the god question

Post Reply New Topic

Something that just won't go away. People line up to take sides, but no real exchange of views ever occurs. It seems a permanent impasse. I address it on my blog:

On believing & disbelieving

Yeah, it's like Republicans trying to convince Democrats to change teams.

Or like Interstate OR Intrastate Football Team Rivals convincing the other team that their team is not as good.

Or like on this website for folks who believe that a non-profit Autism organization is equivalent to Adolf and his NAZI friends and are trying to eradicate SOME PEOPLE WITH A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS from the earth AND GETTING TOGETHER TO DISCUSS ATROCITIES, THAT TRULY DO NOT EXIST.

Humans CAN and WILL use a common enemy or prize (INCLUDING IDEOLOGY) as a bonding mechanism for tribal identity WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT.

This is human nature and why there is so much conflict ASSOCIATED WITH the GOD of the Atheism, or the GOD of the New York Jets, or just plain THE GOD as a three letter word.

Humans, ya gotta love 'em as they truly prove GOD HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR.

YEAH, GOD IS ONE BIG CLOWN.

SOME Humans have this figured out and do not play this human game.

They live with Mother Nature TRUE aka ALL THAT IS AKA GOD 2, just as is, but still just as is, includes both tribal instinct and human reasoning abilities; and to be able to discern what works, IN ONE'S EXPERIENCE OF LIVING IS THE TRUE PRIZE OF LIFE AND GOD AS IS, JUST IS, WHICH IS TRUE 'JUST I CE'.

Religious people claim there is a God.

Atheists do not believe them, or put more specifically do not feel that what they believe to be proof of their God's existence is insufficient enough to convince them otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the person stating the claim, we go round in circles...

I do wonder why God is so important to people who don't believe in him and why they get so upset and rude towards those that do.

Most threads about God seem to be from non-believers who like to mock believers, how often do you find a believer starting a thread to say how stupid non-believers are?

Why not start threads about your everyday life and interests?, why is this non-existent God so very important to you?

To understand Human Nature is to understand this behavior as the belief in GOD and the belief in No God is belief and belief is at core of what humans either bond with socially or do not.

And that is understanding human nature.

I understand human nature so I observe it from an aMusing viewpoint.

IN other words I am a Participant Observer Anthropologist here and NOT A REAL PLAYER. :)

And it is fascinating human behavior for the similarities that are one and same regardless of the abstract language and culture people use, the human nature remains the same, and truth too.

That part is the amusing part to me, as it fascinates me that people cannot see this from their restricted views of life

But I understand it, as MOST humans follow restricted views of life, for the innate purpose of social bonding.

It's part of why there was a Strident Atheist club here in this specific forum at one time.

It was no different than the Christian Fundamentalist Religion overall per general purpose.

Replace the 7 letter word Atheism with GOD and you've got the same general ideology/creature, as a social bonding monster or friend, depending on how much others are harmed in the process of this fascinating aspect of human and cultural nature.

And yes, people are bullied here horrifically in the past for believing in the 'GOD' of 'GOD' instead of the 'GOD' of 'Atheism' but not so much anymore as the moderators are staying neutral in this 'dog or god fight'.

And yes, with a little time I could do a study from the record here that exists and PROVE THAT EMPIRICALLY.

THE ATHEISTS HERE have always suggested they were the majority INCLUDING AT LEAST some of the moderators.

But, even when they were in their hay day, of strident atheist club way, Boston University did a peer reviewed study that showed that only 26 percent of the participants in this forum were actually Atheists. All others at least entertained the possibility of GOD and or a higher force of spirituality.

Now that the moderation team is neutral it probably comes close to equating to the control group on the other so-called NT site that was used that showed a Atheist percentage of 17 percent there.

They did not factor in that moderator bias in the study, so yes, in that way, the Boston University study was flawed.

http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf

And a little off topic:

I have close to a photographic memory for words and I read 10 to 15 times faster than the average human being per my hyperlexic form of Autism, so I am in the know, in this 'SPECIAL' way, and perhaps I have an unfair advantage, but that's what 'Autistic Super powers' are for, I guess, as I certainly suffered with the EFFECTIVE output of verbal speech in real life for decades as well, per disadvantage, that I have overcome now, in real life too. :)

Oh, and by the way, when I was in school it used to upset me that folks would not pick me for their group sports teams. I was always chosen last with a grimace on the face of those who was doing the choosing.

Yes, team sports was not my forte.

I ended analyzing way too many things all at one time, to have focus to get the TEAM SPORTING job properly done.

With tennis and racquetball I and the ball became one, and blasted the opponent away, in lightning fast curved serves.

But anyway, what I learned from that experience is I TOO CAN CHOOSE NOT TO PLAY ON ANYONE'S TEAM.

WOW, WHAT AN ELEGANT LESSON AND SOLUTION THAT WAS, FOR TRUE HUMAN FREEDOM, EVEN BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR NATURE, AS CHILDREN OF MOTHER NATURE TRUE AKA GOD 2.

I STILL CANNOT GET ANYONE HERE TO PROVE THAT THE GOD OF MOTHER NATURE TRUE DOES NOT EXIST.

But I can prove it exists IRREFUTABLY AND HERE IS SOME OF THE BEST EVIDENCE for it to date in this video here.

It's the same GOD that folks have been talking about for thousands of years, who DO KNOW THE TRUTH OF what GOD is, mostly in Eastern Philosophy.



GOD is the Interdependent relationship of all that is NOW in these Eastern Philosophies that truly the real historical Jesus (YESHUA) per gnostic accounts described AS SUCH that were CENSORED OUT FROM THE so-called New Testament by Roman Emperor Constantine and early Roman Catholic cohorts in frigging 'CLOSED DOOR BACKROOM BOARDROOMS'.

Yes, SO Constantine could erect a giant statue of himself as a Sun GOD and turn a humble teacher into a WARRIOR SUN GOD to force people to follow a common monster GOD and expand the ROMAN EMPIRE THAT WORKED LIKE A DARK CHARM.

AH, COMMON SENSE, WITHOUT THE BIAS OF GODS AND MONSTERS IS SUCH A BEAUTIFUL THING, AS IT PROVES THAT GOD DOES NOW EXIST AT LEAST AS I HAVE EFFECTIVELY PROVEN I AM SUPER NATURAL, HEHE [A little sarcasm intended there/] as I learned TRUE POWER IS IN HUMILITY AND THAT'S NOT WHERE DARWINIAN CLASSICAL EVOLUTION SAYS IT IS.

YOU SEE, THAT REAL JESUS DUDE, was a creator not a follower, so he too, was a LITTLE BIT like GOD2 beyond even Mother Nature true, IN METAPHOR ONLY AS THERE IS NO SEPARATION IN REALITY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS or even time per the BIGGEST MOTHER NATURE TRUE.

YES WE AND ALL OF ANIMATE AND INANIMATE CREATION OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GOD IS ALL CONNECTED and science does now prove that THIS TRUE 'GOD' exists.

Separation is the illusion, not the REAL RULE OF GOD OF MOTHER NATURE TRUE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MR/MS BIGGEST, and us HUMAN CREATORS that have evolved through expansive device OF MOTHER NATURE TRUE'S AKA GOD's artifact of culture into 'angels and devils'.

I choose Angel, as it is SUPER COOL TO FLY ON TERRESTRIAL PLANE OF EARTH.

THAT'S METAPHOR FOR WHAT it feels like when one is totally balanced in the totally NATURAL GOLDEN SPIRALED MEAN PER 1.168 OF MOVING THROUGH DISTANCE AND SPACE. And in the visible patterns FORMED AS SUCH PER Galaxies, Nautilus Shells, Fetuses, Curled Cats, and at the smallest subatomic units of Quantum Mechanics with the aided human eye.

PEOPLE WHO TAKE CLASSES specifically call it TAI CHI.

But what it is is moving with instead of against gravity in balance of leverage of right AND left side of one's body instead of opposed to the other, where the river of brain hemispheres become one as well instead of branching out into separate streams of BEING that exclude each other like enemies instead of friend.

Stephen Hawking has identified GOD as gravity, and yes, at least in part, he is correct.

But he's missing MUCH more of the whole pie of GOD OR BIGGEST MOTHER NATURE TRUE, AND THE CULTURAL artifact thingy, for sure.

I think a lot of this has to do with what people consider atheists. Often they seperate atheists and agnostics, even though that is a different question entirely. Atheism/theism is about belief in a deity, and agnosticism is about (un)certainty of knowledge. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning I currently hold no belief in deities but I also have no certainty and no way of knowing for certain. If you ask the question "Do you currently believe in a God/Gods?" there are only two answers: yes or no, atheist or theist. Even people who identify as agnostic either have that belief or they don't have that belief.
I agree that the majority of people here seem to be religious (or non-religious theists) in some way. I see far more religious people on here than in real life.

Get comfortable, fellas.

I have had a fair bit of previous experience chopping the legs off the insanely illogical, physically impossible notions that are some kind of Materialism or Voodoo.

I don't have time right now, but when I do I will begin to dissect the monster.

It's a threat.

ON this SITE most ALL THE ATHEIST focus seems to be on The Abrahamic TRIBAL MAN MADE GOD, but that is an OLD ANTIQUATED IDEA OF GOD, THAT IN MY OPINION IS PROVEN TO NOT EXIST, AS IT IS OBVIOUSLY HISTORICALLY CREATED AS IS, AT LEAST PER THE Old Testament, to CONTROL HERDS OF PEOPLE IN PASTORAL AND AGRARIAN growing societies BY SUBJUGATION THROUGH ILLUSORY FEARS.

But of course there are many Universal truths in the book still per ethics of human nature evolved as is, to live by for a better life, for example moderation, as similar to the middle way of Buddhism. HUMAN beings do not do well with instant gratification and the physical and MENTAL HEALTH OF THE FOLKS IN THE U.S. IS GETTING worse everyday, per the vices of instant gratification like all one can eat sugar and fatty foods AND sitting sedentary per screen requirements or addictions the majority of the day that goes by.

Gray areas do exist. :)

I DO NOT KNOW IF GOD EXISTS NEITHER MEANS I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR I DO BELIEVE IN GOD PER commonly used definition as linked and quoted below. Agnostics DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN EITHER, AS WHEN SOMEONE ASKS THEM DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY IS I DO NOT KNOW.

IN THAT case there may be simply NO ANSWER TO GIVE.

AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE BOTH THINGS, TO EACH their own is what i say about that. :)

Beliefs do not have to be ruled or defined by others. People CAN make them up as they go however they see fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism



And the study I linked earlier was an empirical one that did not do any guessing as to what people might think.

The only folks who were counted as Atheists were those who specifically stated they are Atheists.

This topic has been played to death here with more than enough exchanges of viewpoints, but nice job of phishing for blog views anyway.

I think one reason why some people keep debating it, is because they falsely equate truth with belief. When something is true in the objective sense, it applies equally to all people, in all times and places. Commonly-used examples of this are natural phenomena like gravity or the wind, but it also applies to philosophical claims, too. The founding principle of all logic is called the Law of Non-Contradiction, which basically says no two opposites can be equally true, in the same sense and at the same time. So for example, either God exists or He doesn't, and both possibilities have consequences attached...regardless of what anyone believes.

One thing that annoys me about God conversations is that polytheism is never considered as a valid option. I'm an atheist, so I'm not barracking for the team of Zeus or Odin, but the lack of polytheism mentions in God debates is telling. It's as if the normative monotheism is the result of historical and political circumstances, not pure philosophical reason.

I'm guessing that it's easier to centralize political power under monotheism. One god, one priesthood. I don't have any citations for this, so I'll just mention Akhenaten, the pharaoh who supposedly invented monotheism.

Polytheism seems more sensible to me than monotheism, probably due to my tendency to anthromorphise objects in a jokey way, mainly so I can get angry at them. Like when my computer won't work, I imagine an obstinate little demon haunting the laptop. Or on a hot day, I imagine the sun as an obnoxious monster trying to fry me, and wishing it was so that I could send it abusive hatemail. Or when the weather is changing every two hours, I imagine some irritating god having mood swings.

You can see polytheistic elements in self-declared monotheistic religions. These elements are the trinity, saints (especially Mary), angels, the devil, demons, and the flowchart thingy they have in Kabbala.

As far as I'm aware people were generally polytheistic before Islam and Christianity became worldwide successes. I think the least we can do is acknowledge their worldview before dismissing it as completely absurd, before going on to spend days debating a worldview that is just as ridiculous.

This is something I disagree with. You either believe in something or you don't. I don't currently believe in dragons, but I am also to some degree agnostic to the existence of dragons since I cannot be absolutely sure that there are no dragons anywhere.
People who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic are almost always atheists by that definition, since they lack belief in a deity. I also don't like self-identification in studies like that. I remember the Eurobarometer poll that happens every 5 years or so, they do not ask what people "are" but what they believe. In the Netherlands some 40% are Roman Catholic and 25% are Protestant, yet when asked what people believe (in the Eurobarometer study) only 28% claim to believe in a God. For any given definition of God you either believe in that or you don't.
I know Catholics who self-identify as Catholic but don't believe in God. Huh?

I think the majority of people on the God side of the equation believe as they do as a way to "get" something, whether that something be a ticket to heaven, or salvation, blessing, forgiveness for what they have been taught is "sinful, evil or bad", even societal acceptance. Or using their belief as a tool to obtain something material in nature. More about the attainment of something than to give LOVE, unconditionally, which is really the very nature of what spirituality is supposed to be about. A person should not require guidance or instruction on how to be kind and loving. It is the nature of humanity to be kind and loving. Everything about our culture as it stands, is about breaking human beings of that loving nature as early in life as possible. I have yet to see the newborn who is not immediately consumed in the act of giving and receiving love, all the way up to the point that another human being teaches that baby to do otherwise.

Not true. If an atheist responds to a Christian, it's not the atheist who is focused on the Abrahamics. Many atheists here point to the broader question regarding all kinds of deities, putting the burden of proof on the claimant.

And speaking broadly, all notions of gods, deities and human transcendence are human constructs from our ignorant past, to explain things that we didn't or don't yet understand.

We've had tens of thousands of years of conditioning regarding supernatural causes and connections. And now that we have natural explanations for almost everything, people struggle to accept the loss of supernatural explanations and seek to find it, one way or another, whether through traditional or new-age or alternate ways.

As for why atheists see it as an important discussion.... much of it is in response to claims made, to the insistence of putting science and superstition into the same classroom, and to the way religious people falsely ascribe negatives to non-religious people and non-religious ideals, such as the idea that atheists have no source of morality. And that's just scratching the surface.