has left it to you and me to figure our own {censored} out, he'll still make sure that inexplicable disasters, like gamma rays from a supernova, or the earth falling into a black hole, dont happen. One might even reason that as human beings get a greater understanding of the physical universe, we also learn how better to tend it and protect ourselves, in which case God relaxes his vigil just a little bit. The notion of God as the protector of humanity from things we cannot possibly defend ourselves from makes perfect sense.

I dont ascribe to it, but if I did, I would be comforted.

 

That right there is a reason for someone to believe. Not because there is evidence all over (if there is, it's completely debatable), or that "the bible says so", but because it is a nice idea that there is something all powerful that really cares.

 

That right there is the message of Jesus. That God cares. But a lot of people are turned off by the whole idea when those telling them that God cares are also telling them that God hates. That God punishes, that God is disappointed, or that Jesus is crying. If God cares, why would God want anyone to kill, persecute, say mean things about/to, or generally hassle anyone else?

 

According to people like Pat Robertson, not only does God punish me for my sins (as far as I can tell, I havent even gotten a slap on the wrist), but he punishes YOU for my sins too ;-p

 

Though I'm sure God has a mysterious reason for that =]

[Dice7]

Guess we will all have to wait until we die, for some it might be to late, but who knows... I know what I believe, and I am fine with that.

 

Dice

[yoda75]

I have some questions about God. This is by no means a provocation but an honest attempt to understand the mindset and belief system of "believers".

1. Is God omnipotent?
   
2. If so then why did God create imperfect beings and then punish them for the imperfections He had bestowed upon them?
   
3. How is it that an omnipotent God can't/won't take the time to physically manifest Him/Herself in a way that would not harm us, so that we may all be enlightened and spared from eternal hell?
   
4. There are vast amounts of varying doctrines in circulation claiming to be "the word of God", why would a merciful God allow false doctrines to circulate and then punish people with eternal hell when they either choose to follow the wrong doctrine or get so sceptical that they believe in none of them? Intervention would not only stop misrepresentations of God's will, but would also save the souls of countless generations to come, yet direct and obvious intervention almost never takes place, why?
   
5. If God created Adam & Eve, wouldn't we all be the products of incest which is regarded as a "sin" amongst the vast majority of mono-theistic religions? Wouldn't the emergence of the different races in the face of a definitive common human ancestor still be proof of evolution? Why isn't it the most compelling proof of all to a religious individual?
   

These are a few of the many questions I have concerning aspects of God and religion (Christianity in particular) that do not add up in my mind. I am not really a true atheist because if there was some sort of tangible proof in God, I would believe without question. To me it just seems like such a trap. So many religions all claiming to be the only truth and then if you choose the wrong one you go to hell forever.

 

I try to assess the probability of God's existence and at this point in time, it seems more likely that there is no such thing, but that's just my take on things. You won't be able to sway me to believe in God without the simple miracle of Him showing up and talking to me in one of the languages I understand. Conversely, I don't expect to convert anybody else to my line of thinking either. I just think it's good to be able to ask these things in an anonymous online forum because doing so in the small southern town I live in, would be complete social suicide. It's quite sad really. Anyways, I'm tired as anything (pulled an all nighter last night) gotta go to sleep. I'll check on this thread later.

 

 

Peace

[Alessandro17]

You won't be able to sway me to believe in God without the simple miracle of Him showing up and talking to me in one of the languages I understand.

 

How could you be sure He was God or rather an impostor, or even Satan?

And what if God is totally unrelated to what human beings can conceive (for instance, there is no personal God?). The Advaita Vedanta calls God "That"

 

When people ask questions like the ones you are asking, they don't normally consider they are just thinking as humans.

 

As to your first questions, Good and Evil are human categories. God might be beyond Good and Evil. Certainly "being punished by God" is nothing but a human fear.

 

As to Adam and Eve, they are clearly symbols.

[yoda75]

How could you be sure He was God or rather an impostor, or even Satan?

And what if God is totally unrelated to what human beings can conceive (for instance, there is no personal God?). The Advaita Vedanta calls God "That"

 

When people ask questions like the ones you are asking, they don't normally consider they are just thinking as humans.

 

As to your first questions, Good and Evil are human categories. God might be beyond Good and Evil. Certainly "being punished by God" is nothing but a human fear.

 

As to Adam and Eve, they are clearly symbols.

 

I agree that I would be hard to convince as I am a sceptic but I'm sure an omnipotent being could find a way to do it. Good and evil are concepts that all major religions are based on. Books touted as being the "word of God" try to clearly define right and wrong, good and evil etc. It is not something I made up, but something that God has supposedly told humanity of through scriptures and prophets.

 

"Being punished by God is nothing but a human fear"? Yeah well it is the divine threat that most religions try to blackmail it's followers with. "Be good or you will be punished for all of eternity" is the bread and butter of religious morality. It is also the reason why a lot of Christians down here can't fathom how a non-believer can possibly have any kind of moral fiber. They think that if I'm not worried about going to hell that I'm by default going to rape, steal, murder etc.

 

If Adam and Eve are clearly symbols then perhaps you should tell that to all the southerners and protestants who seem to believe the bible is the literal "word of God" and the ultimate truth. If God is speaking symbolically of them, then what else in the bible was just a symbol representation or an analogy? It's not a very smart way to try and teach all of humanity guidelines for life by constantly speaking in riddles. If human beings have such limited mental capacity then a perfect being like God would have anticipated this and known better than to teach in a way that he knows we won't understand. Unless of course it was never God's intention for everybody to pass the tests of life, which would make Him a sabateur of sorts and there goes the whole merciful bit.

 

Basically God doesn't seem to be a very good communicator and pretty ruthless to boot. Doesn't make our odds for survival in the afterlife very good does it? Picking a religion seems to be quite a lot like playing Russian Roulette with your soul.

 

PS...take my ramblings with a grain of salt, I'm just toying with some ideas that intersect in interesting ways. No harm or disrespect intended.

[Alessandro17]

Well, I'll try to reply to your pretty long post with a few suggestions (none of them are really mine, but they come from the most ancient Eastern philosophies, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism...):

 

1)There is only one Reality. Such Reality is what human beings call "God"

2)Time, Space, multiplicity are only illusions.

3)God is Mind and Awareness.

4)What about human beings? They are not real as they perceive themselves. Their goal should be to fully become aware that "Tat Tvam Asi", that they are identical to the Ultimate Reality. Some of the consequences are that their fellow human beings, beyond the illusion, are identical to themselves, that there are no Good or Evil, that beyond the illusion of time and death everybody and everything is Eternal.

Needless to say that there can't be anything like eternal punishment, but only Eternal Life.

[killbot1000]

If one wants to describe "god" as energy, or the universe or something, I have absolutely no problem with that, its when they start saying that god is a "he", and hes personal (like a person), and he's jealous, all that {censored} is so...weird, and sounds totally crackpot made up. When it comes to energy though, you cant make that up because thats what everything is...

[Alessandro17]

its when they start saying that god is a "he", and hes personal (like a person), and he's jealous, all that {censored} is so...weird, and sounds totally crackpot made up.

 

That (a Personal God who punishes and so on) is of course a lot of BS (at least for me, and for everybody who follows any of the afore mentioned philosophies.

 

When it comes to energy though, you cant make that up because thats what everything is...

 

Describing the One Reality as just "energy" is very limiting and a lot of things remain unexplained.

Example: what caused the Big Bang? What was there "before" the Big Bang?

 

The "Essence" is beyond, always beyond.

 

The very few who have been able to comprehend the True Nature of the Essence, have become "Enlightened".

[killbot1000]

That (a Personal God who punishes and so on) is of course a lot of BS (at least for me, and for everybody who follows any of the afore mentioned philosophies.

Describing the One Reality as just "energy" is very limiting and a lot of things remain unexplained.

Example: what caused the Big Bang? What was there "before" the Big Bang?

 

The "Essence" is beyond, always beyond.

 

The very few who have been able to comprehend the True Nature of the Essence, have become "Enlightened".

 

 

Well maybe the big bang is just a cycle, like a heartbeat, maybe the world is much like the famous words used in Battlestar Galactica "all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again". Whatever the case, I'm sure that it is beyond our understanding, but that doesn't indicate god, it only indicates that we're too simple to understand, there's a big difference.

[Alessandro17]

Well maybe the big bang is just a cycle, like a heartbeat, maybe the world is much like the famous words used in Battlestar Galactica "all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again".

 

I can easily agree with that.

 

Whatever the case, I'm sure that it is beyond our understanding, but that doesn't indicate god, it only indicates that we're too simple to understand, there's a big difference.

 

Maybe the problem is that you keep giving the word "God" a personal meaning (God is a person).

Something which is Eternal, like universes which "appear" (with the Big Bang) and eventually end, only to be born again, must necessarily be "Absolute". We can't understand, nothing could be more certain, but maybe a bit of ordinary common sense can help.

[killbot1000]

I can easily agree with that.

Maybe the problem is that you keep giving the word "God" a personal meaning (God is a person).

Something which is Eternal, like universes which "appear" (with the Big Bang) and eventually end, only to be born again, must necessarily be "Absolute". We can't understand, nothing could be more certain, but maybe a bit of ordinary common sense can help.

 

 

Yes, I think that's exactly what the problem is. Because when people in the everyday world around me say "god" they mean the stereotypical man god, with the white beard, in the clouds, looking down on us, and judging us. This simply sounds ludicrous to me. Therefore, I must use a different word than god to describe what we understand as the universe, because to me, they are not one in the same, I think that if there is a god, we must all be part of god (the universe). Meaning that you, I and everyone are all part of one mechanism, and that mechanism is god (atleast thats how I understand it). But thats not to say God is personal, this I disagree with whole heartedly, what I'm describing, many people have CALLED god, but because of our stereotypes and our assumptions in our society, I cant really call this force, god...Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

And in this forum, when I am arguing god's nonexistance, I am speaking strictly of the stereotypical, personal, Judeo-Christian version of god, not the concept of god in terms of energy or the universe or impersonal.

[Alessandro17]

Yes, I think that's exactly what the problem is. Because when people in the everyday world around me say "god" they mean the stereotypical man god, with the white beard, in the clouds, looking down on us, and judging us. This simply sounds ludicrous to me. Therefore, I must use a different word than god to describe what we understand as the universe, because to me, they are not one in the same, I think that if there is a god, we must all be part of god (the universe). Meaning that you, I and everyone are all part of one mechanism, and that mechanism is god (atleast thats how I understand it). But thats not to say God is personal, this I disagree with whole heartedly, what I'm describing, many people have CALLED god, but because of our stereotypes and our assumptions in our society, I cant really call this force, god...Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

And in this forum, when I am arguing god's nonexistance, I am speaking strictly of the stereotypical, personal, Judeo-Christian version of god, not the concept of god in terms of energy or the universe or impersonal.

 

Do you see, our degree of agreement has increased a lot now. I could have written myself much of the above.

Indeed, we are all part of the Ultimate Reality: "Tat Twam Asi", "You are That":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

 

Or: "Shivo Ham": "I am the Absolute".

 

Do you see the "revolution"? No more a God creator and us simple creatures who can be sent to hell, who must listen to the Churches, but Us *identical* to the Absolute.

Once we can accept that, we gain an entirely new dignity.

[track09]

Explain to me this, the way you first think the world "logically" got here, what cause that. What caused that atom to be there? Explain how that can happen without divine intervention.

[Alessandro17]

Explain to me this, the way you first think the world "logically" got here, what cause that. What caused that atom to be there? Explain how that can happen without divine intervention.

 

Hopeless! I have "wasted" so many words and somebody still asks me "how that can happen without divine intervention"

I am trying to say that there is only One Reality, and nothing forbids you to call that Reality "God", if that helps you understand. God is only a word, and you can give that word every meaning you like (for the ancient Egyptians God could be a cat or a bird)

[Soündless]

what i want to know, is where did god(if there is one) come from? what started time? what was before that?, and so on....

[killbot1000]

what i want to know, is where did god(if there is one) come from? what started time? what was before that?, and so on....

 

If god is not personal, that question is irrelevant, because we would all be part of the same machine (god). The simple and most correct answers to your questions though is: I dont know, I dont know, and I dont know. It sucks...but thats kind of what we're limited to, being trapped in one place (earth) and all.

[Alessandro17]

what i want to know, is where did god(if there is one) come from? what started time? what was before that?, and so on....

 

As I have already said, time is not real, and therefore there is no before and no after.

 

Because of the same reason "God", or whatever you want to call the Ultimate Reality, always existed.

To be more precise, It always exists.

[killbot1000]

time really is just a human perception as much as I hate to say it...