God, why do people believe in the idea?

[gwprod12]

Deism is a profoundly reasonable species of faith. God exists, built the universe, started it going, then left. God does not interfere with the universe in any way. In fact, God really doesnt care about what goes on in the universe. You do what you do because even though you will never know what is pleasing to God, you let your conscience be your guide, and hope it's right.

 

What Deism does not include are:

Miracles (the universe is the only miracle of God, and everything happening in the universe is consistent with the universe's laws).

Direct intervention of God (God is gone, and doesnt care).

Chosen People (God didnt make Jews or Arabs or humans or any other extraterestrial life. They are a product of God's laws).

A book that clearly isnt correct in the predictions it makes about reality.

 

If i believed in God, I'd probably be a deist.

[killbot1000]

If I had to be a religion, it would be buddhism. Deism would be the best choice for believing in a god.

 

Atheism is the fruit of my heart though heheh

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

"If I had to choose..." is not a reason to believe, the right not to choose is a reason to believe.

[killbot1000]

"If I had to choose..." is not a reason to believe, the right not to choose is a reason to believe.

 

But thats kinda what I'm saying. I dont belive...atleast in any kind of "mystical deity". I believe in myself...

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

All I'm saying is that it doesn't even make sense to say something like, "If I had to be a religion, it would be this." It is simply a contradiction.

 

a*the*ism- n- the theory or belief that God does not exist (The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001). It would seem that atheism necessarily says that God does not exist. Maybe you guys need a new word because you all seem to leave a possibility open for the existence of God. Further more, it seems as if the word 'atheism' is being misused and misdefined. Get it straight, "atheism necessarily says that God does not exist."

[gwprod12]

I leave open the objective possibility that God exists, because reason indicates that the question is unanswerable. However, as an atheist, I firmly believe God does not exist.

 

An atheist is someone who has faith and belief that God does not exist. Not maybe, not irrelevant (like an agnostic), but Theistic negativism.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

I leave open the objective possibility that God exists, because reason indicates that the question is unanswerable. However, as an atheist, I firmly believe God does not exist.

 

An atheist is someone who has faith and belief that God does not exist. Not maybe, not irrelevant (like an agnostic), but Theistic negativism.

By reason, and correct me if I'm wrong, Zero evidence of the existence of a thing means it does not exist, but it also means, if we thought of it, that it could exist since we, after all, don't know everything. If the question of Gods reasonable existence is unanswerable then we don't know if he exists or not, its not completely agnostic of a belief but it is not atheist since a true atheist believes that God necessarily does not exist. It's actually a melding of agnostic and atheist, more atheist of course, but a sprinkle of agnostic to believe that God does not exist, but he could. It's definitely the most reasonable and logical way to think of God, as a probably not. Let's say a 99% probability that God does not exist, close your eyes and keep picking one of the 99 white pebbles. Out of the hundred pebbles one is blue, just maybe if reason dictates, you'll pick the blue pebble next. Either way unless you stop picking pebbles you will have to pick the blue pebble one time.

[gwprod12]

A traditional Atheist believes that God does not exist, not that it is necessarily provable. Having no evidence that something is so, is not the same as having evidence that something isnt so. Having zero evidence of God does not prove God doesnt exist. Nor does having no evidence of God's nonexistence prove God's existence. It is simply an unanswered question. As evidence for or against God's existence is impossible, the unanswered question is necessarily an unanswerable question.

 

A logical falacy ensues when someone assumes that lack of proof of one thing necessarily proves it's opposite. As in "Evolution cant explain x, so Creationism must be true".

 

I'm not sure I answered your question, so let me try again. A rational person may know that a phenomena without evidence is E and ~E (existing and not existing simultaneously, as in a state of parallel uncertainty), but that does not stop a rational person from having irrational beliefs that either E is true or ~E is true. For instance. I know that there is no evidence for extraterestrial lifeforms, and I know that there is no evidence denying extraterestrial lifeforms. Therefore, I know that ETs might or might not exist in equal measure. I still believe that they probably do, however. Others believe that ETs do not exist. Neither of those beliefs are rational, as they are not based on evidence (there is none).

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

Fantastic explanation, and I understand all of that already. I'm mearly asking about your titles of 'atheist' and 'agnostic.' They seem to be misused.

[killbot1000]

Fantastic explanation, and I understand all of that already. I'm mearly asking about your titles of 'atheist' and 'agnostic.' They seem to be misused.

 

You are completely right, they are misused, but as a biproduct of our society...they have to be used in this way.

 

What I mean is that our society (USA, Europe) is based off of Judeo-Christian values and predispositions.

 

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, god is a man, god is also a person. This definition of god is what is forced on us every day, so when one says they are agnostic and/or atheist, it seems to me that they are merely reacting to this tradition (god seems like a fairy tale [santa clause, tooth fairy, etc.]) so of course a rational person is going to say "I'm an atheist".

 

When people say "I believe in god" this traditional definition is USUALLY what they are referring to. The person who does not believe in this however, has no other words to define what they feel besides "agnostic and atheist"

 

However, if we redefine god to include something that ISNT personal and that maybe isnt even conscious, lets say...god is energy, that is when our traditional definitions of atheism and agnosticism would start to get real gray real fast.

 

Am I making any sense here?

[gwprod12]

Yes. Agnosticism is a purely judeo-christian structure. Whereas Atheism is anti-Theism. Buddhism, for instance, is not a theistic belief system. Therefore, Atheism is not Anti-buddhism. Atheism is anti-Godism. If by God, you conclude a personal God (a creature of some sort), then Atheism is against God. If you conclude that God is some sort of abstract force, then Atheism is mute.

 

Since the core of Buddhism for instance is the transubstantiation of human beings into higher creatures (there being no higher creatures than humans and such), Atheism cannot comment. That is left for Materialists, who deny non-material matters entirely, as a belief structure. I am both an Atheist (I think there is no personal God) and a Materialist (I do not think human beings have an imbued soul or etherial portion). Since this has never come up before, really, I've never mentioned I'm an unbeliever when it comes to all spirituality.

 

This brings up an interesting thought puzzle. If the ethereal plane or a different dimension or whatever were to exist, evidence of it's existence would, by default, require some sort of measurement. Now, if humans must die to see this place, and after death they may not communicate their insights in an objective way, then these places are irrelevant and unprovable. But if a human being could visit astral space and measure it in such a way as to determine it's properties are different than our universe's, that would be evidence of it's existence.

 

It would not be evidence for the existence of God, however, as God's powers are undefined and no system of measurement could possibly conflict with God's existence. (I.E. God could fudge your protractor to show whatever he wanted you to see).

 

A good book to read for everyone interested in this sort of thing is Eon by Greg Bear, where the principal characters must interact with a reality that defies logic, mathematics and universal laws. Such as the use of the flaw, a bundling of bent geodesics, to generate power from the spacial transform (I.E. using an object that is infinitely slippery to produce kinetic energy), which defies conventional conservation of energy laws. A good read.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

You guys are hovering above that blue pebble... you just might pick it soon enough, at least it isn't as buried as I once thought.

[3nigma]

I'm mearly asking about your titles of 'atheist' and 'agnostic.' They seem to be misused.

They are misused. Whenever "atheist" is used, it is appropriate to substitute "agnostic." Every atheist here claims to have the door open for the possibility of a God, which would be agnostic. Further perusal of statements made by the same people in question, however, would reveal the opposite to be true. Apparently, if priests shot holy energy from their eyes at hellish creatures that crawled from the bowels of the earth, this does not constitute something of the supernatural to some readers here. Do not be taken in by the banter.

You are completely right, they are misused, but as a biproduct of our society...What I mean is that our society (USA, Europe) is based off of Judeo-Christian values and predispositions.

 

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, god is a man, god is also a person. This definition of god is what is forced on us every day, so when one says they are agnostic and/or atheist, it seems to me that they are merely reacting to this tradition...When people say "I believe in god" this traditional definition is USUALLY what they are referring to

Correct.

If the ethereal plane or a different dimension or whatever were to exist, evidence of it's existence would, by default, require some sort of measurement.

False.

It would not be evidence for the existence of God, however, as God's powers are undefined and no system of measurement could possibly conflict with God's existence.

False.

 

You cannot apply your rules that define a deity, when the deity in question is the actual one that is a deity. It would be the deity that gets to decide what rules it does and does not adhere to, including whether or not it can be measured.

 

Your belief system doesn't hold up to sheer untainted logic. Pure, true logic. Logic never dictates that "a deity can never be measured, because it is a deity." That's just us making that up.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

That is ignorance right there. An all-powerful being may be able to do whatever it likes, but human beings must analyze the world with their senses.

 

Evidence requires measurement. Without measurement, there can be no evidence. How that's escaped anyone in the civilized world is beyond my comprehension.

 

Since a deity is capable of anything, all of a deity's qualities are arbitrary. And thus, meaningless. Tautology negates evidence.

[3nigma]

An all-powerful being may be able to do whatever it likes, but human beings must analyze the world with their senses.

This may or may not be true. This is simply your reasoning. We do not, and cannot, yet, know that information. It is most likely false, because there are infinite things that happen in the universe that cannot be measured by human sense.

Evidence requires measurement. Without measurement, there can be no evidence.

However, maybe a deity in question may or may not need evidence; evidence which may or may not be measured.

 

I'm just having fun with you now, this is all pedantry .

 

-3nigma

[killbot1000]

Have anybody heard/study (seriously) about Islam?

 

It has the exact same problems as christianity, there is no point (but I have researched it). If you read the Qran and the bible, it is exactly the same thing (not literally, but its the same kind of book)

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

It has the exact same problems as christianity, there is no point (but I have researched it). If you read the Qran and the bible, it is exactly the same thing (not literally, but its the same kind of book)

You are oversimplifying and generalizing here dude...... c'mon.

[killbot1000]

You are oversimplifying and generalizing here dude...... c'mon.

 

No I am not, I understand that Christianity and Islam are very different, however, they both come from the Abrahamic Tradition, and are therefore, cut from the same cloth, to use a metaphor.

 

I have read pieces of the Qran and its language is very similar to the bible, the only reason why there appears to be such a difference in the way Christians act VS. the way that Muslims act is because for one, in Christianity, the church has authority, and therefore can kind of pick and choose which rules to follow (or emphasize and deemphasize)

 

Islam however is based solely on the Book and the worshiper (Sunni Majority), so people who follow it...FOLLOW IT.

 

 

I prefer religions that don't try to micromanage every portion of ones life, nobody needs that...

[3nigma]

No I am not, I understand that Christianity and Islam are very different, however, they both come from the Abrahamic Tradition, and are therefore, cut from the same cloth, to use a metaphor.

You're right. Human beings and mollusks (snails, slugs, etc.) both evolved from the same original single-celled organism. I understand that Humans and mollusks are very different, however, they both come from the same primordial soup, and are therefore, cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

I have read pieces of the Qran and its language is very similar to the bible...

You're right. Both were written in ancient times and in ancient languages, so the language of the Qran is therefore very similar to the Bible.

 

Just like the Anarchist Cookbook is written in English, much the same way that Shakespeare is written in English, they are therefore very similar.

 

...and stuff...

...the only reason why there appears to be such a difference in the way Christians act VS. the way that Muslims act is because for one, in Christianity, the church has authority, and therefore can kind of pick and choose which rules to follow (or emphasize and deemphasize)

Huh?

 

In case you haven't been around, the Christian church split into a million pieces starting in the 1500s. There is no "church" that has authority over all Christians to pick and choose individual Christian beliefs. There are hundreds of thousands of "churches" that all have their own beliefs and fragments of interpretation.

 

Nice try, though. At least it sounded good.

Islam however is based solely on the Book and the worshiper (Sunni Majority), so people who follow it...FOLLOW IT.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Now, more than ever, lol. (See my next point).

I prefer religions that don't try to micromanage every portion of ones life, nobody needs that...

Islam that you are praising in contrast to Christianity (those who FOLLOW their faith), is a faith that would objectively be described as more "micromanaging" than others, in the sense of laying down "rules" and "law" to live by. Judaism is the same way.

 

Christianity, in contrast, did the opposite. The whole point of Christianity was to reverse the logic of the previous Judaism. Rather than living by rigid and strict laws of micromanaging every facet of your life, Christianity is all about simply living a life of love.

 

Other atheists and agnostics that have a proper understanding of Christianity will corroborate me on this.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

If we are defining Christianity as the new testament... (I feel only the four gospels have any value in this regard, but that's me), then what you say is true. Judaism and Islam can be likened to a heavily programmed and static system. Whereas Christianity is more pseudocode.

 

To illustrate: In Islam and Judaism, the rules are very cause-and-effect oriented. Do this, this happens. Do that, that happens. Etc and so forth.

 

Christianity is more guidelines of good behavior.

 

3nigma: Thank you for pointing out the issue with Christianity. Those who actually follow Christian teachings in a rigorous way are difficult to find (At least in the United States). Whereas Muslims who follow the Qu'ran vociferously make up a large portion of the Islam-identifying population. (or so I'm led to understand)

 

To round out my contribution to this discussion: For the record, I find little fault in the pure christian teachings as a tool of morality. I just wish people would adhere to it more. And I also wish that those who declaim Christianity as their faith system would not try to force it down my throat. Conversely, I would like to add that I have no interest in forcing my atheist faith down other people's throats. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. I would not attempt to, nor be able to, prove or give evidence for my belief system. And I have no problem with people not following it.

[killbot1000]

You're right. Human beings and mollusks (snails, slugs, etc.) both evolved from the same original single-celled organism. I understand that Humans and mollusks are very different, however, they both come from the same primordial soup, and are therefore, cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

 

You're right. Both were written in ancient times and in ancient languages, so the language of the Qran is therefore very similar to the Bible.

 

Just like the Anarchist Cookbook is written in English, much the same way that Shakespeare is written in English, they are therefore very similar.

 

...and stuff...

 

Huh?

 

In case you haven't been around, the Christian church split into a million pieces starting in the 1500s. There is no "church" that has authority over all Christians to pick and choose individual Christian beliefs. There are hundreds of thousands of "churches" that all have their own beliefs and fragments of interpretation.

 

Nice try, though. At least it sounded good.

 

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Now, more than ever, lol. (See my next point).

 

Islam that you are praising in contrast to Christianity (those who FOLLOW their faith), is a faith that would objectively be described as more "micromanaging" than others, in the sense of laying down "rules" and "law" to live by. Judaism is the same way.

 

Christianity, in contrast, did the opposite. The whole point of Christianity was to reverse the logic of the previous Judaism. Rather than living by rigid and strict laws of micromanaging every facet of your life, Christianity is all about simply living a life of love.

 

Other atheists and agnostics that have a proper understanding of Christianity will corroborate me on this.

 

-3nigma

 

 

Whoa whoa whoa! Lets not get ahead of ourselves here, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Praising Islam, I am trying to say how similar it is to Christianity (that it is not worth ones time [and again, this is only my

opinion, an atheists])

 

I do have a proper understanding of christianity, and the new testament DOES micromanage ones life, it just does DIFFERENT micromanaging. It is fair to say that Christianity is a simplification of Judaism, but it is not radically different in any way...just different rules, which doesn't really count as different in my book

 

When I said that they (the books) have the same language, what I meant to say was that the sentence style is the same (they speak in the same way, give out laws, praise god for all eternity, etc., etc., insert scary stuff here, etc.)

 

My point about the church is that a church has much more influence on Christians (yes there are different churches but the CHURCH has influence on Christians, and many churches think alike) than a mosque does on a Muslim, its pretty much all about the book (q'ran)

 

Please don't take my words and twist them around to make me look like an idiot, its rude!

 

I realize that Islam is more micromanaging, that was my point.....why I thought it was a waste of time....am I really this unclear, to where people think I am saying the opposite of what I am REALLY saying?

 

For the record, my personal recommendation is Buddhism.....NOT ISLAM (not that I have a problem with Islam, i have a few Muslim friends...its just not my cup of tea)

 

 

To round out my contribution to this discussion: For the record, I find little fault in the pure christian teachings as a tool of morality. I just wish people would adhere to it more. And I also wish that those who declaim Christianity as their faith system would not try to force it down my throat. Conversely, I would like to add that I have no interest in forcing my atheist faith down other people's throats. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. I would not attempt to, nor be able to, prove or give evidence for my belief system. And I have no problem with people not following it.

 

 

You really wish that Christians would follow their faith? Really? I dont...

 

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:7-9

 

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14

 

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2

 

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. - Titus 2:9

 

OH, this one is from the old testament, but its my favorite

 

Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. - Hosea 13

 

Looks like we better do what the Bible says! (Sarcasm). Give me a break, throw this book away.

[gwprod12]

The first passage can best be described as sarcasm. The others are outside the four gospels, therefore meaningless.

[killbot1000]

The first passage can best be described as sarcasm. The others are outside the four gospels, therefore meaningless.

 

It's still new Testament, Christians claim to follow it, my point is still valid...Just because YOU think its meaningless doesn't make it so

[gwprod12]

Fair enough.

 

Maybe it would be better to say that I would prefer that Christians followed the Jefferson Bible.

 

By themselves, the four gospels are pretty straight-forward. When you add the rest of the books of the new testament, they negate all of the good Jesus put forth.

 

Examples of this revisionism are clear throughout the new testament.

 

Perhaps it might also be better to say that it would be nice if those who believed in the Christian faith would try to live more with the spirit than with the word. Or chucked all of the hell-fire books entirely.

[solaar]

Perhaps this was already mentioned before but to put a different spin on the belief issue itself - even if somebody (no matter if human or alien or some other yet undiscovered intelligent lifeform) come up with objective, damning, unshakable, ultimate evidence that a god does not exist and that humankind has been suffering from some sort of mass delusion for several millenia, I would place a bet today that countless humans would still insist in believing in (some kind of) god...