Do you believe in god??

[trainedobserver]

I would repeat--what created existence? Can any of the doubters answer this?

G-bus in a baby-cart. When will it ever end? That has to be one of the most idiotic questions I have ever seen posed. Using only the most rudimentary logic wouldn't something have to already "exist" to "create" anything at all let alone "existence"?

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

The whole "creation" question is a never ending. Who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator ... Ad nauseam.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hi folks,
Is there any rule you have to believe ( a powerful word) in one G or any G ?

 

[trainedobserver]

The question I asked in this thread was :
Do you believe in some intelligent agent that was somehow responsible for the creation of the universe??

No. There is no need for one. And if there was one it would be undetectable by human beings for reasons I've already beat to death. We don't have the resources available to us to detect or comprehend such a thing. Anything posing as "the creator" or its ambassadors should be immediately placed under great suspicion doubt.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

Hi folks,
Is there any rule you have to believe ( a powerful word) in one G or any G ?

Actually "belief" is an incredibly weak and ineffectual thing. The elevation of belief as the lynch-pin of the universe is based in ignorance and superstition.

 

[tyder001]

God as in "cosmic Santa?" No. But, do I believe in a "ground of all being" "I am" Yes. Many moons ago as a young person who was raised in the "Bible Belt" I started questioning and even praying for the "truth." Now, don't worry I'm not here to tell ya the secrets of the universe. I mean I would, only I don't know what they are. But, I digress. Anyway, the more I "prayed" and "read" and "meditated" the more I drifted "away" from the fundi dogma of my youth. However, I came to feel that everything we do is divine. Once you ask "Is there a God/god?" That's God! A baby dies and a baby is born. That's God! We come here with a plan for our soul and we are as the leaves of grass on the earth. That's God! I am!

I hope that doesn't sound like to much "new age clap trap" but a lifes journey and questioning is impossible to put in a few lines on a message board. I've had dreams that have proven to be prophetic and dreams that have proven to be based on a zombie movie I wathched the night before. Still, it's those times when ya just know that keep me going. I don't know if I really "believe" since to believe is to not know. But, I do "know" which means I doubt it alot of the time. I tend to lean toward "reincarnation" but I don't have a dogma about it. It just (for me since I believe in the soul)makes more sense to me at this point in my journey than religious dogma does.

 

[TClaeys]

No. There is no need for one. And if there was one it would be undetectable by human beings for reasons I've already beat to death. We don't have the resources available to us to detect or comprehend such a thing. Anything posing as "the creator" or its ambassadors should be immediately placed under great suspicion doubt.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------



Actually "belief" is an incredibly weak and ineffectual thing. The elevation of belief as the lynch-pin of the universe is based in ignorance and superstition.

Fair enough, I repect your position, but saying there is no need for one kind of seems like proclamation. How do you know that?? I think whatever it is that started the whole thing is beyond comprehension. Now, you could look at this as some type of "original force" or you may call it "god", but as far as we CAN comprehend, our universe did have a beginning. So what kind of "force" was able to come up with the universe we see?? I could not tell you or even guess.

But going so far to say there is no "original force" is as much a belief as saying the Lord created the Earth in seven days. In this case though the denial of any such force or god is based on ignorance not superstition, ... how could someone know such a thing?? This is why I'm very agnostic. I can't say that there is no god (whatever that means... but it doesn't mean some eye in the sky that looks out for me) just as I can't say there is one. I don't have enough knowledge to believe one way or the other, so I keep them both open.

I would add that one interesting thing about belief is that it actually improves peoples lives regardless if they are true or not. There must be something about our brains and coming to a satisfying conclusion regarding this topic. So, perhaps ignorance IS bliss.

 

[trainedobserver]

As long as people try to hammer the universe into HUMAN concepts and ideals you'll continue to arrive at conclusions like "there must be a creator" (because we create things), "there must be a beginning" (because humans tell stories with beginnings, middles, and endings), and so on and so forth. I reject out of hand all human concepts that reach outside of the realm of human experience and knowledge and attempt to bend the non-human universe into a human form containing human attributes. Anthropomorphizing the universe is a dead-end logically and in the end that is what "intelligent design" and "gods" are.

If there is something beyond the tiny sphere of space and time that humans have and will ever occupy we are eternally blind, deaf, and dumb, to it. You can make up all the stories you want to about it but it you must recognize the total futility of doing so ... or you should.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

None of those options fit the way I feel about it. I very much doubt that there is an afterlife but I leave the door open to the remote possibility. The Christian version of God and Heaven and all of that sounds kinda' scary to me, "Bow before me or forever burn in a lake of fire." If there truly is an all-powerful being barbecuing millions of souls for eternity I question whether I should be worshiping that. Sounds kinda' sadistic to me. My fantasy scenario for an afterlife would be the reincarnation spin on things. The idea that souls might choose to come back to experience a different kind of life, might even choose a hard one, to learn things sounds attractive to me. Not because of any evidence for it but just because I like the sound of it. But it doesn't make sense to me that only humans would have souls. Outside of intelligence brought on by dexterous digits what's so special about us? If we have souls than it seems to me that ants, deer, trees, dolphins, dogs, bacteria, etc., should as well. And if all those things have souls than that is gonna' make for a very crowded afterlife. But it's probably all wishful thinking. The notion of an eternal soul sounds like a dream, like hope, not like reality. If those who believe are wrong they're never going to know it. That's the beauty of it I guess.




---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

I would repeat--what created existence? Can any of the doubters answer this?

This is the sort of question religious people ask a lot and it doesn't make sense to me. You can ask that about anything. Sure, we don't know how the universe came to be but if there is a God we don't know what created that either. If your argument is that there can't be a universe without a creator than why don't you also demand that the creator have a creator?

Another ploy I see used by my friends quite a bit (Many of them claim to be Christians.) is that they will pick apart scientific knowledge, or actually the lack thereof when it comes to certain things, and then somehow turn that into evidence of intelligent design. Or in other words if there is anything scientists can't explain than there must be a God. That seems like muddled thinking in overdrive imo. Just a couple of weeks ago I got into a discussion about religion with one of my friends and he starts explaining to me how scientists don't know what happened before the big bang and somehow he sees that as evidence for God? Ugghh, what? At least scientists have data for some of the things they're saying. Where's yours? I fail to see how pointing out problems with one theory strengthens another but try telling them that.

 

[TClaeys]

As long as people try to hammer the universe into HUMAN concepts and ideals you'll continue to arrive at conclusions like "there must be a creator" (because we create things), "there must be a beginning" (because humans tell stories with beginnings, middles, and endings), and so on and so forth. I reject out of hand all human concepts that reach outside of the realm of human experience and knowledge and attempt to bend the non-human universe into a human form containing human attributes. Anthropomorphizing the universe is a dead-end logically and in the end that is what "intelligent design" and "gods" are.

If there is something beyond the tiny sphere of space and time that humans have and will ever occupy we are eternally blind, deaf, and dumb, to it. You can make up all the stories you want to about it but it you must recognize the total futility of doing so ... or you should.

I think we actually pretty much agree. Whatever there may be, it is of little concern because we will never know any bit of truth to it anyway. ... unless there is something "enlightening" coming our way

But for me the evidence of creation is found in the most objective thing humans have, .. science. A lot of evidence points to the big bang and if we are to take this as being true, then our understanding that everything (all matter) was made or manufactured somehow.... from what or who or why.... again I plead my ignorance. Science doesn't offer up anything more than it certainly looks like everything came from nothing. Of course, here we are, ... humans ,...trying to decipher the origins of the universe from our feeble perspective..

 

[tyder001]

Actually Sir Rodger Penrose (no lightweight is he.) has some interesting things to say about the Big Bang. Google it on youtube if ya get the chance. He certainly isn't a fundi religious person. But, he does seem to see "reason" in the universe. As for life after death..it's no more "unlikely" than oblivion. Matter of fact it's no more unlikely that we reincarnate (evolution of the soul?) than it is that we are born one time onto this plane. I honestly don't know. I admit with no shame at all that I "hope" for an afterlife. I have my own reasons (they would not convince anyone else)for belief or at least being sympathetic to reincarnation. But, I don't honestly know. Gonna find out one day but right now I don't know.

 

[dyingsun]

I also believe there is some kind of odd and ungraspable Intelligence behind creating the Universe as far as we know it.The sheer vastness blows one's mind....Religion, to each his own, I believe there is power in every believe-system.

 

[trainedobserver]

Once an individual realizes and accepts the fact that the universe is not human centric I believe they are in effect "enlightened" to some degree. Once an individual sheds the shackles of religion, spirituality, and superstition there exists just a glimmer of hope that he or she might see themselves as they truly are. Just a glimmer though, just a outside chance ... a snow-balls chance in hell if you will. We are psychologically misadapted to realize this however and in the end it probably isn't worth the struggle required to achieve. Pardon me for my cynicism but I paid for it in full and I like to whip it out occasionally just to get my money's worth.

 

[dyingsun]

Once an individual realizes and accepts the fact that the universe is not human centric I believe they are in effect "enlightened" to some degree. Once an individual sheds the shackles of religion, spirituality, and superstition there exists just a glimmer of hope that he or she might see themselves as they truly are. Just a glimmer though, just a outside chance ... a snow-balls chance in hell if you will. We are psychologically misadapted to realize this however and in the end it probably isn't worth the struggle required to achieve. Pardon me for my cynicism but I paid for it in full and I like to whip it out occasionally just to get my money's worth.

Nicely put.

 

[diny]

God as in "cosmic Santa?" No. But, do I believe in a "ground of all being" "I am" Yes. Many moons ago as a young person who was raised in the "Bible Belt" I started questioning and even praying for the "truth." Now, don't worry I'm not here to tell ya the secrets of the universe. I mean I would, only I don't know what they are. But, I digress. Anyway, the more I "prayed" and "read" and "meditated" the more I drifted "away" from the fundi dogma of my youth. However, I came to feel that everything we do is divine. Once you ask "Is there a God/god?" That's God! A baby dies and a baby is born. That's God! We come here with a plan for our soul and we are as the leaves of grass on the earth. That's God! I am!

I hope that doesn't sound like to much "new age clap trap" but a lifes journey and questioning is impossible to put in a few lines on a message board. I've had dreams that have proven to be prophetic and dreams that have proven to be based on a zombie movie I wathched the night before. Still, it's those times when ya just know that keep me going. I don't know if I really "believe" since to believe is to not know. But, I do "know" which means I doubt it alot of the time. I tend to lean toward "reincarnation" but I don't have a dogma about it. It just (for me since I believe in the soul)makes more sense to me at this point in my journey than religious dogma does.

I think I might be in total agreement with you. I don't know what the I am actually means but I don't mean God in a dogmatic sense either. The problem is that God is a simple 1 syllable word so I use that to characterize my higher power which I also believe did create the world (where else did existence come from?) but the God I know isn't most of the things I hear preached. I particularly hate that so many people are so obnoxious with all of the answers as to what God is like. Isn't it a sin to say you exactly what God thinks? If not, it should be. The God I know loves everyone in the world--even the atheists.

And your propheic dreams. Stuff like that runs in my family among other things. I think my non-religious, non-dogmatic, non-denominational God has something to do with that.

 

[kipspritely]

It's akin to the UFO question. It has no bearning whatsoever on humanity (unless you are being "abducted") and yet has a high interest level. I know there are some nuances that are different with UFO's, but the impact UFO's have on us is as irrelevant as god in our lives(unless you behave a certain way because of god or UFO's). I don't even know why I have such an interest in the subject. Maybe to escape the dull reality.

The God question is not akin to the UFO question. One has evidence. The other is a belief.

 

[Experiencer7]

The God question is not akin to the UFO question. One has evidence. The other is a belief.

Actually., unless you have a hubcap from a 1947 galactic cruiser., they're about equal.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------

Nicely put.

Yes. This absolute lack of faith., facing the cold eternal darkness between the meaningless stars., alone, fills me with the illusion of hope.

 

[jkoci]

Here an opinion piece in the WSJ today. I decided to post the entire piece rather than a link.

Is the Supernatural Only Natural?
Religion tastes sweet to the brain—especially the remarkable idea of an afterlife.

By LIONEL TIGER

At least 80% of human beings, some five billion souls, are affiliated with one or another of the 4,200 religious organizations statisticians have identified. Most are confident of the singular superiority of their group. But where does the basis for religious conviction come from? Clearly, it depends more on the imaginative and deeply felt assertions of thinkers and advocates than on the kind of tough evidence, for example, required in a legal trial for fraud.

Yet as we've seen throughout history and in today's headlines, the interactions between groups defined by supernatural religion often provoke astonishingly harsh outcomes in the natural world: terrorist attacks, internecine wars, and even genocide.

What then is the difference between Sunni and Shiite, Baptists and Methodists, or Orthodox Jews and Hamas fundamentalists? Doctrinal differences loom large in the notions of decency and appropriate behavior of groups at loggerheads. These may range from majestic, as in the case of the Trinity, to petty, as in dietary laws about acceptable foods.

But they are always associated with membership in particular groups and their particular practices. Certainly there is an important element of private spirituality in the major religions. But the essence of religious identity is social.

What if it is discovered that the source and essence of this identity results not from theological commitment and texts but from operations of the brain? That religion is a product of neurophysiological engagement? The drastic view of Darwinism as a decisive disproof of human Godly origin has occupied intellectuals for a century and a half. But there are now more immediate, relatively friendly challenges to religious supernaturality from research on the links between the brain and religious experience in studies by such noted researchers as Claremont University's Paul Zak and the University of Pennsylvania's Andrew Newberg.

Are people religious because they find a particular theology convincing? Some converts might, though they are a tiny number of believers. Far more likely is that their faith emerges from the group with which they are affiliating and in which they are likely to have been born and raised. Religious groups are intensely social, and hitherto unexpected links between social behavior and brain chemistry are now almost routinely identified.

One such connection, identified at UCLA Medical School by Michael Mcquire, is between secretion of the neurotransmitter serotonin and the sense of status an individual possesses—which for well or ill led to psychoactive drugs such as Prozac.

Other researchers, such as USC's Antonio Damasio and former University of Mexico faculty member Jay Feierman, have combined interests in neurophysiology and the sources of social cohesion to explore the fundamental nature of religion. And it seems morally responsible and scientifically necessary to do so without standing in the "Pro" or the "No" line.

There is little utility in the notion presented with varying acerbity and intensity by writers, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who announce that believers in religion are deluded or intellectually defective. This cavalier disrespect of the mass of humankind contains a biologically fatal if not foolish idea: that the vast majority of our species is somehow missing the boat of survival.

We're still on the boat, however rocky it is. In fact, there is a strange but durable connection between surviving in this world and contemplating another. There may or may not be such a world, but our sapient brain finds the idea easy to learn and entertain. Religion tastes sweet to the brain—especially the remarkable idea of an afterlife that holds people accountable for their sweaty and ambiguous earthly lives and rewards or deprives them elsewhere.

Any thoughtful answers to questions about the nature of religion must account for the fact that for centuries and everywhere human beings have created and sustained a set of ideas well outside the realm of daily experience—ideas claimed as versions of that supernature that persists in the different flavors and textures of contemporary religions.

The scientific conclusion may be that religion is a natural system that replaces what we can call "brainpain," which everyone experiences, with its antidote, "brainsoothing." This can result from exercise or meditation or perfume or simply chatting with friends. The evidence of millennia is that it also can result from going to a house of worship on a regular basis and communing with the almighty and a group of fellow believers.

The stunning possibility is that religion will find its sturdiest roots in the natural, not the supernatural. Many people will reject this given the hectoring sense of their own perfection many religions have declaimed so loudly and so forever. Nevertheless, the increasingly convincing research concerning the moist meat in our skull suggests that it is so.

Mr. Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers, is the author, with Michael McGuire, of "God's Brain," just published by Prometheus Books.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I rather think its up to the individual :

 

[brownie]

I voted the 3rd option but could have gone with the first.

For anyone who's really interested in a creator and how it might tie in to ufos/aliens and humans - there are a couple of wild, esoteric books by a Brit - Nigel Kerner: The Song of the Greys and Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls. http://www.nigelkerner.com/Books.html

Some basic knowledge of ghosticism helps to get where Kerner is coming from.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

 

[inaneventure]

If God exists – and he doesn't – he is irrelevant.