What are your thoughts on god?
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 07:06
VIEWED: 44171
PAGE 3 of 19
I think SergeantX pretty much nailed anything I had hoped to say in regards to how God relates to the self. I really got to get me one of them thar' college educations. Or a book and the time to read it.
Foremost I believe in God. I believe that God is quantum in nature - both a single conscious supernatural entity with an infinite history and an absolute agenda of its own and also the total sum of our collective consciousnesses manifested as a force of nature that is the catalyst powering karma. I believe that, frankly, we are God and God is us, and religions thereof are merely a compilation of philosophical inferences as to the nature of God’s sentient state of existence. While superficially explaining what science cannot at its time of popularity, I believe that Western religions that place emphasis on obedience and helplessness at the will of an all-powerful sentient being are subficially (Is that a word? Can we get Citizen to chime in on this?) political tools to constrict critical/analytical thinking for one purpose or another and retard fellowship between ‘denominations’ and bring a populous under control of a lineage of initially self-appointed avatars. I believe that Eastern religions attempt to explore individual human potential and place emphasis on the potential power within a single person and the collective power of many people who have realized that potential – for instance, the human potential for perception beyond the senses of the human body – and generally don’t care to ask the God question except as a symbolic focal point to meditation on the nature of collective human consciousness and potential.
I believe that in great numbers, with an emphasis on quality over quantity, sentient minds are capable of shifting the course of fated events through an enormous concentration of faith – that is, I believe in the power of prayer without resting credit for its power solely at the feet of the Judaic-Christian God. I believe that prayer is merely a superficial admittance of a subconscious desire. I believe that throughout history there have existed human beings of extraordinary faith that were capable of channeling the collective force of God single-handedly and that such people exist today and that throughout history and still today are either persecuted into reclusion or die early in life due to extreme medical complications typically associated with genuine ‘psychic’ abilities.
I believe that human bodies are machines. That every impulse of the brain and every chemical reaction of the human body can be predicted, that any component of the human body – including the brain – can be imitated by machine and that those mechanical imitations can be re-integrated back into the organic complex provided proper interface with the nervous system.
I believe that the brain is an antenna receiving its fair share of a ‘holistic’ sentient complex – that is, a fair share of ‘God’, and that our perception of reality as granted by God is so fragile that the death of one body results in the seamless transition of that associated consciousness to another reality and that our introduction to that reality is an identical sequence of events in which we simply observe that we have survived the ordeal that killed the previous body; and I therefore doubt that ‘death’ as is typically understood actually exists. As a respiratory system must breathe to infuse hemoglobin with oxygen (feel free to correct this), I believe a consciousness must go on if sentient consciousness actually exists. We can damage or even destroy a brain, but as individual medical miracles have shown – the brain does not necessarily make the man – thus the hypothesis that the brain is merely an antenna (referring to various ‘medical miracles’ where individuals ‘survive’ freak accidents involving major organs or severe brain trauma, which would make our ‘reality’ merely a necessity of their imaginations).
If anti-depressants increase brain activity which is intended to increase happiness, then perhaps emotions are derived from the brain’s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
In the town I lived in the local Monsignior drove a Mercedes Benz 300 that was fairly new. I thought this conflicted with his vow of poverty as the amount of money it cost could have fed many of the truly needy while still leaving money left over for a Ford Taurus or a Chevy Lumina while still giving reliable transportation for the priest to do "God's work".
Reminds me of something my dad once told me. His church was in a basement because they (the members of the church) were building the rest, as they couldn't afford builders, and they could only do it in their spare time as they had to work for a living. At the same time the local Catholic Cathedral paid something between a million and a hundred thousand (sorry about the big range, fuzzy memory) dollars to have is completely sandblasted for cleaning. (How can it possible cost that much money to sandblast in the first place?)
When his priest was asking for people to put in a little extra because his car broke down and he couldn't afford to pay the mechanic the local Catholic priest was driving around in his alternate, cheaper, luxury car.
Quote:
I'm not certain Christ actually existed as a flesh and blood human being. Everything written about him was written 40 or more years after his alleged death. No historical accounts from the times of his life that still exist today even mention him.
Actually I believe that there is one account that mentions him, can't remember what it is though so I can't check it, but that is hardly proof that he really was any of the things that are written about him.
Quote:
As one philospher who's name I can't remember put it:
"Man can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven right here on earth."
I don't know about a philosopher, but whoever it was probably based it on the words of Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost:
"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n."
Lucifer had some good lines, not the least of which is his:
"Here at least we shall be free"
which brings up a question many people have, a lot of versions of god seem incredibly totalitarian, not just in what you do but even in what you think. Is that really a good thing?
Of course Milton isn't supporting Lucifer, in the poem Lucifer goes on to say that they will oppose god by aiming to misbehave and doing their best to corrupt everything by embracing evil as a symbol of their freedom. Hardly a nice guy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I was young I struggled with this for a long time, and even rebelled against my parent’s Christian upbringing. I remember, rather shamefully, telling people how religion was the “opiate of the masses” and how religion has been responsible for more deaths then any other philosophy in history. Two ideas that are of dubious veracity and even provably wrong. Yes, I was once a fruitcake. It’s not something I’m proud of, but I did eventually grow out of it.
NOTIFY: Y
| REPLY
| REPLY WITH QUOTE
| PERMALINK
| TOP
| HOME
When I entered graduate school, I began to not only take more responsibility for my career, but also for the information that I understood. I accepted that being critical of religion and Christianity is not wrong and even a valuable tool in being a responsible Christian, but likewise one should apply the same critical thinking equally to all schools of thought. One need not necessarily dismiss one’s opinions and views if different views exist, but one should be able to apply an appropriate degree of confidence to the information one holds, and to understand not only the information, but also why one feels that information is important. Coming to grips with these ideas is critical not only to developing a scientific mind, but also to a mature spiritual view and the two are not mutually exclusive.
When it comes down to it, the problem has never been if science and religion can co-exist, the problem is always political. Atheists, for instance, hold that the lack of a belief in a god is more rational then believing in god, but why? The only way to confirm that conclusion is to view the entirety of the universe and demonstrate the no god plays any part, which is wholly impossible. Therefore, not believing in a god is as religious an opinion as believing. Many, perhaps most, atheists, however, will not accept that. They will wave their hands and throw around definitions, but many will never admit that they cannot prove that god doesn’t exist and that therefore their claim to a superior rationale is nonsense.
Two thousand years ago, give or take, Saxons watched dark bellowing clouds shoot flashes of light that scarred the earth and echoed between the Scandinavian mountains. Not having the same depth of knowledge that modern men do today, their certain conclusion was that this was a god and they called it “Thor,” “Thunor,” or “Thunder.”
Today we understand static potentials, electrodynamics, meteorology and we can talk up a storm (no pun intended) about lightening and thunder, but scientists still don’t agree on many aspects of it and may never. We are as puzzled today as the Saxons were two thousand years ago, and the deeper you go into the science the more uncertain it becomes. We have lots of theories of physics, but we still don’t understand the origins of the forces of nature. We don’t know where it comes from and the closer we get to understanding it, the more it seems to appear that the ultimate answer may lie well outside of the physical universe itself, what physics refer to as “beyond space-time.” Despite our vast knowledge of science compared to the Saxons, despite our ability to describe and explain the surface, we still know nothing about what lies beneath, and in that regard, the Saxons may have known more about the universe then we do today, simply by accepted that god exists.
It was my journey to becoming a physicist that made me a religious man, because I am more certain as a result of having studied the natural world, that god created it. It’s the only theory that fits the facts. You can split hairs on the difference between “created” and “coming into existence” until your blue in the face, but in the end, you will be no further away from the theory of god, then I am. Whether god exists or doesn’t exist, depends squarely on how you tweak the language, not on any factual, physical or otherwise tangent or coherent reasoning. Therefore, if you don’t accept the existence of god, then how do you explain the origins of the universe? In essence, you can’t, anymore then the Saxon’s could explain the origins of Thunder.
Personally, I like the old guy, I talk to him often, sometimes im weak enough to ask for help.
But to be honest, my biggest belief is that humans have to do whatever needs doing for themselves.
So although although I believe in and probably love him, I've no idea why. To me, he's not some mighty-smiter, nor is he some benevolent hand holder.
I went through the whole atheism thing as an angry teen, I looked into the panganism thing, I tried not believing anything, I tried the whole religion-bashing thing (something about basing your life on a book - although apparently, divinly inspired - written by humans, edited and altered by humans for less than divine reasons, it's just, somehow, wrong) But ultimetly I realised I didn't know enough, and had no interest in learning enough about all the religions there are to pass judgement, so...
I just ended up realising that I liked having him around, It felt right.
Its human fallibility that interests me, theres no future in perfection - reach it and life is literally aimless. The whole point of existence is to exist - do with it what you may, generally (hopefully) in a positive way. (I thinks thats what my beef with 'chav' is - as a 'culture' its petty, meaningless, un-productive, and actually reverting towards the primitive)
So short version, (if its not too trite)I believe in god, but my faith is in mankind.
-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16371&m=231311#231311 - Every man's (literally) dirty fantasies, in thread form. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DanielFyre:
I've read all the posts and listened with an open mind to each oppinion put fourth in them. Ultimately, I believe there is a God: some type of being that does exist on some plane that is beyond the human mind. I do believe he created man, though not in the biblical sense (Adam and Eve and the like) But rather put it all into being with the first existance from nothingness, and through his will existance formed and has continued to change and evolve as said. The whole idea of free will does in fact contradict my theory but I believe that free will came into existance at some point. As far as God being all powerful and compassionate and how this can not be. To that idea I pose this: Compassion is merely a word for a human emotion, God, being all powerful yet infallable can understand and exhibit this emotion even though he himself can not be hurt. Understanding something and knowing it from experience are two different things. God can show compassion because he knows all and in some way is repsonsible for us coming into being emotions and all, not nessicarily because he himself has experienced it. I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs, I just want to say I do not agree with this particular idea. I think I've said enough for today I look forward to reading more opinions from you guys.
-Dan
Ain't that just shiny?
I'm going to need an example of something that can be understood and not be related to your own existance.
And frankly I believe there is none. You can choose to believe that God can understand and have compassion, but you won't be able to logically conclude that because there is no point of reference. What the Greek was trying to do was try and explain God in terms of a logical deduction. You choose not to believe that logical deduction can explain God, but then all you have is your word against someone elses that he exists.
But as I said, I don't know if its right. I'm just fairly sure it can't be proven wrong.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To make it short, yes, I believe in God -- the God of the Bible.
BTW, if any skeptics are interested in reading a book written by a one-time, fellow-skeptic, unbeliever, I can recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". From my understanding, Strobel (an investigative reportrer) was an unbeliever (in God) who became angry when his wife became a believer in Jesus, and in an effort to prove her wrong, eventually wound up becoming a believer himself.
I've read it, and it's a very well-done book, tackled the way a reporter might tackle finding evidence for any subject.
"I'm no good with words. Don't use 'em much, myself."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wasn't that called 'Case for Faith'? I could be wrong...
I remember an online religious debate I had with a guy about a year ago that because I was playing out some of my finer quirks, resulted in a worthless stalemate, ending with him telling me to read 'Case for Faith' and me telling him to read 'The Quantum and the Lotus' - but never again speak to me, or at least, not about the book should he read it.
Am I talking about a different book?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JubelLate:
Anyway, to paraphrase his theory, he proposed that God could not be all powerful and compassionate at the same time, because compassion is a human quality derived from our ability to affect someone in some way, to cause pain or to understand how pain feels and thus relate to it. For God to be compassionate, God would have to feel pain and if God can feel pain, God cannot be all powerful, because that which can feel pain can be hurt and that which can be hurt can be killed. Thus, God could die if he was compassionate. Atleast that's how I remember the argument going. Fascinating stuff.
When I first read this I saw no problem with it, it looked flawless and the only possible problem was that even if the logic supporting something is flawless the thing isn't necessarily true. (A problem with logic, and one it is sometimes best to ignore.)
Still something about it bugged me. I just realized what it is. The argument assumes that pain is related to harm that is related to death. Thus pain is related to physical harm.
Pain isn't just physical, emotional anguish is also pain, and in the minds of many (myself included) it is worse than physical pain. The ability to experience that kind of pain hardly requires the ability to be physically harmed, and certainly doesn't require the ability to die.
One would think the longer you lived the greater pain you could experience, and immortal could experience infinite pain.
All of this being said I don't really believe in an all powerful god, not because I don't believe god is immortal (I think as long as the universe exists god will too, if the universe somehow ceases I don't know about whether god would exist or not) but because I believe in a god that cares about peoples freedom (freewill and determinism aside), and having total power would mean no one else could have freedom. Thus if god were all powerful god, by nature of personality, would willingly give some or most of that power up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ZiiAnarkist:
Wasn't that called 'Case for Faith'? I could be wrong...
...
Am I talking about a different book?
If memory serves, which it often doesn't, A Case for Faith was a much older work, like 1600s old.
I would look it up, but I'm about to do something right now, and if I try to look it up I know I'll get distracted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I consider myself a Wayist (to couch it in Andromeda terms). I've studied numerous religions, and I equate them all to branching, looping paths, leading to the same ultimate destination: self-improvement.
In my experience, all organized religions (in their original "scriptural" form, unencumbered by politics and cultural baggage) boil down to the same general philosophy: Don't be an asshole.
This simple advice neatly sums up every other Commandment, teaching, and precept of every organized spirituality I've ever encountered. It doesn't get any simpler or more basic. Just look at the people around you, and try not to piss them off. It's not even a matter of faith, it's a survival skill!
It truly amazes me how much trouble some people have with this. 
I believe that God (or "the Divine" to avoid Judeo-Christian connotations) simply is. Yet I don't believe that the Divine has any agenda or external awareness.
For me, it's based on observation; the universe is wholistic and holographic. Atoms are cohesive and (reasonably) self-sustaining. Same with cells, and tissues, and organisms, and biospheres, and planets, and solar systems, and galaxies, and (as far as we can tell) this physical universe itself (and even different quantum states require matrices within which their "rules" are defined).
It's kinda like the old Gaia hypothesis, of Earth as one ginormous organism, made up of the sum of its parts. Except that I push Gaia's boundaries outward: it's not just our planet.
Earth needs the Sun (to heat the surface, spinning it in a gravitational embrace and maintaining the geomagnetic system that makes up our planet's "life"), Jupiter (to serve as a bodyguard, sucking up any stray meteors that may have our name on them), the Oort cloud (providing moisture and chemicals to the primordial soup that was eventually Easy-Baked into life), and perhaps the entire system of orbital mechanics to function. In turn, the solar system needs the rest of the galaxy (and its gravitational whirlpool) to minimize the risk of stellar collisions and allow just the right amount of cosmic radiation to bathe this planet.
By simple extrapolation, the pattern seems likely to continue. Every system, from an atom (protons and neutrons, surrounded by electron shells), to a cell (nucleus and cytoplasm), to an organism (central nervous system to skin), to a planet (core to crust), to a planetary system (planet to moons), to a stellar system (star to planets), to a galaxy (core to rim), develops a similar shape.
Humans, I have found, live in constant denial. We deny that we are animals. Even those who call themselves animal-lovers can't help but impose a mental barrier between "human" and "animal." Who would ever think of asking their cat what he wants? Or even of considering that a cat might have a language capable of expressing thought (or having thoughts to express, for that matter). We pride ourselves in having escaped the abusive parent of "wilderness."
What we fail to realize is that wilderness put us here. I do not believe that our eyes were opened by God, but by experience. We learned in order to become better survivors. We developed clothing so as to survive in uncomfortable climates. We developed civilization to ensure a support system for our species.
It's not Cavemen versus Astronauts, it's Cavemen becoming Astronauts.
Every portion of a whole fulfills a purpose. From organells to specialized cells, to predators, prey, and scavengers. If the Universe is a cohesive whole, than even we, in our "unnatural" state, have a function. I believe that God does not exist in us so much as we exist in the Divine, like separate brain cells of the same life-form. The sense of self is key, I feel. It is the ability to ponder (more, the willingness to ponder) that is uniquely (and yet commonly) ours.
("Ours" in this case includes any civilization-building races that may exist on other worlds [or even on this one, as yet unseen or unrecognized]. Conside
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME