Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

all consciousness arises due to the conflict between desire and satisfaction. (i know i am freudian in my thinking)

desire is only desire because it is not satisfied.

the maneuvering of one's thoughts and actions is always inspired by desire, and all desire is inspired by dissatisfaction.

dissatisfaction means in-satiation of desire, and it is a yin yang kind of cycle.

in the consciousness, there "life instinct" and a "death instinct"

the death instinct is the instinct to satisfy the life instinct.

if all desires are satisfied and one desires nothing, then life is over. that is how death is.

the death instinct is the urge to suppress the life instinct.
eg:
life instinct= hunger for food.
death instinct is = get food to suppress hunger.

all instincts which elevate a persons level of consciousness through non satisfaction of desires are life instincts.
all instincts which reduce a persons level of consciousness through satisfaction of desires are death instincts. everyone aspires to death.

it is the same for all hungers (sexual and status etc). they are all life instincts, and the pleasurable (subjective transition) satisfaction of them is the death instinct. the satiation of a hunger is to kill it.

only death is where no life instinct occurs, and is therefore equal to the satisfaction of all desires, and consciousness ceases.

pain and suffering always terminate in nothing, so it is not unfair in my opinion.

we are all free of feeling forever in the end anyway, and no matter what the past for anyone contained, it has no bearing in the infinity of their death (freedom from desires).

I recognize what you are saying, but I do not agree.

I am atheist because I see no evidence for the existence of what people call "God". Evolution explains why there are so many skin colors and religions and cultures in the world, and it it makes sense when you realize that God is simply a figment of human imagination, created to fill the void of wondering why everything exists when our tribal ancestors became more intelligent to think. The only way the concept of God has survived to today is by word of mouth and indoctrination. If God existed, he would make his presence known to everybody without the need of those two things. If God existed, then there wouldn't be 100 religions in the world. Apologists like to explain why God allows all of the evil to persist in the world, but fail to realize that such a world also would exist without a God being present. The majority of politicians in the USA are religious, yet they are hypocritical in that they are only working for their self-interests, so I question why that crap is allowed to happen, and I think religion is simply a tool used to control the common people; "Do what God wants me to do and you'll be rewarded in an eternal paradise". The existence of suicide bombers acting in favor of their God should make everyone question God's own existence.

According to religious people, I'm going to hell because I don't believe. Never mind the fact that I consider myself a kind person that just wants to make the world a better place. If God exists, then he is not in possession of such a fragile ego so as to punish anyone that doubts (or doesn't believe in) his existence. I just want everyone to be happy, where we may do what we want so long as it harms no one. Most religion wants to force its laws and ideologies on everyone (Islam has mostly succeeded in the Arab world) which means getting rid of those they disagree with (pro-choice, LGBT, atheists and followers of other Gods). I know of conservative Christians and Republicans that support the death penalty and torture, and praised Truman for using two atomic bombs on innocent civilians. Ironically, I feel more Christ-like than his alleged believers.

If we find evidence of a deity, then the chances of it being God or any deity conjured up by human thought would be astronomically small. And if such a God exists, then I'm sure it is intelligent enough to advocate healthy skepticism than blind belief, and that my actions and deeds on this planet will be the only criteria of judgment.

You seem to have a shallow understanding of the concept of God. You defined God as a figment of the human imagination in some sort of Freudian reductionism. I reject that definition. If that is your definition of God... then I do not beleive in that either. Its like Dawkins' book "The God Delusion"... in his book he defines God the same way you do, as a created god... As John Lennox points out, he might have sold far less books if he had titled his book: "The Created Gods Delusion"... we do not need him to tell us that created gods are a delusion.

Heaven and Hell are here... you can make hell of it if you want.. or you can make heaven of it. All of the most profound religions thinkers in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, which is specifically who I presume you are talking about when you bring up "hell," explicitly attempt to show that the metaphors involved in what it means to be in hell are simply communicating what it is to fall away and distance yourself from/be separate from from God.

you don't have to think about it.
everyone's relationship to god is a private to them and it will never be any other way

Which is why I said "what people call God" in my first sentence.

When most people mention God, they're referring to a personified deity that sees all and knows all and answers prayers. That is what most people define it as, therefore that is the definition I am referring to.

If you have a sort of Einsteinian view of God as the nature of the universe, then I believe a new word needs to be invented for it so as to not draw ambiguity when discussing. I have a few friends that see God as this sort of life force or cohesive force in the universe, and they've tried to argue about it with me before I realized what they were talking about, so I think we must leave the word "God" to describe a personified deity rather than any new definition it has described it. What do you think should be a better word?

So if "hell" is distancing oneself from God, then I'm already in hell... not bad.

Again, popular misconception and misunderstanding has no baring on truth. Leaving aside the bulk of people, if you examine the teachings of the most learned scholars, mystics, philosophers, poets, and visionary thinkers you will find a very rich description and investigation into the nature of God that I would not believe any of you if you were to declare a comprehensive understanding of... just as I would not believe anyone declaring to have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of mathematics or physics. I will not allow popular opinion of the meaning of the word God to usurp the philosophical and esoteric conceptions explored by those among the very upper-most echelon of thinkers throughout human history.

I am specifically talking about religious people who enunciate what God is defined as. This was a response to the person making the suggestion that we re-define God... or come up with a new word for what philosophers call God, because popular culture has usurped the word God and rendered it into a strawman. I won't allow this. I am completely willing to admit that most people, theist and atheist alike are uneducated on philosophy and theology. Personally, I am still vastly ignorant and continually learning, and as the sphere of understanding increases in volume, the surface area of ignorance also increases. However, if one does seriously investigate theology, philosophy, and mysticism in pursuit of God you will discover just how much esoteric knowledge there is out there. You cannot even discuss these issues without the framework and tools of language that lie contextually defined within the literature of these people I allude to. I don't want to see anyone try to dismiss God as some invention of human imagination who has not made a sincere attempt to study philosophy and theology.

And by the way... Einstein was a fan of Spinoza. Spinoza is among my very favorite philosophers. In fact, I would recommend his 'Ethics' for a very interesting and thought provoking attempt to provide a complete, systematic metaphysics and description of what we can know about God or Nature.

I suggested we leave "God" to what most people have called it (personified deity that created world and animals in present form), and find a new word to describe the non-personified deistic or pantheistic description of what you are talking about. I merely asked for discussion. If the concept of God is subject to interpretation, then there should be different words and names for different views, just like how there are different religions and names for Christian denominations.

I personally interpret Spinoza to be a panentheist. And there are different names. I love the name Brahman.