Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

marcb0t,

So, God doesn't hate homosexuals, he just wants to change them into something else. That's like saying I don't hate women, I just want them to realize the wickedness of womanhood and pretend to be men. Early Christianity before Constantine had no political power, it was a fringe sect of Judaism. So they couldn't bully anyone, but the Jews did. Even today, there are Christians who are gay and internalize the guilt the church teaches about their gayness (and in general all sexual activity outside of marriage). It's pretty sad, since sexuality is part of being human, and it's not limited to the narrow choices the church offers (and what the f**k would they know about it, since it's run by a bunch of celibate male virgins).

You mentioned cursing your mother and father. Do you actually believe speaking a word is something that should be punished with death? That's absurd. This is not a good God. If any person did this, they would be considered a psychopath.

I feel sorry for you, that you have been convinced that the person you really are is bad, and that you should be someone else. Your story, rather than convincing me of the righteousness of biblical teaching, is a tragic example of the poison of faith. Matthew 5:17 proves that God/ Jesus is against homosexuality, just like I said; which science has shown is not a choice, it's a sexual orientation people are likely just born with. It's especially sad that Christians choose to be half human, denying themselves the pleasure of the material world (the only one there is), in favor of the promise of "purity", whatever that is, when your body becomes a decaying corpse. Also you still haven't explained why you are convinced there is a God.

But I would rather discuss something else, the origin of morality. You say that God is the source of morality. So I have a question, is slavery immoral?

No.
I overcame my programming and became an atheist.
Don`t be afraid of the dark.

Don't be afraid of the Light. You replaced your old programming with new programming in a dialectic synthesis that is unique to your own Monad... do not try to claim that atheism is the default position, which the "truly enlightened and educated" will arrive at.

It is the default position if you can't show that a god exists.

Given the nature of atheism being the position that asserts the positive claim that there is no God, it is a worldview that involves concepts, which one must derive from their experience. In this way, it is a belief system, which one might acquire. Agnosticism is closest to the "ism" which would describe a person who does not know enough to make a decision. In fact, given that virtually all cultures around the world throughout history have invoked a creator or something like God (as defined in the esoteric teachings of both east and west ), I think it is quite reasonable to argue the opposite position... that because we are minded creatures it is natural for us to search for meaning and purpose. And if the general idea that we are inscribed in the core of our being the very nature of God "itself" as a "person" is true then it is perfectly fitting that we should, as individuals and as a species, reach out to form a relationship with this being.

NoahYates,

Coupla things...

Atheism is not the positive claim that there is no God. One can simply have a lack of belief in God to be an atheist. Of course, one can also assert there is no God.

My belief is, however, that there is no God. I think I know enough to make a decision, even if I don't know everything. Knowledge is seldom absolute, but we can make judgements based on incomplete information. I don't know absolutely that there are no leprechauns, I haven't looked everywhere. But, even though there are legends of leprechauns, there is no evidence of them. It's completely rational to assert there are no leprechauns. If, someday, evidence of leprechauns should come to light, I will revise my opinion. Science is based on statistical likelihoods, not absolute truth. In the same way, no assertions about Gods have been shown to be true. Plenty of biased ad hoc rationalizations have been made to explain why there is no evidence of God, but I feel these are all flawed. Even in the Bible, people seemed to want evidence of God in the form of prophecies and miracles. But the prophecies are all vague, and the miracles we can examine prove to be mass delusion, or hoaxes, or just the result of ignorance. There are, however, very many good naturalistic reasons why humans would believe in God, and take part in a religion. It's a shared narrative which helps with explaining things, it took the place of scientific inquiry when people didn't have that, religion is a collection of common and accumulated human wisdom (sometimes), church served as a social safety net, as entertainment, as motive for literacy, as a legal system, as way to deal with the fear and sadness of death (especially for warfare), I could go on and on. It still serves many of those purposes. Evidence for a God that intervenes in human affairs should be evident, but it's not. Prayer studies show no statistical effect. God is not required to explain the origin of species, or the origin of the universe. The idea isn't even required to have an experience of enlightenment, as Buddhists have been practicing this for millennia without it. In fact, Jesus can be better explained as having experienced enlightenment (the kingdom of heaven), through the practice of denying himself physical pleasures (sin), leading to a state of universal love (lack of identification with your just own body) and non-violence (turn the other cheek), and then communicating this to others (Bodhisattva). This would not be a foreign concept to the Dali Lama. Jesus didn't know about Buddha, so he interpreted all this through his unorthodox style of Judaism. And then when he was dead, people got it all wrong (typical). Enlightenment involves the dissolution of the ego (sense of self), so it's natural to experience this as a merging with something greater (all of existence), and a Jew would call it God, for lack of a better term. If God is defined as everything, even I would believe it, since I believe in everything. But if something is universal, it becomes meaningless. Atheism is the pinnacle of spirituality. Lack of spirituality is the height of enlightenment. Reality is already the kingdom of heaven, only you do not see it.

To say that all cultures throughout history have believed in a God is not historically accurate. I have a book of eastern religions, mostly Chinese, and even within that small group, there are hundreds of schools of thought, many of them are atheist in nature. The number of people that think something is not evidence for the truth of that idea. Cultures which are successful, for whatever reason (usually having to do with climate, resources, and technology) tend to spread their beliefs. They teach it to their children. Such teaching is difficult to overcome later in life, because our beliefs affect our perceptions, and those beliefs are often biased against the use of reason. Many cultures would simply murder people who thought otherwise.

Yes, we are intelligent creatures that look for meaning and purpose. But it's a mistake to think that means there is a universal purpose, or a supreme being. We look for agency in events, because, if such knowledge is correct, provides a significant survival advantage. Children who do not believe whatever authority figures say will probably come to a bad end.

"My belief is that there is a God. I think I know enough to make a decision, even if I don't know everything. Knowledge is seldom absolute, but we can make judgments based on incomplete information."

What do you know? I know that all the evidence so far presented by theists in favor of God is invalid. That leads one to the conclusion that there is probably no God. What can you say otherwise? Why is the idea of God different from the idea of a leprechaun? I say they are the same, both supernatural beings for which no evidence exists.

You can hypothesize all you want, but that's not what a believer is. A believer says they know. Watts' and Spinoza's God are metaphors, not literal beings with which one can have a relationship.

My experience is There is a God.

For those that do believe and those that don't, I suggest you read the Bible. There is some Good stuff in there. Just read the red and black fonts.

It's up to you.

I thought things would make me all that. Such as
A. Being well educated
B. Making lots of money
C. Having things
D. Having houses
E. Having a beautiful wife.
Those things didn't bring me happiness
I always wanted more
My experience is
A. God takes me as I am
B. Since then I can be content despite $$$ or lack of $$$
C happy are the peace makers
D. I can help people without the motive of getting something about it
E. The best translation of The Bible is the life you lead.
I fall short lots of time.
F. My God and my wife loves me despite my faults
G. My wife says it this way. She chooses to love me.

I'm not here to argue just share my experiences which are different than others.

Wow... I really liked that line you just gave... "the best translation of the Bible is the life you lead"