While I was at NV, I occasionally took a break from writing about politics and switched to my other favorite topic, religion. Since I began writing here at NT, I have commented on a few articles concerning religion, but have not written any articles on the topic. It is obvious, however, that other than the debates we have over the political arena, religion or differences in religion, or the lack of religion continue to be the subject of considerable debate.
It tends to confirm what my parents told me when I was a child, eons upon eons ago. If you don't want people to always be angry with you, don't talk to them about your views on politics or religion. No matter what you say, you're bound to offend someone. Obviously, I wasn't really good at listening to my parents, and most of my life has been spent "stirring the pot". We may not be able to change each other's minds, but we can certainly debate each of our positions.
My discussion on religion is going to look at my personal journey and the reason why I have arrived at this point in my life. I will start by saying that I have no objection to any individual being a believer or a non-believer. That is a personal choice, come to by our own individual journeys. I do have a problem with any individual who denigrates any individual's belief or non-belief system because it does not agree with their personal theology or lack of theology.
Let me start with my theoretical construct that guides my system of observations as it relates to religion. It takes the form of the question that is the title of this piece. Which is the truth......Does man need God to exist or does God need man to exist? My journey has led me to the personal realization of the latter. Without man, there is no God. God is a product of man's mind and specific needs in both the psychology and physiology of man.
A little bit of background on me. I am a 71 year old man with two doctorates {in psychology and education} and masters degrees in psychology and history. As an undergraduate I majored in psychology and minored in comparative religions. I was born into an immigrant family who practiced Orthodox Judaism and was brought up in a family who were conscientious followers of the faith. As a child and youth, I believed in what I was exposed to, the unerring wisdom of our faith and the strictures that our faith demanded. It was assumed that I was going to enter the Rabbinate after I would attend Yeshiva University as an undergraduate. As I went into high school, however, I began to question much of what I had been taught. Why were we still following a book that was written more than two millennia previously? How could that book been of divine inspiration when so much cruelty was not only accepted but initiated by God? How could rape, slavery, massacres and all the rest be treated so cavalierly? Why was I following rules that may have made sense 2500 years ago but made no sense now? How could our supposedly omnipotent god allow the Holocaust or the other holocausts of history? None of it made sense. My decision was to go to a secular university and study not only my religion, but other religions also.
My university experience made me even more doubtful of religion. The holy books were replete with ludicrous statements.....a virgin birth...... a god that sends a god to man to allow the god to die for the sins that man did in the Garden of Eden which were preordained by god {doesn't get goofier than that}.....a rationale for killing those who believe in ostensibly the same god as you but worship in a different way.....a rejection of 2699 other religions while declaring that the only religion that the follower believes in is the only true religion. Every one else follows false gods.
Those studies moved me away from organized religion but didn't end the journey. The questions still remained. Now I started wondering about faith versus science. Science kept winning. My mind accepted proof and was becoming increasingly repelled by blind faith. I started to wonder why if god really existed he didn't just end the debate and show up one day and make his presence known to the world. In this age of instant communication, we would all know the truth of his existence immediately......one real miracle could do it. After all there has never been a time that the entire world saw or heard directly from god......Jesus was probably the closest, but he was a Rabbi with only a few followers during his lifetime and what we know about him is almost all second hand. Where has god been for the past 2000 years? It became obvious to me. Nowhere! He was a figment of the human imagination. God was the unprovable.
Four revelations brought me to this conclusion. The first was the gift of sentience. We are the only creatures on this planet that have an understanding of our own mortality. That understanding leads to the fear of the unknown. We fear death more than anything else. We don't want to believe that after life, there is nothing. I always find it interesting that we can accept that before life, we are nothing, but I'm getting off topic. That fear of death has been the primary source of creation of religion. All religions have rites and mysticisms related to what happens to people after their death. It might be the belief in an afterlife, the resurrection, the spirit merging with nature, Valhalla, Elysium, or ones own private planet. Religion offers comfort that death is not final. That man lives on. It is almost like we have a god gene, or more accurately a death gene that comes with sentience that forces us into these belief systems. Even the prehistoric Neanderthals had burial rites and beliefs.
The second revelation was the absurdity of how we have viewed holy books throughout history. Depending on the religion the books either came directly from god, were divinely inspired by god, or were written by people who had intimate knowledge of what god wanted. When these books are looked at without the obligation of blind faith, they are fascinating documents. The are compilations of history, myth, legal, and health strictures that were generally written by very well educated individuals to influence people and bring converts to their religion. In made no difference whether these books were Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek, Roman, or any of the Eastern religions. The had wonderful suggestions on life, health, law, and morality for people. They were difficult to enforce, however, in a world populated by barbarians and ignorance. The most efficient and effective way to get people to follow these new strictures was to create a god that was more powerful than the gods that the "others" worshipped. It was the "my god is stronger than your god approach". We see it in the 10 plagues of Egypt, in Jesus performing "impossible miracles", etc. We then see these religions co-opting other religions in order to make converts more comfortable in their new religion. The stories of Adam and Eve appeared in most ancient cultures, Noah and the Ark was Gilgamesh, the Virgin Birth was part of Roman belief. Even dates were changed. Most notably the birth of Christ was changed to coincide with the Roman winter festivals. The "holy books" were really sales brochures.
The third revelation was the simplest. If there was a god, why would that god care how a person believed or didn't believe. A truly compassionate and omnipotent god would only care that we care for one another and try to improve the human condition. There would be no religious wars, no ethnic cleansing, no holocausts, no inquisitions. A true god wouldn't care who we married, what we did in the bedroom, or what we ate or didn't eat. These strictures were proof of non-existence more clearly than they proved existence.
Finally, watching religious institutions become more concerned with wielding political power and gaining wealth than ministering to all those who need their ministration for one reason or another convinced me that we are talking about a business that is frequently operated by con men and women rather than people of belief. Watching a church condemn homosexuality and abortion but defend pedophiles in their midst convinced me that many do not enter the clergy to praise their flock's god but to defile it. If there was a god, there would certainly be punishment for those here on earth and salvation here for the children. But there often isn't.
I do understand that many people feel the need for faith. That is their right and their current need. I do note that non-belief is the fastest growing group of individuals in the world. There are estimates that almost 25% of the world's population are non-believers. As science progresses, the number of non-believers appears to be reaching a critical mass. When that mass is obtained, man will still exist, but god will more than likely go the way of the almost 2600 other "false" religions of history. Without faith, god cannot exist.
I appreciate your well written and well thought out article.
In truth though, no one knows whether God exists , for sure, or not, and no one ever will.
No one even knows, for sure, whether or not God , should 'He' exist, cares about individual human beings. There is no "evidence" of that, other than biased anecdotal recollections. We also have politicians and athletes say with some regularity that God is on THEIR side, although why God would answer the prayers of one team and not the others will be a lasting mystery.
My feeling is that we don't understand God, and that the nature and purpose of God may in fact be forever beyond our understanding.
Human religions are cultural expressions of the need we have to try and explain things, including why we are here. They are harmless until they are abused and exploited by the unscrupulous.
I watch arguments about the existence of God with a tired bemusement. People are arguing over something they will never ever know, no matter what side of the argument they are on.
No one ever will?? Nonsense. We can't know for sure that there is not a god, but if there IS a god, it definitely CAN be proven.
Absolutely not.
Why not?
There is no "proof" of God that could not be doubted.
Of course not. Any proof brought to bear can be challenged and scrutinized. This is evident when theist claim the universe, earth, and even humans is "proof" of god. But if a god did exist, then it's logical to assume that specific evidence (not vague claims or generalizations) would also exist pointing to said god. As it stands, there is no evidence for any god nor does any such evidence or proof seem to be forthcoming.
God is by definition a supernatural being. We have no way to "prove" supernatural occurrences.
Let's say God appeared over the United Nations building and declared that either humans make peace once and for all or He would destroy the earth.
Many people would think it was a mind trick, aliens from another world with unknown powers, or some other manifestation less than "God".
Sure many people would believe it was God, but many wouldn't , and there would be no "proof".
We exist within nature, and cannot prove the existence of the supernatural (outside of nature).
God defined how? Makes a big difference! Note also that 'supernatural' is simply that which we cannot scientifically explain. It is a weasel word - largely meaningless. Science continues to expand natural into the realm of what was supernatural. Stating God is a supernatural being is basically saying God is 'unknown'.
That is apologetic nonsense. It is a way to hide God in a safe (purely semantic) place away from intellectual scrutiny.
If we define God as the sentient creator of the known universe then I can offer a test that, if addressed, would convince quite a few that the God candidate has made a strong case for its existence.
This would not prove God but the evidence would be quite impressive.
TiG addressed that far better than I could. So I'll defer to him in this instance.
Do you believe there is a God? Granted it is nearly impossible to prove a negative in many cases. How does one prove we won't be burning up in 10 million years, so how can one prove there isn't a God?
Do some of us have some sort of insight others don't have? Not defending whether there is or isn't a God, but if one knows, I'd like for them to not just tell me science has proven them correct when they say there isn't one, but fill me in on exactly how they've come to have knowledge no one that I know possesses.
There are so many questions about life and death and I think anyone who has the answers hasn't been born yet.
No.
That's because proving a negative is a logical fallacy. It is up to the one making the affirmative claim to prove it.
We'll be burning up in about 5 billion years.
Logical fallacy. See first statement.
Some theists seem to think so.
Science doesn't deal with the supernatural.
That's why religion makes up BS as it goes along, as a means to "answer" such questions. While it might be emotionally satisfying, it is also intellectually dishonest.
What questions? I don't know about any questions regarding life and death. We are biological life forms that live and die. When we die we cease to exist. Our bodies, including our brains where our sense of self resides, rot and decay. What questions do you have about this?
You can doubt the theory of gravity or germ theory but it doesn't mean that doubt is logical.
So you've never questioned your existence on earth? You've always known you're born and then you die and there is nothing more or less than that? Seems you have some company I assume may believe this as well. Never questioned life. Never questioned death. Born with the knowledge you have expressed in your comment, I assume?
Sorry, I have questioned life and death because I wasn't as fortunate as you to be born with all the answers, programmed in me from birth. I had to learn to think, reason, rationalize and come to conclusions. I can't imagine not understanding the desire to find answers to the questions of life and death for humans here on earth with religion promising eternal life after death. We all know the scientific beginning and end of a living organism. That's fundamental knowledge.
Glad you brought that up, Gordy, since it relates to many of the accusations going on today, but the accusations are expected to be proven untrue by many on the Left instead of the Left proving them to be true. Which way do you want it?
Then how have you come to the conclusion to base your beliefs and that is what they are, beliefs?
One of the problems that I have with the existence of God is that miracles attributed to him in first person accounts are always personalized and not for public verification. How can you verify that the person spoke to God or performed a miracle in his name when it is impossible to determine whether the person is sincere ,a person hearing imaginary voices,or a charlatan bilking his victims. Wouldn't God let us all know what he's doing?
Ditto. But if you question that, you lack faith in God, and therefore must suffer for eternity.
Especially given how easy it is for the human mind to adjust memories to conform to beliefs. Especially as time passes and especially if one is actively engaged in promoting a savior.
We have people (even here on NT) claiming experiences (one just claimed having several physical encounters with Jesus). Think of how many 'eyewitness' accounts of miracles must occur on a daily basis even today. I suspect we are nearly identical to our ancestors of 2000 years ago and that they were also quite capable of fertile imaginations (feel free to supply the various psychological factors such as confirmation bias) and thus the ability to exaggerate their hero.
Agreed. God ostensibly provides His word and thus clearly seeks to communicate. Yet, in result, His creatures interpret His word in contradictory fashions. It is, in fact, difficult to find two people who agree when one goes below the fundamentals.
So, empirically, God either wants everyone to be confused about His message (no possible way of identifying the single true Word) or God is a truly horrible project manager. So many contradictions to bring up ... (stopping short).
Theory can be proven. Would anyone who doubts the theory of gravity be willing to jump off a 20 story building to prove the theory wrong? Of course not! It may be theory but it is proven theory.
Of course it is not the theory of gravity but the law of gravity. Oops
The theory of gravity is not: masses attract (that is the law of gravity). It is empirical observation. One can prove that under stated conditions masses will attract - per your noted experiment. But that is not proving the theory.
The scientific theory of gravity explains the underlying dynamics of how masses attract. Currently, the theory of gravity, per se, is essentially Einstein's general theory of Relativity - in particular the curvature of space-time by mass. That explanation may be entirely accurate as far as we can tell, but there is always the possibility of new empirical data emerging that is not explained by the theory. Note: one of the most cherished objectives is to expand ToR and particle physics into a unified theory that consistently explains gravity at both the cosmological and quantum levels (among many other things).
In this regard, scientific theories are not proofs. Einstein's theory of gravity (Relativity) is not a proof. Scientific theories are formal empirical observations that are both predictive and have a method of falsifiability - a method to continually test against empirical observation so as to detect a flaw (i.e. an opportunity to learn something new) in the theory.
Offer an example of a Gordy-belief you have in mind.
True, and a scientific law is essentially a summary of experimental results. It is an observation that has held true for so long that it is accepted as fact (although recognized that it could be wrong in certain circumstances). One can prove that the law of gravity still holds true but one cannot prove that the law of gravity is true under all circumstances.
And there is a theory of gravitation - that currently is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Private Notes is not working on this article, or it is working UNSAT.
I have made no mention of my beliefs.
That makes no sense. What "accusations" are you referring to? And what does Left/right have to do with anything?
No. Why would I? I already know I exist as a product of biological processes. There's nothing unique or special about my existence.
Yeah, pretty much.
What's there to question. We're born, we live, and we eventually die. Simple as that.
it seems you either want some deep philosophical meaning or emotional comfort in the idea of life after death.
And that's simple reality. No amount of belief or wishful thinking will change that. It looks like you just answered your own question about life and death.
Being an introverted solo red cup consumer, I'm often attracted to the masses, but must remain a social butterfly as people can only handle my annoyance in short chronological increments. When fisticuffs arise from political "debate" at my local watering holes, I quick switch to Religion, religiously, cause God told me to spread the word, thus why I found my calling as an Atheist School teachers aide, who receives instructive directions from my God Prodded Scrolls, found on my
GPS (God Prodded Scrolls) Finder,
that gets me more lost than usual, but usual is # un to me.
I N Joy putting the Doubting Abbey in normal,
cuz in things unrelated, I find the most things relative to distance, are too far fetched for my dog to hunt, for the boomerang, that via capillary attraction, finds me repulsive in a anticlimactic climax of spiritual awakening, that I sleep through, while dreaming of insomnia, that keeps me a wake at night, so of course, I dream of it daily, like it was a genie lifted lamp that cant illuminate the darkness that the misuse of Religious B sided leafs, are A manipulative force, to be wreckoned with.
.
b sides a sides, who doesn't enjoy defying the laws of physics...
So how does a sky fairy or other supernatural creature interact with nature?
Or rather a scientific law is something which has been observed without any contrary examples.
.
I'd phrase it that a scientific hypothesis is necessarily falsifiable, and a scientific theory is an explanation for a set of empirical observations and non-falsified hypotheses. The theory thus changes as that set changes whenever an hypothesis is proven wrong.
Certainly. But add the criteria of many observations (basically time). If we have observed a particular behavior over countless experiments (and time) we have the basis for a scientific law.
True, but a scientific theory is typically more than the sum of its component hypotheses - it is a value-added synthesis of hypotheses rather than a simple union. Falsifiablity of a scientific theory is based on predictions of the theory itself (i.e. the answers yielded by the formalism) and not limited to strictly falsifying one or more component hypotheses.
Sure, but I wasn't trying to be pedantic with my comment. While theories are technically falsifiable particularly if an experiment proved a central tenet wrong, it's usually hypotheses which are tested and discarded if falsified. The domain also matters since theories in physics are a lot simpler in a sense than in something like biology, so if gravitational lensing weren't observed it would directly undermine general relativity, but if the Lenski experiment hadn't resulted in bacteria developing a novel trait it's unlikely that it would undermine evolution much if at all.
Agreed. And of course if the underlying hypotheses are falsified no scientific theory emerges. I thought you were referring to falsification after the theory was in existence.
My apologies for using webdings in my comments inappropriately. In Firefox, text appears. In Chrome, not so much!
Private Notes is not working on this article, or it is working UNSAT.
Quite a few nods of agreement from me as I read your interesting and relevant article. Nicely done.
If I were to summarize my view, probably the most succinct statement is that human beings seek comfort. Uncertainty is no doubt a major discomfort - we do not work well with unknowns. Ancient people were probably far more comfortable 'knowing' that the volcano is simply the god Vulcan showing his displeasure or that thunder and lightning is an angry Zeus than not having clue one what was going on. But certainly, as you note, the single biggest discomfort is death being final. Note: not the event of death, but the finality of death.
Religions have survived even to 2018 because, IMO, they bring comfort with the absolute best killer promise - death is not final. We need not suffer the loss of a loved one so much because, after all, we will see them again - at the best resort ever.
As a psychologist, would you be able to maybe elaborate on the psychology of discomfort as it applies to religion? Do you see it as a major (if not THE) reason why religions continue even to modern times?
We all want to feel comfortable in our lives. Religion gives people a painless way to both alleviate discomfort and find absolution for deeds we know are wrong. Believing that acceptance of a higher power will give you ultimate forgiveness is a powerful religious selling point. We only have to look at the number of jailhouse conversions to substantiate my point.
I fully agree.
Friend DocPhil, please describe for me how living out faith in God is "painless." Accordingly, if there is no God-then we do not need "absolution" we can eat, drink, and make merry,. . . or worse. Skeptics say that having God to aid me through the day is a "Crutch" to that I ask in what way? Since the Skeptic can find no trace of God in me, then what else is there I am leaning on?
It is simply me doing it all - the same, or differently, than the skeptic.
Rather than attempt to presume your specific circumstances here is a comment in general. Religion is a 'crutch' for many in that it gives hope (regardless of how correct the promises) and answers (regardless of the quality) to those who need it. Fear of the finality of death, remorse that departed loved ones are forever lost, etc. is comforted by religion.
In ancient times, religion explained what could not be explained - typically by assigning a specific God to observed (scary) natural phenomena. Today it gives hope (e.g. death is not final) and answers (e.g. a particular moral code) to those who accept the veracity of the religion on faith alone.
The irreligious do not go about whoring, drinking, murdering, stealing, etc. any more than the religious. Not ascribing to a particular religion to guide their behavior, the irreligious moderate their extremes through common sense, personal morality, societal norms and legal consequences.
Friend TiG, what gives you the idea that religious people can not direct their lives by faith alone? Many people have done great things based on spiritual faith! Ancients and Moderns. Moreover, having faith causes the acquiring of experiences based on those actions and attitudes. Our experiences are equally as rich or even beyond, depending on the person.
My point here is not to compare irreligious people with religious people. Though, the whole point of faith is to approach or achieve a higher standard of living leaving some actions and attitudes behind—whether successful at reaching the apex of one's faith or not! Yes, "bad actors" can abound and they do cross lines into areas not reserved for them. It would be nice to be able to stop them, but that is not the way it is presently.
Not sure I understand the question. I was addressing the notion of how religion can be used as a crutch. So what does it mean to direct one's life by 'faith alone'? Do you mean faith without religion? If so, faith in what .. a personal 'religion' of sorts?
Let me indulge this statement for a moment: Are there no crutches in the world?? Is life simply a dry treatise? Of course not!
It does seem that these kinds of online discussions go off-track because of the varying factors in how some individual groups express faith (peacefully, forcefully, or violently). We can not speak to all three "classes" in the same breath all the time. And, yet 'bad actors' of faith predominately are the loudest groups driving these discussions.
I am missing your point.
Mentally and emotionally. Kind of like a child having a favorite blanket (think Linus from Peanuts).
What's wrong with that?
In what way? Most people, religio0us and non-religious alike, already know that there are some things they should not do, like stealing and killing. That's also common sense. If someone needs a god to keep them from doing that, then they have serious issues.
Sure there are. But crutches are tools and are supposed to help one "get back on their feet," so to speak. Once that occurs, the crutch is no longer needed and can be tossed aside. Overreliance on a crutch can actually make an individual weaker and more dependent on it. Not all "crutches" are good either.
Friend TiG, now I am not sure I understand the issue. We were beginning a discussion (originally addressed to DocPhil) on faith and religion. Sometimes the two things are written about interchangeably. Also, you need to be aware that spiritual people, faithful people, do have propensity to speak, and write, using faith-based overtones.
Absolution is an individual need. Only people who claim religion seek absolution. Those that don't believe understand they may have violated a law or accepted mode of behavior and will accept punishment. What is relevant here is that when faith alone leads to forgiveness, it is a painless way to survive day to day.
DocPhil, the spiritual consequence of sin is death. As for this earthly life, sin is managed by means of "sinning no more." A faithful person, can certainly ask, how is giving up a liberty, usually a desirable and/or pleasurable experience or group of experiences, painless? Granted, there is a tradeoff in the offing: More / discipline. And, discipline requires training and education.
But death is inevitable. It has nothing to do with sin, it has to do with the biology of every living thing. Why would sin lead to death? Even more important, why would the sins of a mythical couple be the cause of mortality in man? That would make for an awfully venal, cruel, and surprisingly human god.
DocPhil, my friend, ultimately you realize I am referring to spiritual death and not natural death. I will ask you to assume (however short) the existence of God: What expectations do you imagine for God?
If I were to believe, I would expect the God I believe in to be a superior moral, intellectual, compassionate being than could ever hope to be. I would expect compassion,but I would not expect anything that could be interpreted as abstract as spiritual immortality. Regardless of belief or non-beliefs, we still would be born,live,and die. I would expect no more from a God.
The likely consequences being the God you believe in would not offend you. Though slaying you and causing you to be no more seems gratuitous from a superior being with so much more ability.
Why would a God want to control when animals with finite life expectancies died? If he would want them to be immortal, wouldn't he have created the species that way? Every time this argument is used, it demonstrates a fallible God who keeps screwing things up.
What could you possibly do for God that God couldn't do for God's self ?
Friend DocPhil, well, that seems to beg the question of creation to begin with, and yet here we all are. All glommed onto the surface/s of one humongous planet. (Well, "thank God," its big enough!)
Huh ??
Usually a question is followed by a question mark, it's called punctuation. I used two, did that trigger you ??
What's the point of a god if you can't ask it for something?
Why?
Your deflection and transparent ad hom attack is noted.
I didn't quite get that. Can you repeat what you said?
Split Pea is getting serious...he's using bold purple font
Uh oh, it's on now! LOL
I'm so proud of him. He's all grown up. You know...I gave him his start at Butt Heads.
was a great and fun place
Yeah...I miss the old gang
Ah, good times, good times.
Why in the world would I want to do something for an omnipotent being ? He could do whatever he wants to. His job is to protect our planet earth. Our job is to protect those who need our help. What we have to do for a God is nothing.....We exist....that is our only obligation to an imaginary being . Until there is real proof of God's existence we are still talking about an imaginary friend.
We all are those who have determined that a creation of man for which the only proof is in the minds of the people who claim that their mental creation is real is smoke and mirrors. We are those who have seen most of the unknowable in scriptures being proven by real science . That which can't be proven is currently mythical. God is one of those myths .
Religions are also an expression of tribalism, a very primitive impulse which is likely a defense mechanism. So while it seems pretty silly to think that one's superstitions are real, it serves a very real role to separate "us" from "them."
And has led to widespread oppression and violence throughout recorded history whenever the hierarchy of one sect gains enough power to control governments.
For decades, our news items have been filled with anti-Muslim rhetoric so the 1 percent can continue their quest to empire build in the Middle East. This has been an ongoing crusade since black gold was discovered in the region around a century ago.
The anti-Muslim rhetoric is slanted to make it a "Christian" duty to fight the Muslim "takeover" in the Middle East. This only works because Christians believe that they worship the one and only, truer than true God. A very weak god that requires its followers to bludgeon their fellow humans to death to defend its honor and spread its word.
Let's just look at some fairly recent US history as as example of Christians killing other Christians in order to defend Yahweh/Yeshua and "spread" its word to people that had been given different "words" by Yahweh/Yeshua.
Christianity is not a religion of love and peace. It never has been. Never, ever. The main selling point point that it still clings to is its promise of an afterlife if one dots the appropriate I s and crosses the appropriate T s and PAYS the appropriate people at least 10 percent of their income in this life.
Politics, Religion, and Sex. My parents told me to keep sex out of public discussion, because sex is a myriad of things happening in the privacy of a room. DocPhil, in the last five or so years, I have broken all three of these fundamentals through use of social media! It's late now and I have not finished reading the entire article. I will read it to end the night and wake to it!
Read the article, let me say this before retiring for the night. DocPhil, you are immersed in a natural world order, therefore it is only natural that you are surrounded by evidences of nature. In addition, it causes one to wonder why "non-belief" is not the norm and faith has to catch up! Science does not strive with Faith, in my opinion. On the other-hand, God is Spirit. We, believers are explained. Can you take a while and ponder what that realm, should it exist, and we have no reason to thing it does not, might be like?
Sure Cal, as long as you take the time to ponder the invisible, flying hippos that surround us every day, and we have no reason to think they don't! You can make any wildly improbable claim you want to and no one can 'prove' it wrong. This is why the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
When you start out with absurdities, you end that way. Sadly, if you are after laughs: Comedy clubs want you.
Belief in a supernatural realm and an afterlife is absurd, even more absurd than my hippos. There is no biological reason why miniature flying hippos CAN'T exist, and there are even some natural explanations for us not being able to see them. A spirit world and afterlife is pure Peter Pan fantasy.
So as long as you being a comic, all I can really do is laugh at your jokes! HA!
I find it very difficult to to assume I know whether there is or isn't a God, since I have no proof of either that will satisfy the opposing views who also have no proof that will conclude this so-called theory.
Discussing whether there is a God or not has always been an obsession of the Left. It is political posture for them, Conservatives, on the other hand, who don't believe in God, rarely bring up the subject, but those on the Left have a need to pursue their goal of eliminating God from our existence, convincing as many as they can, by pushing the idea it is the ignorant who believe in God.
And what about the conservatives who do believe in god? You know, the ones who want to forbid same-sex marriage, because god, or abortion, because god? I've even heard some conservatives on talk radio say we shouldn't worry about the environment, because god.
Liberal nonbelievers discuss the nonexistence of god for several reasons. First, as an exercise in logic. Second, in objection to being governed by a set of arbitrary rules supposedly put forth by a being whose existence can't even be supported by evidence. We object to the Christian version of Sharia law, every bit as much as conservatives object to the Islamic version.
And pushing god into our government and laws has been an obsession of the right. It seems to be political policy for them. Sandy expanded on this nicely in her reply.
Is there such a thing?
What nonsense. It's more like pushback against the attempts to bring god into the government and law, where god doesn't belong.
Ignorant, no. Irrational, yes.
How so?
That's nice. Prove it! With logic, please. If you're able.
Is it too early for popcorn?
Sandy, my comment dealt with the subject of whether there is or isn't a god and those who more frequently brought up that discussion and why.
What about the ones that DON'T !
A massive "Catch twenty two' to take on for sure.
Well, that's a new one on me. I've never heard that before. Who were you listening to?
Hey, that's my line.
Maybe that's the reason they seem to be running around in circles. To some on the Left, God like Guns are the only two things preventing them from entering Utopia.
No, not at all. Is it too early for beer?
Sandy Rios.
And I gave you some reasons. Intellectual debate, and opposition to religiously-based laws.
Not if it's either green or Guinness.
It's never too early for beer.
Sixpick, let me drop this into this spirit of discussion:
'A Christian Catechism says: "First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me, and all the world; secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind; thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost [Spirit], who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God."'
The agnostic says, "How do you know all that? I consider I have no means of knowing these things you assert respecting God. I do not know, and can not know, that God is a Father, and that he has a Son, and I do not and can not know that such a Father made me, or that such a Son redeemed me."
But the Christian did not speak of what he knew, but of what he believed. The first word of a Christian is not, "I know," but "I believe." He professes, not a science, but a faith; and at baptism he accepts, not a theory, but a creed."
— Henry Wace, D.D. 1888Of course, there is the addition of the Indwelling Spirit.
You just described the act of debate and discussion. Take $5.00 from petty cash for your intellectual heavy lifting.
What are your religious and/on spiritual opinions
DUPLICATE POST. (I accidentally deleted the original while attempting to understand how the COMMENTS section garbage bin actually works. Okay! It deletes a post off the thread!)
Well, I am a liberal Christian on the Left. I am not alone. We are positively legion.
Do you think that I'm demeaning the believer? Absolutely not! I think that I made it abundantly clear that we come to our beliefs or non-beliefs through our own personal journeys . I believe that the world is becoming more secular and that we will eventually move beyond belief. That, however, is my observation. There is nothing intellectually dishonest if you have a different opinion. I have problems with charlatans, con men, and those who foist religion into our politics. I would hope that the believer observe the adage " render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is god's."
Never heard of her or him.
Actually Sandy, as for myself, I am not much of a believer in words written by man. I guess I'm not into religion that much. I feel there is more than I am and whether I go on after death or just rot in my grave, I believe all we see, all we hear, all we feel and all we are has been created by something or someone far more advanced than we are able to understand and not by accident.
Agreement number 2 today. We are on a roll!
I think so.
Do you expect a thoughtful debate? It would be one-sided at best.
5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me. https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
There are spots around where I live where station after station on the radio are Christian radio stations. I was trying to find something to listen to in the car one day, and ended up stopping at her talk show for a few minutes. She pretty much said that we shouldn't worry too much about the environment, because that was in God's hands.
Frankly, I find that both frightening and irresponsible.
Sounds a bit like paranoia to me.
Of course not. I thought it might be amusing, though.
Part of it is indeed the search for truth. If someone professes something that just does not make sense to you, is it not a good thing to challenge ... to debate? Is debate not a great way to bring forth information?
To me that is part of it. The other part (just for me now) is to encourage people to think critically. To not simply accept something as true because another human being wrote it or said it but because there is evidence and reason that leads to the conclusion. To downplay emotions and desires and logically follow the evidence to where it leads. Good old fashioned objective reasoning.
Hey DocPhil, you're not the professor who, on the first day of his English class, told his students if they still believed in God at the end of this course, you hadn't done your job, are you? Just kidding. I've had enough discussing God for awhile.
Sandy, if you have an input for your car radio or the radio can act as a bluetooth for you smart phone, you can use the 'Tunein' app on your phone and listen to anything you can imagine on your radio through your smart phone. Download it to your phone. There are others, such as Pandora. I assume you know this, but haven't thought of using it this way.
TuneIn Radio
I know of a Stanford biology professor who made that statement.
( By the way, a great course. )
The car I have now has Bluetooth as a standard feature, but I was driving an older car that day, and Bluetooth-enabled cars weren't as common when it was made. Yeah, now I sometimes listen to iHeartRadio when I can't find anything else worth listening to.
Oh by the way, DocPhil, your article was one of the best I've read lately. It was, as John stated, well thought out and well written.. You're not as nasty as I've seen you before in some other articles. Guess our psychology has been working on you.
Here is an atheist I bet you can appreciate.