What are your thoughts on god? Part 2

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 14:34
VIEWED: 17958
PAGE 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:49 AM

By special request here it is: part two. The point of this thread is to say what you think about god (or gods.)

Again it is to state your personal beliefs, not tell us why someone else is wrong or talk about what some church did in 1053.

Of course if some of that is involved in your belief go for it, but I want it to be about your personal beliefs in god, not something about religion.

It's also not for debate, though that does not mean we can not have back and forth conversations.

So say whatever you believe, and don’t worry about it if you don’t think people will accept you because we made the old thread long enough to have a fresh one requested without killing each other.

If you want an idea of what to post take a look at the old thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16645

Posts range from the outrageously long to very short, aiming for a spot in the middle might be best.

-

To recap my views, I think there is a god that does not violate the laws of physics. The only place for such a god, that I know of, is at a quantum level, but the freedom there is incredible.

Some would dismiss this type of god as a force of nature, but if a force of nature can think why not call it god?

I think god is a decent being and doesn’t intend to punish us for our beliefs or lack there of, and I think that god understands that human beings thrive in contrast. Whether we were intended to be this way or it was an accident we need the bad in the world to understand the good, and lest we forget a world without suffering, without ignorance and without doubt, is a world without relief, discovery and faith.

So that’s my beliefs, it’s a bad description, but if I could explain what I believe and why I believe it I’d be a far less interesting person.

STEPHANI

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:57 AM

Glad to see that some people can talk about religon in a civilized manner! Makes ya proud to be a Browncoat! :)

Now I didn't read much of the other thread, but here's where I stand, I believe in a Goddess and a God. As everything in nature has both female and male counterparts, it makes sense to me that it's the same with the Divine. I believe both (the Goddess and the God) are present in everything, including everyone, and aren't "above" us or "superior" to us because they are us.

:)

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, January 16, 2006 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by stephani:
Glad to see that some people can talk about religon in a civilized manner! Makes ya proud to be a Browncoat! :)

Yeah it does, would be nice if everyone could do it though.

Quote:
As everything in nature has both female and male counterparts, it makes sense to me that it's the same with the Divine.

Nothing to do with god, just random trivia: I've been told that some species have as many as eight distinct sexes. (Never had the stomach to find out how that works.)

Quote:
I believe both (the Goddess and the God) are present in everything, including everyone, and aren't "above" us or "superior" to us because they are us.

This may be a stupid question, but if that is the case why are there two? I mean if they are everywhere, in everything, then why are they not one?

I can understand the belief that everything is god, I can not understand the belief that everything is two gods. If you can explain it to me I would love it if you would.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 16, 2006 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by stephani:
Now I didn't read much of the other thread, but here's where I stand, I believe in a Goddess and a God. As everything in nature has both female and male counterparts, it makes sense to me that it's the same with the Divine. I believe both (the Goddess and the God) are present in everything, including everyone, and aren't "above" us or "superior" to us because they are us.

Interesting. Is this a Taoist belief, some form of Wicca or just a personal assessment?

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

CARTOON

Monday, January 16, 2006 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
By special request here it is: part two.

Much thanks, sir.

The other thread was so long that by the time it loaded, I'd forget what I was going to say.

Maybe I'm the only one here with dial-up? I hope so. I wouldn't wish something as annoying as dial-up on anyone else.

BROWNCOATER

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:24 AM

I personally don't think there's anything out there, but if there is, it does not and has never interfered or intervened with anything on this planet. My firm belief is no religion on the planet is based on anything devine. While some have wisdom, they are all man made.
I'm firmly in the camp of Malcolm Reynolds on the god issue.

I sometimes hear religous people say "Well people had better believe in God, because if there's no God then all of this doesn't mean anything".
Just because it might not mean anything doesn't mean there's a God.

TIGER

Monday, January 16, 2006 5:14 AM

There is no God or anything "supernatural".

Everything is within the natural world. If you find something you think must be outside nature, then the very fact you can see it, measure it, or observe it's effects on the world in any way means it is natural, even if you can't explain it.

There is no vaporous hominid floating above us somewhere running things behind the scenes. There is no higher power (at least of the conscious kind - a hurricane and a super nova are pretty powerful, but there's no purpose behind them).

Beyond the emotional effect they have on the individuals who use them literally, phrases such as, "Our Father in Heaven" and "Mother Nature" are just the personification of random acts of an indifferent natural world, used as representation of a higher authority and a metaphor to describe an incredibly complex natural system, respectively.

There's no evidence of any consciousness anywhere in the universe other than inside the brains of human beings (limited consciousness of various animals being an argument for another time).

Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But considering the complete dearth of verifiable evidence when considering God, there's really no more reason to act as if he exists than leprechauns.

KENT

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:31 AM

I'm an atheist, in that I'm not a theist.
This in itself (atheism that is) does not mean that I believe there is no god...
(The difference between not believing in something and believing there is no something is subtle when one tries to put it into language, but it's an important difference)

Then there's agnosticism.
Personally I never (or rarely) use the word to describe myself because it seems to me that either I don't understand what it means, or it's irrelevant to the discussion.
As I've understood it, gnosis is revealed spiritual knowledge... and this I do not think I have. In that sense I guess I would be an agnostic. But if this is the case, I also find it irrelevant to add this when discussing the existance of god(s), since it applies equally for me to unicorns, elves, and santa claus. And if someone asks me about santa claus I sure don't make sure to mention that I'm agnostic about flying reindeer.
If I've understood the concept of agnosticism correctly, then I find it a useless concept, because I'd be agnostic about everything (even the things I know, I don't claim is revealed spiritual knowledge).

There...

TIGER

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
Then there's agnosticism.
As I've understood it, gnosis is revealed spiritual knowledge... and this I do not think I have. In that sense I guess I would be an agnostic.

I think agnosticism is more the belief that there isn't sufficient data to determine whether or not God exists.

TECHNICALLY, that would make me an agnostic too, but since I choose to live my life 99.9% secure in the knowledge that there is no God, I don't identify myself as such.

Of course, "atheist" means much more to some people than simply "non-theist", so I have to be careful about that label too.

KENT

Monday, January 16, 2006 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I think agnosticism is more the belief that there isn't sufficient knowledge to determine whether or not God exists.

Yeah, there's a lot of different definitions of the word, as I've seen (almost as many definitions as there are agnostics).
But in the case of your definition one has to ask "what is sufficient?".

Personally I think the absence of evidence for a god or gods, plus the fact that gods historically have been human attempts to make sense of what they cannot understand through anthropomorphization, tends to lead me to the conclusion that there in fact is no god(s... only humans beings with good imaginations.

That's hardly bulletproof, but personally I find it sufficient to claim I there is no god.

I mean... If I had to bet on it, I know what I'd bet on, if we put it that way.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE