Theology (Does god exist? Why/Why Not? etc.)

[Pineapple_Juice]

Religion on this forum is a subject that'll get your name stuck on a permanent shitlist. I'm terrified to even speculate about anything other than strong atheism, but for the sake of boredom I'll go at it. Bear in mind I only read the first page 'cause I suck.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of deity, and I have no interest in being part of a religious group with preset rules and must-haves. However, lately I've been feeling disconnected from my surroundings, and as I age I become more eager for a sense of spirituality (whatever that is). I've been looking for a way to fulfill this need without having to resort to fairytales and pointless dogma, or hippie-dippie talk about energy and auras.

I thought about starting to call myself a pantheist instead of an atheist (for those who don't know, a very concise definition would be an atheist who likes trees and shit), but it seems superfluous. So now I'm back to square one. As Despanan said earlier, I found myself asking WHY it was necessary for me to call the universe "god", and WHY I should worship it.

I know I want to be more in-tune with nature, so I started looking into the principles of wicca. I like the idea of celebrating the earth, and I like the emphasis placed on the duality of the universe. But the wiccans hate me because I'm not theistic and I make rude comments about their troubles with "demons" and their leftover memories from being Queen Elizabeth in a past life.

So now I'm trying to merge the wiccan properties of celebratng nature and the cycles of life with atheism and an intelligent amount of skepticism. I guess that just makes me another crunchy vegan atheist.

(I'm sure when I post this it'll be right in the middle of some angry debate over something or other so apologies in advance.)

[x-deviant-x]

Alan, I'm not arguing with you anymore.

It is impossible to argue with a cynic.

You refuse to accept the fact that your belief that God does not exist is no more valid than my belief that God does exist.

It is simply one of those things that has to be agreed to disagree on.

You ignore points that you can't answer and play word games to dance around the fact that you can't disprove it anymore than i can prove it.

it's a stale mate.

The majority of humans believe in some form of God. Atheists are a very small minority of the world's population. Therefore it is on the atheist's shoulders to prove to the rest of the "ignorant masses" that God does NOT exist.

Isaac Newton, another brilliant scientist, also very religious.

[Alan]

It would all be so simple if you just tried to exercise the same ridiculous demands you make of us.

Why is it so hard for you to answer me, deviant?

Just show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

I'll declare myself an idiot if you can just make a satisfactory answer to that and promise to not give you any more shit.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Well, there goes that topic. Santa forever!

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

It would all be so simple if you just tried to exercise the same ridiculous demands you make of us.

Why is it so hard for you to answer me, deviant?

Just show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

I'll declare myself an idiot if you can just make a satisfactory answer to that and promise to not give you any more shit.

I can't show you positive evidence of that. There is no positive evidence of it, so how can I show you?

What ridiculous demands am I making of you?

You only believe what is right in front of you, what can be proven positively. That's fine. Personally I feel that is a very limited scope of the world, but that's my opinion. It doesn't make it right or wrong.

If I were to tell you that while driving home from work I saw someone out in the woodline shoot somebody and drag the body away, but could not provide any evidence of it or proof that it happened, other than my witness of it, does that mean that it didn't happen? That I dreamt it up? That I misunderstood what I saw?

[Alan]

I never even implied that I only believe what is right in front of me. I can't see electrons but I understand they exist.
You know nothing of my beliefs except that they're not yours, and thus you call me shortsighted. That says more about you than it does about me. In fact, by not assuming fiction about why the universe is what it is, I open myself to a world of possibilities that your prejudiced beliefs couldn't possibly account for.

At least you understand now that you can't positively prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but it's sad that the logic that 'proves' your god is the same that 'proves' the existence of a real Santa Claus.
It's just weird that for some reason you would believe in this god but you would think it's ridiculous that someone actually believed Santa Claus is not fiction and actually goes down people's chimneys. There's no fundamental difference between those beliefs, you can't really know that god exists.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

I never even implied that I only believe what is right in front of me. I can't see electrons but I understand they exist.

If you've never witnessed them how do you know they exist? What creates that understanding in you? Have you ever personally worked with electrons?

Originally Posted by Alan

You know nothing of my beliefs except that they're not yours, and thus you call me shortsighted. That says more about you than it does about me. In fact, by not assuming fiction about why the universe is what it is, I open myself to a world of possibilities that your prejudiced beliefs couldn't possibly account for.

I don't know what your beliefs are, but the position you take on this topic is that of an atheist, therefore I assume you are an atheist, and since you have never stated that you are not an atheist, yet argue on the behalf of atheism, I am not wrong in that assumption that you are an atheistuntil you clarify your position.

How are my beliefs prejudiced? Because I believe in God, that makes me prejudiced? How does my belief in God counteract anything in science?


At least you understand now that you can't positively prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but it's sad that the logic that 'proves' your god is the same that 'proves' the existence of a real Santa Claus.

Originally Posted by Alan

It's just weird that for some reason you would believe in this god but you would think it's ridiculous that someone actually believed Santa Claus is not fiction and actually goes down people's chimneys. There's no fundamental difference between those beliefs, you can't really know that god exists.

I can only KNOW what I believe. My beliefs are based on my own personal experiences and theories on those experiences.

No one's beliefs are ridiculous until they can be proven beyond all doubt to be false. Until then the concept of a belief being ridiculous is nothing more than an opinion. Opinions are not fact.

[Alan]

That's hilarious, coming from the guy that has been defending his position by the unfalsifiability of opinion.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Pineapple_Juice

Religion on this forum is a subject that'll get your name stuck on a permanent shitlist. I'm terrified to even speculate about anything other than strong atheism, but for the sake of boredom I'll go at it. Bear in mind I only read the first page 'cause I suck.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of deity, and I have no interest in being part of a religious group with preset rules and must-haves. However, lately I've been feeling disconnected from my surroundings, and as I age I become more eager for a sense of spirituality (whatever that is). I've been looking for a way to fulfill this need without having to resort to fairytales and pointless dogma, or hippie-dippie talk about energy and auras.

I thought about starting to call myself a pantheist instead of an atheist (for those who don't know, a very concise definition would be an atheist who likes trees and shit), but it seems superfluous. So now I'm back to square one. As Despanan said earlier, I found myself asking WHY it was necessary for me to call the universe "god", and WHY I should worship it.

I know I want to be more in-tune with nature, so I started looking into the principles of wicca. I like the idea of celebrating the earth, and I like the emphasis placed on the duality of the universe. But the wiccans hate me because I'm not theistic and I make rude comments about their troubles with "demons" and their leftover memories from being Queen Elizabeth in a past life.

So now I'm trying to merge the wiccan properties of celebratng nature and the cycles of life with atheism and an intelligent amount of skepticism. I guess that just makes me another crunchy vegan atheist.

(I'm sure when I post this it'll be right in the middle of some angry debate over something or other so apologies in advance.)

Why does an atheist need spirituality of any form?

Not attacking, just asking.

How would you describe documented evidence of possible reincarnation?

[x-deviant-x]

*edit: there's no right or wrong answer. just an observation.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Why does an atheist need spirituality of any form?

Not attacking, just asking.

How would you describe documented evidence of possible reincarnation?

I never said I believed in reincarnation-quite the opposite.

As for your first question, I feel like you're posing it as a generality instead of as a personal, individual decision. A lot of atheists dont need or want spirituality. Some do. For me it's about learning how to connect with nature and with myself-with the here and now in this real, tangible life. I don't need God to do that.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

How would you describe documented evidence of possible reincarnation?

That statement/question is contradictory. Documented evidence would imply proof or fact, not a possibility.

Anyways, what would the point be of reincarnation?

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

The majority of humans believe in some form of God. Atheists are a very small minority of the world's population. Therefore it is on the atheist's shoulders to prove to the rest of the "ignorant masses" that God does NOT exist.

Isaac Newton, another brilliant scientist, also very religious.

What does Isaac Newton have to do with any of this? Why is his scientific authority important in the discussion about the validity of believing in a supernatural?


So because we're a minority, it is us who is actually wrong? I'm not surprised you'd make that argument since homosexuals are a minority and you also think they're wrong. I suppose that if somehow the majority of people started to believe that all deer were made out of sound and the taste of green, that they'd all be right and again, the minority would have to prove everyone wrong.

Deviant. Just because everyone believes there's a god holds nothing about its empirical truth value. People can want anything to exist all day long, it doesn't make it actually TRUE.

The reason Alan has a problem with your view on god is because when you use god to fill in the gaps of scientific ignorance, you CEASE to gain or search for any more meaningful knowledge. We don't know how to permanently treat cancer or cure AIDS. You would simply assert that it's God or someone else of your mindset would do that. That proposition HALTS scientific inquiry right in its tracks. If you can just say "God did it" everytime something you don't understand happens, then you are REFUSING to understand the world around you. Making shit up as you go along because it makes you personally feel better is NOT a good way to understand the world and I would dare say that any scientist that would level this kind of reasoning in his or her science should be stripped of their credentials outright because they have ceased to think.

[Saya]

PJ, I'm doing a course on Western Spirituality as a general thing right now, I'll keep you in mind if I find anything good that you would enjoy.

Its an online course, and people, the discussion group there would make you weep openly. Cherish what you have here.

[Alan]

Do share. I'll drink some milk to counteract the bile.

[AshleyO]

pppfftpftpftpft.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Alan

Do share. I'll drink some milk to counteract the bile.

So, its actually a philosophy course, and right now he's getting into Christianity's Greek and Hebrew influences, how they compliment each other, clash, etc. We read the Bible story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac,contrasting that with Greek rationality, and also the story of Jesus, and contrasting his life and teachings to that of Socrates. Alll good stuff.

A lot of people can't spell. And seem to miss the space bar a lot. They begin with "as a Christian, I have difficulty with Socrates..." "I think reason has cast a shadow over the world," "As Paul said, through faith alone..." "People back then spoke to God a lot, so it wasn't crazy of him." A lot of them I have no fucking clue with what they're getting on with, their grammar is that bad.

And no, this is not an intro level philosophy course.

[Alan]

If it were UTEP, all those guys would get an F.

[Saya]

I've decided just to look at the story of Abraham from Kierkegaard's point of view, post and call it a night.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Originally Posted by Saya

PJ, I'm doing a course on Western Spirituality as a general thing right now, I'll keep you in mind if I find anything good that you would enjoy.

Its an online course, and people, the discussion group there would make you weep openly. Cherish what you have here.

Thanks bbqurl. Ily

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

What does Isaac Newton have to do with any of this? Why is his scientific authority important in the discussion about the validity of believing in a supernatural?

Newton is an example, as are many, of intelligent scientists who have accomplished great things, who also believe in a higher power. Is every scientist an atheist? Absolutely not.

The argument that God cannot exist with science is a weak argument because God has never been proven nor disproven, therefore we don't know what constitutes God from a scientific perspective. So to assume that God does not, or cannot, exist within the confines of scientific law, would be to also assume that we know what God is. If you were to ask any scientist worth his weight in gold if God exists, regardless of his own personal beliefs on the subject, his answer, from a purely scientific perspective would have to be that he does not know, BECAUSE science does not know. Then, afterwards, he can state why he does or does not believe in the existence of God from his PERSONAL observations. There is no room for personal beliefs or opinions in science. Either it is or it isn't. Modern science does not even come close to suggesting that God is impossible.
There are no conclusive results from abiogenesis yet. The complete "recipe" is still a mystery. And even if it were, it still does not disprove the existence of God.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So because we're a minority, it is us who is actually wrong?

I never said you were wrong. I never said anyone was right or wrong. All I've ever said is that it can neither be proven nor disproven at this stage in our scientific knowledge.

If you are so adamant that God does not exist, and it disturbs you so much that you think anyone who believes in God is wrong, then the burden of proof is on you to prove to those who do believe in God, that God does not exist.
Otherwise, your argument is basically "you're wrong. I can't prove to you why you're wrong, you're just wrong." That is not a valid argument for anything.
Giving a list of all the reasons why you believe God does not exist is not proof, it's simply your opinion.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I'm not surprised you'd make that argument since homosexuals are a minority and you also think they're wrong.

I have never once stated anywhere that I believe homosexuality is wrong. That is you twisting what I have said into your own interpretation. I am homosexual, so for me to say that homosexuality is wrong, would be to say that I am wrong. How fucked up is that?

Expressing my distaste for HOW the majority of homosexual men behave, is not the same, and has absolutely no resemblance what so ever to me saying that homosexuality is wrong.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I suppose that if somehow the majority of people started to believe that all deer were made out of sound and the taste of green, that they'd all be right and again, the minority would have to prove everyone wrong.

While I can appreciate, to some extent, the poetic quality of that statement, in this context I don't think it's quite the same thing.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Deviant. Just because everyone believes there's a god holds nothing about its empirical truth value. People can want anything to exist all day long, it doesn't make it actually TRUE.

It doesn't make it false either. Until it is proven one way or the other, neither side can claim to be right beyond doubt. BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ON EITHER SIDE.

The majority of people seem to believe that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter, they WANT to believe it, but no one can actually prove whether she did or did not. So does that make it true or false?

Originally Posted by AshleyO

The reason Alan has a problem with your view on god is because when you use god to fill in the gaps of scientific ignorance, you CEASE to gain or search for any more meaningful knowledge.

Did Alan state that? I don't recall him stating that anywhere. If that's what he meant, why didn't he state it? Seems to be another example of you assuming what somebody meant, which you are notorious for doing. And IF that is what Alan reasons, then Alan needs to notify all the scientists out there who do believe in God that they are no longer producing any meaningful knowledge. I'm sure they would all enjoy a vacation.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

We don't know how to permanently treat cancer or cure AIDS. You would simply assert that it's God or someone else of your mindset would do that.

Absolutely. Because NONE of the scientists in the world who are looking for cures to cancer and AIDS believe in God. Not a single one!

Again with your assumptions. That is not how I perceive God, nor does it reflect anything that I have stated in this thread. You are trying to validate your belief that a belief in God represents ignorance, which is why I point to scientists like Newton and others who also believe in the existence of God and still manage to produce valuable scientific data every day.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

That proposition HALTS scientific inquiry right in its tracks. If you can just say "God did it" everytime something you don't understand happens, then you are REFUSING to understand the world around you.

If that were the case, it would be true. And for fundamentalist Christians, and others like that, it likely is true. That is the difference between believing in God and believing in religious doctrine. There is a huge difference. Your example is clearly of a tangible God or Gods. That is not my view.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "All bourbons are whiskey, but not all whiskeys are bourbon" ?

Just because someone believes in God does not mean they use God as an excuse or scapegoat the way most religious doctrines do. That is no different than the way most religions assign gender to their Gods, in an attempt to make it understandable to the physical world. Gender is a condition of the physical world, not a condition of God. Assigning a gender to God is as senseless as blaming God for shit that happens just because you don’t understand what’s happening.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Making shit up as you go along because it makes you personally feel better is NOT a good way to understand the world and I would dare say that any scientist that would level this kind of reasoning in his or her science should be stripped of their credentials outright because they have ceased to think.

I'm not a scientist, I'm a free thinker. Making shit up as you go along is definitely not a good way to understand the world, you are right. And if that was what I was doing while contemplating whether God does or does not exist, then your point would be valid, but that's not how I came to my conclusion about the existence of God. I've told you, repeatedly in this thread, that my belief comes from the result of personal experience – some of which were very spiritual – and near constant contemplation over the course of my life. I didn't just decide to start believing in God one day, willy-nilly, "just because," and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that many people out there do that. I also don't think it's fair to say, or to even imply, that belief in God represents any kind of ignorance. It is how those beliefs are applied to one's life that may or may not be considered ignorant, but not the belief itself.

I said, and I will say it again, God is different and personal for everybody. Everyone who believes in God, who thinks about God, has their own personal reasons for doing so and interprets God in their own way. It is not something for you to understand because your life is not my life. It is also not something for you to judge because - to be perfectly blunt - it's none of your business. It has absolutely zero affect on you whether I believe in God or not, no more so than it has any affect on me whether you believe in God or not. Because it's none of my business. You, like everybody else on this planet, have to find your own path. No one can do it for you, and no one has the right to dictate it to you.

If you want to know why I believe in God, what lead me to the conclusion of the existence of God, or what I interpret God to be, I have no problem with that. That's all that BP was asking in this thread, and that's why I replied. You, and Desp, and Alan, are the ones who turned it into an argument and an assault. I don’t preach God to anybody. Attempting to explain my view when asked or attacked is not preaching. I don’t insist that anyone should believe in anything if they don’t feel it’s right for them. That is preaching. Bible thumpers do that. Atheists who insist God does not exist do that.

Your hostility towards the idea of God shows immaturity and a lack of worldly experience on your part. I don't mean your disbelief in God – that is a personal choice – I mean your hostility towards those who DO believe, or hold differing beliefs from yours. I used to be the same way, and then I lived a little more, and experienced more things, and more people, and more happiness, and more loss, and more pain. And along the way I lost a lot of things that I thought meant everything to me, but I also lost a lot of my anger and contempt for things that I did not agree with, or had no control over, and I learned that the only person you can ever truly trust and depend on in this world is yourself, that promises mean nothing when they come from anyone other than yourself, and anyone that tries to make you think differently is lying to you and will always manipulate you to their advantage whenever given the slightest chance. Because THAT is human nature, in all its glory.

I still have issues and ignorance about tons of shit, but every day I try to be a better person than I was the day before, and I try to become at least a little bit more educated than I was the day before, because my one and only true goal in this life is to attain peace within myself before I die. and I know, without doubt, that my belief in God and my acceptance of God has helped me get closer to attaining that peace, when absolutely nothing and no one else ever has even come close, and to me, that is all that matters.

[burningplain]

Marxism; an economic, sociopolitical viewpoint. According to the information I have access to states that the oppressed working majority will, in theory, rise up against the rich oppressive minority, causing something along the lines of a socialist revolution and eventually a classless society where cooperation in the centre point for everything.
Correct?

[burningplain]

Right, I'm leaving this thread on grounds of everyone seems to have very calmly ignored me bringing up the nature of god and explaining perhaps why evidence has not/perhaps never will come to light either way. As a general rule religion exists. A healthy interest in it from any perspective is useful in so far as it will help you understand people. To insult someone's intelligence because they are theist is to do them a great injustice. To say science and religion utterly cancel each other out is also incorrect. I value an Empirical system, but I also believe in the existence of being a higher power.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Absolutely. Because NONE of the scientists in the world who are looking for cures to cancer and AIDS believe in God. Not a single one!

Again with your assumptions. That is not how I perceive God, nor does it reflect anything that I have stated in this thread. You are trying to validate your belief that a belief in God represents ignorance, which is why I point to scientists like Newton and others who also believe in the existence of God and still manage to produce valuable scientific data every day.

No. I'm saying positive assertions to things that are unverifiable are irrational and leads to ignorance.

Your example is clearly of a tangible God or Gods. That is not my view.

So basically you're asserting that there is an intangible god and you have personal anecdotal proof that this god is real simply because you believe it. If I disagree with you, then ONE OF US has to be wrong. So because of this conundrum, we both can only agree that it can't be proven either way. So then when our assumptions are measured for their truth value, the non-assumption is more rational. You're giving a diagnosis to a disease that can't be measured or empirically examined and telling people that this disease exists. I'm saying that I see no symptoms, there's nothing empirically wrong with this patient and there's no reason to offer a diagnosis for a disease. If one wants to get tested for Vishnu, we can test for Vishnu and find that Vishnu isn't the disease. If one wants to get tested for Odin, we can run the tests and find no evidence for Odin. Therefore, there's no reason to diagnose Vishnu or Odin or your god.

Just because someone believes in God does not mean they use God as an excuse or scapegoat the way most religious doctrines do. That is no different than the way most religions assign gender to their Gods, in an attempt to make it understandable to the physical world. Gender is a condition of the physical world, not a condition of God. Assigning a gender to God is as senseless as blaming God for shit that happens just because you don’t understand what’s happening.

You are defining a god on your own terms that you can't test or verify. Dude, you are imagining this shit up while it's being coupled up with personal experience.

I didn't just decide to start believing in God one day, willy-nilly, "just because," and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that many people out there do that. I also don't think it's fair to say, or to even imply, that belief in God represents any kind of ignorance. It is how those beliefs are applied to one's life that may or may not be considered ignorant, but not the belief itself.

The belief is patently irrational.

I said, and I will say it again, God is different and personal for everybody.

This says nothing about your claim's truth value about god. You're saying your god is real. I'm just asking why it's real and saying it's personal isn't good enough and you're dodging the burden of proof. I'm asking you to simply show me your god and you can't.

It is also not something for you to judge because - to be perfectly blunt - it's none of your business.

This is a lie. Beliefs of any stripe are the business of all. Yes, your "god" is benign and patently useless save for just giving you some kind of emotional comfort. Some people psychologically need a security blanket. But there are others who believe in their god so much they're willing to drop a building on your head or burn you alive or mentally abuse their children with stories of hell. I think what you'll find if you sit back and look is that we actually do have an imperative to smash the sacred shield of beliefs because quite frankly, lives and liberty are at stake. Rick Santorum BELIEVES. Osama Bin Laden BELIEVED. The Westboro Baptists BELIEVE.

If you want to know why I believe in God, what lead me to the conclusion of the existence of God, or what I interpret God to be, I have no problem with that. That's all that BP was asking in this thread, and that's why I replied.

You only stated what you believed. You didn't say why you believed until we asked you why and now you're mad because the reasons you're giving can be concluded as irrational.

I don't mean your disbelief in God – that is a personal choice –

Not believing is NOT a choice. Not believing is a default state of mind. If you put an infant in a vacuum and can observe what they believe, you will conclude they have no beliefs until experience is exerted on them. Then. Due to their dualistic mindset, they will draw irrational conclusions about their experiences because they're trying to understand an experience to the best of their ability. Seeing a phenomena and saying "I don't know what caused that particular thing yet, therefore there's no use in assuming an agency based on what I'm feeling." is understandably an educated approach that I will admit a person has to learn. I can't choose to NOT believe. I can only assume I know something when I don't which leads to a positive belief. Again, I can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist, but there's no evidence supporting that existence so I have no choice but to not believe until evidence is produced.

I used to be the same way, and then I lived a little more, and experienced more things, and more people, and more happiness, and more loss, and more pain.

Your personal or emotional experiences says NOTHING about the truth value of god.

and I know, without doubt, that my belief in God and my acceptance of God has helped me get closer to attaining that peace, when absolutely nothing and no one else ever has even come close, and to me, that is all that matters.

I'll say that I understand why you would conclude a god. It's all very emotional for you and I get it. But it has nothing to say about the truth value of your claim. Yes, the idea of god makes you happy. Believing in it makes it real for you. But that doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY real. At best, you believe simply because you need a coping mechanism. I get it.