Does anyone actually still believe in God?

[GottaBigOne]

Caneadea: I really don't know which post your were referencing, but thatnks for the compliment, like i've said in the past, it is really nice to know that I can get myself across to other people. I do not think though, and this is not a malevolent criticism of you, but i feel like it would be an aid, that you should ground your atheism in the feeling of a need to be in control of your own life, even if that feeling is a result of a fact. You should instead base your un-belief in the fact of your autonomy, in the fact that your life is yours and not the property of some god, or whatever. Most definitions of god can logically be disproven, even the generic definitions of god that are out there. But that is beside the point usually. The burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is not the atheist's job to disprove the existence of god, it is the theist's job to prove his existence, and when he can't do that (usually because God is defined as being outside of human perception, and all proof logically is founded on perceptual evidence,e.g. when one asks for "proof" what they are really asking is "to show" them, which means to "let them see" which means "reveal to their consciousness" which means "make them percieve") when the thiest can't prove the existence of god, the existence of god must be rejected as arbitrary, which means not necessarily false, but not demonstrably true either, and not worthy of even consideration. If someone were to say that they believe in a Ghrottilyjorbisnson that lives in the magic 28th dimension and sings inaudible songs to the invisible unicorn gynocologist's assistant, and then can't prove this claim, the attitude one should not take is that "since it can't be disproven then its okay to believe in anyway" but it should, as should also any illogical notion of god, be utterly and remorselessly dismissed as nonsense. This is what your should base your atheism on, not a feeling, but logic, and the facts of existence.

 

[B_caneadea]

To GottaBigOne:
I was complimenting your post from page 2 of this discussion.

To DC DEEP:
I play no part in your "join or die" theory. I have absolutely no desire to convert anyone to atheism. This is simply my choice and what works well for me.

I am disgusted by most organized religion. The guilt, "sin", punishment, exclusion, hatred, hypocrisy of it all.

I am not an angry person nor a hateful person. And I'm anything but sad.

My definition of a genuinely religious person is someone who practices (isn't this ironic?) the "golden rule", lives and lets live, is considerate of others, shares laughter, gives compliments, gives the benefit of the doubt, allows others to be different, isn't judgemental, admits wrong.

These are some of my values.

It really doesn't give me concern, but, if it turns out that I am wrong, and your god is waiting to pass judgement on me when I die, I have no doubt that, weighing the good against the bad, I will come out favorably. Shrug.

 

[madame_zora]

If someone were to say that they believe in a Ghrottilyjorbisnson that lives in the magic 28th dimension and sings inaudible songs to the invisible unicorn gynocologist's assistant, and then can't prove this claim, the attitude one should not take is that "since it can't be disproven then its okay to believe in anyway" but it should, as should also any illogical notion of god, be utterly and remorselessly dismissed as nonsense.

So, what you're saying is that Ghrottilyjorbinson ISN'T real?? *kills self*


GBO, I think there are some values attributed to God that are useful and decent in human existance, although they do not require the validation of God to be important. I am a big enough person to admit that where my own atheism lets me down is with the "unanswered questions" that are so neatly tied up in Chrisitanity. That doesn't make them true, not in the least, which is why I can't really buy into them, but I do understand why people do.

I wish I understood better why so many people are so resistant to change, when change is the only constant in human existance! If God really had made us in his own image, he must be a paranoid fuck. Seriously, he's be a jealous, scheming, conniving, raping, ego-mutilated guy if he made us to be like him! He'd be worrying about his penis size RIGHT NOW.

No, man made God in HIS own image, just as we've done throughout history, to try to answer the same old fucking questions. The only reason Christianity seems important is because it is happening NOW. Then we go and try to elevate it's importance by shortening the time line- if the world's only been around for 5,000 years, then this last 2,000 is a lot more relevant than life has been developing for many millenia. How long do you think Ra was around? Buddha? Krishna? What gods have come and gone, lost in translation. Gods created to ensure fertility of crops? Weather? Gods to give instruction on social behavior? Parenting? Spousal selection?
Ours is no different, he is an indication of our social progress, but he will hardly be the last. Perhpas in time, a people will come after us who don't need mythology to understand to an acceptable level how things work, I will hope for that.

 

[rawbone8]

The thing in this thread that I find disturbing is that the evangelists on both sides (the theists and the atheists) want to lead the horse to water, then hold his head under until he either drinks or drowns. Join or die. What a choice.

Finding a thirsty horse is a good start for those who want to lead.

 

[DC_DEEP]

To DC DEEP:
I play no part in your "join or die" theory. I have absolutely no desire to convert anyone to atheism. This is simply my choice and what works well for me.

Caneadea, that was a main portion of the point of my post - obviously you are not one of the evangelists. But the evangelists, although a small portion of either group, are kinda self-defeating. They are the ones who most want everyone else on their side, but their manner actually serves to drive away more people than it attracts. Please re-read my post, and pay special attention to the parts where I specify the evangelists on both sides, I didn't say that all theists and all atheists are like that. That's where the "horse to water" comment comes in... that vocal minority is unable to accept that other people may not agree, and have every right to believe as they choose. The evangelists want to make that choice for the rest of us.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Dc Deep, I don't know if you include me in the evangelists group but I'm assuming you do since i am vocal about my atheism and have admitted in the past to wanting "to change people's views". I would like to defend myself and clear a few things up. It is not my life's mission to convert people to atheism, frankly i don't give a shit whether or not people believe in god (what i do care about is how they try to inject their irrational beliefs into law) but i will not sit back and let irrational, illogical notions go by without a fight. Like i said to caneadea, atheism is more of a reaction to theism, it is not apositive belief, rather a negative, an un-blelief. i have never started a conversation with anybody with: "So you're theist huh? You're wrong!!!" The only times I have gotten into theological discussions with anyone is when they have approached me first with their theistic bullshit. The CHristian Evangelists however, who you implicitly equate me with, ACTIVELY engage people in order to convert them. There is a significant difference here between starting an argument for something and retaliating with an argument against something. Its the same difference as there is between starting a fight by punching a stranger in the face, and defending yourself against said stranger.

 

[DC_DEEP]

GBO, I have no problem whatsoever with your point of view. I just simply do not fit any of the typical labels used in the context of this discussion. I neither believe in deities, nor disbelieve in them... let me qualify that: I neither believe that they exist, nor that they do not exist. I am not agnostic - it is not that I don't know, but rather that I don't care.

I am not equating you with evangelical christians - your arguments and techniques are much more refined. But you cannot argue that your are not evangelical about your beliefs.

I did not arrive at my views of theology or religion (and I do consider atheism a religion, just not a theological one) randomly. I studied many texts, bibles, and treatises on various religions, and the more I learned, the less I believed until I came to a simple lack of belief. My views are my own, and I arrived at them, not by being taught, but using what I consider to be fairly solid logical principles.

If someone offers me their own thoughts on philosophy, that is fine. But if I politely refuse, and they insist, that is when I find it offensive. That is neither an endorsement nor an indictment of you and/or your beliefs. I feel that you are just as free to believe as you choose, as am I.

I agree with you that it is definitely time for those of us who are not christians to demand our first amendment rights.

 

[hung9mike]

...when the thiest can't prove the existence of god, the existence of god must be rejected as arbitrary, which means not necessarily false, but not demonstrably true either, and not worthy of even consideration.

GottaBigOne, I hope I haven't misunderstood your point or have taken your comment out of context, but I would argue that even if the existence of god (or even, the gods, in the event there are more than one) cannot be demonstrated by any means we currently know, it is not a completely pointless exercise to wonder if he/she/it/they really exist. This question is very much like, in my mind, to the questions of how we and the rest of the universe came to be and for what reason, if any, the universe goes to the trouble of existing in the first place. These questions may also be unanswerable (in full) but speak to the human experience: are we here as an accident, or are we part of some master plan? Is there purpose to the universe at all? If so, do our lives fulfill any of this purpose? What we think are the answers to these questions has profound impact on how we view and run our lives.

 

[madame_zora]

GottaBigOne, I hope I haven't misunderstood your point or have taken your comment out of context, but I would argue that even if the existence of god (or even, the gods, in the event there are more than one) cannot be demonstrated by any means we currently know, it is not a completely pointless exercise to wonder if he/she/it/they really exist. This question is very much like, in my mind, to the questions of how we and the rest of the universe came to be and for what reason, if any, the universe goes to the trouble of existing in the first place. These questions may also be unanswerable (in full) but speak to the human experience: are we here as an accident, or are we part of some master plan? Is there purpose to the universe at all? If so, do our lives fulfill any of this purpose? What we think are the answers to these questions has profound impact on how we view and run our lives.

Mike, I think that's the point of any philosophical exercise. I find a lot of things intriguing that I don't necessarily attribute factual reality to. For example, in Iceland, there is a strong vocla group of people who believe in woodland faeries. They have actually protested building roads in areas when the faeries might be disturbed. There are some amoung them who believe they can talk to the creatures as well. This belief is not looked upon snidely in their culture because it has been going on for many years and is a socially acceptable belief. While I find this fascinating to study, trying to understand the culture of such a gentle people that they wouldn't want to upset faeries, that doesn't mean I hold any belief in them myself. I also don't think it makes me closed-minded that I disregard the absurd.

Yes, the questions of how we got here, why we're here, are we serving a purpose- those are relevant questions, I just don't think that religion has done much more than invent answers and then say if you don't believe what proclaimer A believes, you are going to Hell. As I posted before, this is nothing new. We laugh at the fertility gods of past civilsations then we can't understand why everyone won't just accept on "faith" that theirs is the one and truly only magnificent God.

 

[Matthew]

So much for my "Does anyone actually still believe in Faeries?" thread.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, I would hardly see the comparison between the significance of woodland fairies and the question of why existence exists. And these beliefs are not harmless either, as you said they are trying to block developemtn in order to save non-existing fairies. They wish to keep man at a primitive level of society in order not to disturb imaginary creatures. Hardly harmless.

The damage that "faith" does, in the form of religion is keep man from knowing the answrs to the questions he is abloe to answer with reason, remember the Dark Ages, they were called that for a reason. Faith gives an unprovable answer to a question and claims its unquestionable, so for instance if one says "The world is flat, so my god says, my god is infallible, do not look into this issue of the world's shape anymore, I have solved it! if you try, you will be burned at the stake!!" The absurd should be disragarded because it is absurd, it is damaging because it has no relation to reality, and man must live in reality.

 

[dlcs]

So much for my "Does anyone actually still believe in Faeries?" thread.

I believe! I believe!! *claps hands*

What irritates me are all the televangelists, who claim that they know God's will (whoever he/she/it/they might be) and it's God's will that you send them money so you can then receive God's grace through their books and tapes. Got one of those just down the street from me... anyone here ever heard of Joyce Meyers? She just made a deal with the IRS to pay 50% of her unpaid taxes. She hadn't paid because she claims to have a church. Please, it's a cheesy broadcast center with a 50-feet-tall purple neon cross on the top, and it's right outside my mother's apartment complex.

Did none of these people see the end of "Dogma"? If you really got a whiff of God's will, your head would explode because it's just too damn much knowledge for the human brain to handle.

Let us as individuals choose how to reach the Divine, whatever you may call it. God, Allah, Buddha, Spanky, whatever!!

 

[rawbone8]

People like to believe there is something that gives meaning, defines truth and perhaps order to existence

Gods, devils, religions, mysticism etc.

And science is a religion for some as much as many other explanations

try telling that to some people and they'll look at you like some kind of heretic!

mmm different strokes

 

[Matthew]

Let us as individuals choose how to reach the Divine, whatever you may call it. God, Allah, Buddha, Spanky, whatever!!

All Hail Spanky! Spanky is Great!

 

[rawbone8]

I would slayeth my first borneth son and offereth if it pleaseth Spanky! Yea verily.

Yea.

 

[dlcs]

I would slayeth my first borneth son and offereth if it pleaseth Spanky! Yea verily.

Yea.

Spanky does not require newborn blood. Spanky does require nubile young virgins of either gender and a big vat of Stove Top stuffing.

 

[rawbone8]

Spanky does not require newborn blood. Spanky does require nubile young virgins of either gender and a big vat of Stove Top stuffing.

LOL
well my first borneth is far from new but still youngeth

doth thou knoweth if Spanky dost appreciate a wash'n'wear virgin offering?

 

[madame_zora]

Madam, I would hardly see the comparison between the significance of woodland fairies and the question of why existence exists. And these beliefs are not harmless either, as you said they are trying to block developemtn in order to save non-existing fairies. They wish to keep man at a primitive level of society in order not to disturb imaginary creatures. Hardly harmless.

The damage that "faith" does, in the form of religion is keep man from knowing the answrs to the questions he is abloe to answer with reason, remember the Dark Ages, they were called that for a reason. Faith gives an unprovable answer to a question and claims its unquestionable, so for instance if one says "The world is flat, so my god says, my god is infallible, do not look into this issue of the world's shape anymore, I have solved it! if you try, you will be burned at the stake!!" The absurd should be disragarded because it is absurd, it is damaging because it has no relation to reality, and man must live in reality.

GBO, that was in response to Hung9mike's post prior to mine where he said that what we think is true is relevant to how we act.

In Iceland, Faery belief is somewhat harmless because of their geographical limitations. They will never be an industrialised nation, one more or less road will hardly have much impact. Maybe it's the romaticist in me, but there's something somewhat charming to me about a nation of grown adults believing in something so child-like. It does help that it's Iceland and not China.

Now to what you're really saying. I offered this story not as to whether faeries exist, but to answer why anyone's belief in things not proven should be taken seriously, obviously my point was lost. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment and have even used the "four corners of the Earth" argument myself against the stupidity of blind faith. I don't recall an apology or retraction from the "fundies" who promoted the flat Earth theory by using Biblical literalism, but still we learn nothing. You simply CAN'T take a book literally that was never written as such and have it make any sense at all. That is what fundies do, make reality out of faery tales then wonder why no ones gives them credibility.

This doesn't mean there's no purpose to the Bible, it just draws into question what that purpose might be. Even Aesop's fables have a moral at the end of the story that is of good use in daily living. The main difference between a fable and a parable is that the latter is written for adults, largely illiterate adults, to convey a message that can be easily understood and remembered. Hopefully it will be repeated. I don't know about that part of the world, but for a long time in europe, news was carried by travelling minstrels who would make up songs about current events around the areas to which he travelled so people would be interested in hearing about them. Even then, it was apparent that entertainment had to be a part of reporting or people wouldn't pay attention. I would imagine the same is true everywhere.

You say that the absurd should be disregarded because it is absurd, and I guess I would have to agree with that from a logical perspective. You'll perhaps forgive me if I hold on to my soft spot for Iceland? I hope you know me by now as a person who reveres the brilliance of a sharp mind, especially one engaged in "battle". For my last defense of Iceland, I'll also add that the ones who believe in absurdities are not trying to force their beliefs on the rest, nor do the rest consider them anything other than a throwback from a time long over. Kinda like the Amish.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

In Iceland, Faery belief is somewhat harmless because of their geographical limitations. They will never be an industrialised nation [...]

Too late, they already are.

 

[madame_zora]

Too late, they already are.

Yeah, if you count music and fishing, neither of which are impeded by roads.